Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Green Day - Someone Kill the DJ
Does music like this add to the problem of gun violence? Yes.
Does censoring it make sense? No.
The problem with censorship is it's too difficult to agree on the acceptable line beyond which things need to be banned. Unless we keep those prohibited items to an absolute minimum, we run the risk of harming people's right to free speech.
This does not apply to gun availability, however. Proper gun control laws would do nothing more than inconvenience lawful gun owners. The gain, in preventing many of the unfit and irresponsible from acquiring guns would far outweigh that inconvenience.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Both are rights recognized by the Constitution. The respective amendments both use strong language:
ReplyDelete"Congress shall make no law"
"Shall not be infringed"
Both rights must be respected and any limitations must be justified by strict scrutiny--the level of inconvenience caused by a restriction is immaterial to the decision on constitutionality. You must show a compelling purpose and that there isn't a better way to address it.
If we were to follow your advice, why couldn't we ban Green Day? It would only be a minor inconvenience for those fans who couldn't hear their music, but they'd have plenty of other punk rock to listen to.
What you seem to neglect is that the Second Amendment need to be interpreted as a whole:
Delete"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
You can't have one part or the other, and the right is related to belonging to an Article I, Section 8, clause 16 Militia--not a private army.
The last I saw, the US had a very large standing army--which means that the Second Amendment is pretty much a meaningless anachronism.
So, unless you are seriously suggesting a reorganisation of the US military establishment, any mention of the Second Amendment is a demonstration of ignorance.
You're right Laci. These guys love to leave out the first four words and focus on the last four.
DeleteI ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.
DeleteGeorge Mason
The militia is all of the people. We understand that, even if you do not.
The militia clause explains why the Founders felt that the amendment was necessary, but it doesn't limit or define the right. The right is enumerated in the main clause of the sentence. The right of the people.
DeleteIf you are a man between the ages of 18-45 you are automatically in the militia. So read it as a whole and quot trying to cherry pick moot points.
DeleteLaci,
DeleteYou just love to drop your failed legal argument on us. I don't ignore that portion, but as Greg explain, and as we have all explained on here over and over, there is nothing in the structure of the sentence that indicates that the introductory clause limits the right guaranteed in any way.
You are the one blindly clinging to a foolish and ill informed legal position that you cannot possibly believe, deep down, but that you keep trumpeting because it fits what you want.
Laci
DeleteThe court has ruled twice the Second Amendment gives INDIVIDUALS the right to keep and bear arms. You can write the words “well-regulated militia” as many times as you like, but it won’t affect the Supreme Court’s ruling that individuals, not just the National Guard, have the RIGHT to own guns in America.
"I ask you, sir, what is the militia? It is an obsolete term which has no meaning in today's world."
DeleteMike B.
Mikeb, generations of Americans down through the ages will not be quoting that.
DeleteLaughing at it maybe.
DeleteThe problem with gun control is it's too difficult to agree on the acceptable line beyond which things need to be banned. Unless we keep those prohibited items to an absolute minimum, we run the risk of harming people's right to own and carry firearms.
ReplyDeleteMikeb, you have proposed may-issue licensing to own a firearm subject to the approval of a tribunal of local officials, psychological testing for ownership, medical testing for ownership, storage requirements, regular inspections of the owner's home, may-issue licensing to carry a firearm with exceedingly limited issuance (in other words, to celebrities and the wealthy), a one-strike rule that includes putting a hole in the floor, limits on magazine size, limits on ammunition that a gun owner can have (no ammunition that goes to a gun the owner isn't licensed to have), registration of all firearms, bans on many types of firearms, limits on caliber, and so forth. I'm sure I've left out something.
If you call all that just an inconvenience, there's something wrong with your thinking.
And a key point I would add to Greg's list is that these come with felony repercussions. You can't call it "respecting a right" if exercising that right has to tip-toe around serious (yet arbitrary) life-altering legal pitfalls.
DeleteMay issue does not mean only the wealthy and famous. And, those gun control proposals, which Greg listed very well, are not arbitrary at all.
DeleteBanning a gun over the shape of the grip is arbitrary. What better word to describe it? Especially when they aren't banning pistol grips on pistols (when handguns are used in 90% of the murders and also in a high percentage of spree shootings). Even the pistol grip detached from the rifle is a felony in some parts due to "conversion kit" language- unless it is on a pistol, then it is ok. You don't call that arbitrary? Where do you draw the line and call a ban arbitrary? When they start arresting people for Possessing a gun that has a serial number divisible by three?
DeleteIf they rely on another individuals judgement call, then they most certainly are arbitrary.
DeleteWould you agree on calling it "exceedingly disproportionately issued to the wealthy and famous"?
DeleteMikeb, I note that you didn't say anything about how these ideas are not mere inconveniences. Why can't you ever tell the truth?
DeleteThere's plenty of arbitrary pitfalls within those, as we've discussed before.
DeleteAs for May issue--why is it that the folks with guns in NY MD, and other places with may issue, can't get carry permits unless they're wealthy or connected?
TS, the reason they want to ban guns with the pistol grip is because it helps steady the gun and assists in killing more people faster. Whether you agree with that or not, it is not arbitrary.
DeleteWhy on Earth would you want guns to be unsteady?
DeleteAnd doesn't it also help steady pistols and revolvers in order to kill more people? That is what is arbitrary about it. You didn't address that.
No, Mikeb, that particular argument is silly, not arbitrary. But I see that you didn't explain why a pistol grip is appropriate on a pistol, but not a rifle.
DeleteSee, we can tussle over features all day long, but essentially, a gun is a gun is a gun. They all work in fundamentally the same way. Any ban on some types will be arbitrary.
1: A shoulder stock does a hell of a lot more to steady the gun than a pistol grip.
Delete2: You don't handle guns enough to see it, but that rationale is bullshit. A Pistol grip is put on guns with a certain shape of receiver. Plenty of other guns that you hate don't have them. Why wouldn't the military have put pistol grip on the M1-A, M1 Carbine and others if it was such an advantage? The grips existed at that time.
3: Your side can't even agree WHY they want to ban pistol grips. You try to make this argument because we've bashed you over the head when you said that it helped spray fire from the hip. Feinstein and others who are insulated from such common sense still spout that obvious lie.
4: What about other arbitrary things--e.g. I can let my friend shoot my gun if I'm at a conservation group's range, but I can't let him shoot it if we're at a commercial range or my own range. How is that not arbitrary? What is the rationale behind it?
Why on Earth would you want guns to be less steady? That's just stupid, but that is not the arbitrary part. The arbitrary part is: wouldn't it also make pistols and revolvers more steady to help kill people faster? You did not address that.
DeleteWhy not keep the prohibited items to a minimum for guns? If gun control works at keeping them out of the wrong hands, why ban anything?
ReplyDeleteWowie Zowie, an actual song. A song with an actual melody, harmony, structure, a beginning, a middle, and an end. That's not like you Mikeb.
ReplyDeleteAnd what an appropriate song. I don't know how many times I have heard musicians who have worked tirelessly for years and years at their trade and art suggesting we kill all the no-talent-put-a- record-on-the-turntable-job-stealing-keeping-food-from-my-family's-mouth DJs.
How many musicians have actually shot a DJ? My guess: ZERO.
orlin sellers
Technology can help. Weapons that would not fire in certain areas and places, like churches, movie houses, etc.. A "computerized" weapon programed for non fire.
ReplyDeleteBecause nobody could unlock the weapon software the way they do cell phones, video game consoles, etc., and nobody could steal unlocked guns from cops.
DeleteNo, thanks. Ever noticed how a cell phone works exactly until the moment you need it to work? Firearms are useful because of their simplicity.
DeleteOk so the the law abiding citizens have guns that don't fire and criminals still have illegal weapons that will go off whenever they pull the trigger...sound reasonable
Delete