Texas On Brink Of Legalizing Concealed Carry At All Colleges

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: greencmpSorry if I have misunderstood and I may be being overly pedantic but I think that there is difference in meaning between potential consequences being criminal and consequences being potentially criminal.
If you agree that people are responsible for what can occur as a result of what they say then you must surely agree that free speech isn't an absolute right. Or to get back to the practical example it certainly can be illegal to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre.
To try and draw back to the topic I don't think that a right to bear arms can in the real world guarantee the right to carry any weapon anywhere at any time.

I think we are in agreement. The transgression or aggression occurs in actions taken or endured post speech, I am asserting that the speech is not illegal but the consequences are. Furthermore, the speech is relevant to any assessment of guilt for instigation or misleading.

Similarly, the second amendment ensures the right keep and bear arms but, their misuse or abuse is not protected. Only the tools of political expression such as speech and arms are protected.

I know that scares you, it is supposed to.

Here is the problem with that and one the courts have trouble with. Is a concealed license for public/personal safety or to protect yourself from the government? Do you have the right to go against private property rights by carrying on their land?

Its a much stronger constitutional argument to be able to have semi auto or auto rifles than it is carying in public for your personal safety.

a reply to: greencmp

Wrong, but think what you will. I get the feeling that you entered into this conversation with me with a preconceived notion of what I believe.

The difference is that I'm living in reality, and reality proves that your apparent idea of unfettered rights--even if they infringe on other peoples' rights--is not a factual basis from which to form an argument. It's a decent philosophy upon which to build a discussion, but it's not reality, and it doesn't work, because if everyone had unrestrained freedoms, there would be too much overlap with others. The imposed restrictions, while sometimes a bit too much, IMHO, are there for an intelligent reason.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: greencmp

Wrong, but think what you will. I get the feeling that you entered into this conversation with me with a preconceived notion of what I believe.

The difference is that I'm living in reality, and reality proves that your apparent idea of unfettered rights--even if they infringe on other peoples' rights--is not a factual basis from which to form an argument. It's a decent philosophy upon which to build a discussion, but it's not reality, and it doesn't work, because if everyone had unrestrained freedoms, there would be too much overlap with others. The imposed restrictions, while sometimes a bit too much, IMHO, are there for an intelligent reason.

Not really no. I am going by previous court cases which is how our legal system works. Also based on my knowledge of American history and policy throughout lifespan of the US.

a reply to: luthier

Not really no...which part?

I'll be the first to say that I don't know everything about history or our judicial system, but I'm nearly a decade in to working directly in the American legal system--four of those years were directly with the prosecution or defense council as a paralegal. If nothing else, I have a decent grasp of the legal system and how restraints on our rights can be enforced.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Actually, I assumed you were pro second amendment and presenting a devil's advocacy case.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: greencmpSorry if I have misunderstood and I may be being overly pedantic but I think that there is difference in meaning between potential consequences being criminal and consequences being potentially criminal.
If you agree that people are responsible for what can occur as a result of what they say then you must surely agree that free speech isn't an absolute right. Or to get back to the practical example it certainly can be illegal to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre.
To try and draw back to the topic I don't think that a right to bear arms can in the real world guarantee the right to carry any weapon anywhere at any time.

I think we are in agreement. The transgression or aggression occurs in actions taken or endured post speech, I am asserting that the speech is not illegal but the consequences are. Furthermore, the speech is relevant to any assessment of guilt for instigation or misleading.

Similarly, the second amendment ensures the right keep and bear arms but, their misuse or abuse is not protected. Only the tools of political expression such as speech and arms are protected.

I know that scares you, it is supposed to.

Here is the problem with that and one the courts have trouble with. Is a concealed license for public/personal safety or to protect yourself from the government? Do you have the right to go against private property rights by carrying on their land?

Its a much stronger constitutional argument to be able to have semi auto or auto rifles than it is carying in public for your personal safety.

Precisely, no specific information is necessary as explanation for wanting to exercise your second amendment rights.

"For all lawful purposes" is all that one must say to get a concealed carry license but, I think even that is too much.