DeRoche-case-tossed-out-of-court

DrTodd · Feb 8, 2011

Bikenut said:
I understand that we must deal with the way things are at this moment.... I just refuse to believe that there will always be restrictions on rights because if I begin to believe that then I believe that there are no rights.... there is only restricted privileges....

Once the greater population believes it is OK to make rights into restricted privileges then we have no rights and the Lords in the castle will decree what privileges us peasants in the mud are allowed to have.

Although I personally don't have "a dog in this fight", and see error on BOTH sides, I'll start with you

Just an academic question: Would it be OK for me to burn an effigy on your front lawn? If you may claim that your property rights have precedence over my 1st amendment rights... it is still a restriction.

Even better, how about I go over to the local high school and tear up the flag on the pole in front, better yet, say I set the flag on fire and then hoist it up the pole... it's MY flag on public property, both paid for with MY tax money. Taking your logic to an extreme, no restrictions are allowed on my right 1st Amendment right and hey, I'm just "airing" my grievances.

TheQ · Feb 9, 2011

DrTodd said:
Although I personally don't have "a dog in this fight", and see error on BOTH sides, I'll start with you

Just an academic question: Would it be OK for me to burn an effigy on your front lawn? If you may claim that your property rights have precedence over my 1st amendment rights... it is still a restriction.

Many hear would claim corporations and their shareholders have no property rights, esp. in the case of a public accommodation.

They then go on to claim the right to defend themselves is a right that trumps all other rights.

Thereby I suppose if you broke into a corporation's store after hours and the manager tries to force you out (or place you under citizen arrest) you have the right to shoot him to defend yourself?

I wholeheartedly disagree with them.

Bikenut · Feb 9, 2011

DrTodd said:
Although I personally don't have "a dog in this fight", and see error on BOTH sides, I'll start with you

Just an academic question: Would it be OK for me to burn an effigy on your front lawn? If you may claim that your property rights have precedence over my 1st amendment rights... it is still a restriction.

That was not an academic question... that was a question framed in an emotionally charged scenario. But to answer:

You do not have the right to cause harm... you have the right to burn anything you want as long as you do not cause harm to another... and burning an effigy on my front lawn damages my grass and endangers my home/family... I have the right to defend myself/family, and some would suggest even my grass, and to stop you from harming them and to make sure you suffer the penalties for doing it. There is no restriction of rights there... just penalties for your actions.

Even better, how about I go over to the local high school and tear up the flag on the pole in front, better yet, say I set the flag on fire and then hoist it up the pole... it's MY flag on public property, both paid for with MY tax money. Taking your logic to an extreme, no restrictions are allowed on my right 1st Amendment right and hey, I'm just "airing" my grievances.

Again, you have the right to go ahead and do what ever you wish... but you most certainly will suffer the penalties for doing so. Especially since you burned up the portion of the flag that my tax money paid for and you don't own.

Let us not confuse the difference between restricting a right and restricting harmful actions/behaviors. A right is set in stone and cannot be restricted... but an individual's harmful actions can be restricted and the individual punished for the harmful actions done while exercising a right. The essential difference is the individual is being punished for their harmful actions.... the rights that were involved in those actions still remain pure.

In it's pure form there can be no restrictions put upon a right. There is a distinct difference between what is a "right"... and what "actions" a person does while exercising that "right". And the individual is always responsible for any and all "actions", harmful or not, they may do.

For example:

The right to free speech:

I have the right to say anything I want, anywhere I want, to anyone one I want. That is the right to free speech in it's pure form. But I will be held responsible for any harm caused by the things I say and will suffer penalties if the things I say cause harm to others. And that is as it should be because with my rights come responsibilities. But no matter what I say, where I say it, and to whom I say it, no law causes me to lose the right to speak!

I have no problem with punishing people for their harmful actions when those actions cause harm... I would just like the distinction between what is a "right" and what are "irresponsible and/or harmful actions" understood.

Imagine... a criminal is punished for the crime (harmful actions) they actually did... but not punished for having the right to own/carry the gun they irresponsibly used to commit that crime. After all, it wasn't the gun... nor was it the right to keep and bear arms... that caused the crime. It was the person who decided to commit a harmful act. Punish for that, even add extra punishment for using a dangerous "arm" while committing a crime, but do not punish the individual's right to keep and bear arms that was irresponsibly used to commit the harmful act.

Edited to add this tidbit of a rant:

There is no law, policy, edict, or demand, that can restrict a "right". The only thing that can be done is to put penalties onto the exercising of a right that are harsh enough to cause people to be in fear of exercising that right.... and that fear of reprisal causing folks to not exercise the right, or all the folks who exercised that right are in prison or dead. Either way any resistance to controlling folks is gone. But regardless of how dangerous those who wish to control others make it to exercise a right... the right itself remains.

When a right is recognized for what it is then there is freedom... when a right is restricted we have privileges and are under the control of he who grants the privileges.

DrTodd · Feb 9, 2011

Bikenut said:
In it's pure form there can be no restrictions put upon a right. There is a distinct difference between what is a "right"... and what "actions" a person does while exercising that "right". And the individual is always responsible for any and all "actions", harmful or not, they may do.

For example:

The right to free speech:

I have the right to say anything I want, anywhere I want, to anyone one I want. That is the right to free speech in it's pure form. But I will be held responsible for any harm caused by the things I say and will suffer penalties if the things I say cause harm to others. And that is as it should be because with my rights come responsibilities. But no matter what I say, where I say it, and to whom I say it, no law causes me to lose the right to speak!

I have no problem with punishing people for their harmful actions when those actions cause harm... I would just like the distinction between what is a "right" and what are "irresponsible and/or harmful actions" understood.

Imagine... a criminal is punished for the crime (harmful actions) they actually did... but not punished for having the right to own/carry the gun they irresponsibly used to commit that crime. After all, it wasn't the gun... nor was it the right to keep and bear arms... that caused the crime. It was the person who decided to commit a harmful act. Punish for that, even add extra punishment for using a dangerous "arm" while committing a crime, but do not punish the individual's right to keep and bear arms that was irresponsibly used to commit the harmful act.

Edited to add this tidbit of a rant:

There is no law, policy, edict, or demand, that can restrict a "right". The only thing that can be done is to put penalties onto the exercising of a right that are harsh enough to cause people to be in fear of exercising that right.... and that fear of reprisal causing folks to not exercise the right, or all the folks who exercised that right are in prison or dead. Either way any resistance to controlling folks is gone. But regardless of how dangerous those who wish to control others make it to exercise a right... the right itself remains.

When a right is recognized for what it is then there is freedom... when a right is restricted we have privileges and are under the control of he who grants the privileges.

Who has been harmed in my flag example above?
Also, are you saying that a right is not infringed if someone is punished for exercising that right? Then, is a right only a conceptual entity, a thing that exists only in one's mind?

wrightme · Feb 9, 2011

DrTodd said:
Who has been harmed in my flag example above?
Also, are you saying that a right is not infringed if someone is punished for exercising that right? Then, is a right only a conceptual entity, a thing that exists only in one's mind?

It isn't a Right exercise that is punished. This was clearly explained to you. Obtuse much?

marshaul · Feb 9, 2011

DrTodd said:
Who has been harmed in my flag example above?

Um... all the other taxpayers? You cannot lay proprietary claim to something paid for by tax dollars. The only way to reconcile this irksome detail is to recognize that taxes are theft. But that's another issue.

stainless1911 · Feb 9, 2011

TheQ said:
Many hear would claim corporations and their shareholders have no property rights, esp. in the case of a public accommodation.

They then go on to claim the right to defend themselves is a right that trumps all other rights.

Thereby I suppose if you broke into a corporation's store after hours and the manager tries to force you out (or place you under citizen arrest) you have the right to shoot him to defend yourself?

I wholeheartedly disagree with them.

The public has thier rights as long as it is open to the public. After hours, the public has no right to be there, and the rights to the owner and his property are now private, no longer public. If you broke in, you are a criminal, and the castle doctrine no longer applies to you.

Bikenut · Feb 9, 2011

DrTodd said:
Who has been harmed in my flag example above?
Also, are you saying that a right is not infringed if someone is punished for exercising that right? Then, is a right only a conceptual entity, a thing that exists only in one's mind?

No.. I am saying that a person should be punished for the harm that was caused during the actions performed while exercising a right. It is the harm caused that is the responsibility for the actor to own up to and repair and/or be punished for... not the exercising of a right.

Do I have the right to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater... even if there is no fire? Yep... in it's pure form the right to free speech does give me the right to do so... court decisions to the contrary not with standing... but it is the harm to the crowd and theater resulting from the panic caused by my exercising my free speech in an irresponsible manner by yelling "FIRE" when there was no fire that I am responsible for... and should be punished for. Not the right... not even the word I uttered... but the harm that word caused in the circumstances involved.

And I already explained that you have the right to burn a flag if you want but if you do it in a way that causes harm then there will be consequences for the action of exercising the right to burn a flag. Especially if you don't own the entire flag or burn it in a manner that causes actual harm of some kind. And I would suspect that you would be responsible for repainting the flag pole.

A right is a conceptual thing but is also a very real thing when it is exercised as a behavior... or when it is restricted by laws that make it a privilege. And to the mind of a person who considers themselves to be superior to others and expect those others to obey their obvious "betters" the concept of something that cannot be controlled is anathema and it must be destroyed. And the first step to destroying a right is to make it a privilege subject to the whims of those who dole out that privilege. It doesn't take very long for the list of folks deemed worthy of a privilege to dwindle until there are only the elite who make that list are left... and it is only they who will exercise what used to be a right for all... to control... all.

DrTodd · Feb 9, 2011

Define "harm".

Bikenut · Feb 9, 2011

DrTodd said:
Define "harm".

Are you looking for the definition of "harm"? Or are you fishing for what would be the acceptable limits of "harm"? And for who gets to decide what "harm" is and what those limits are? And who controls the entire process of administering the distribution of equity between the harmed and the one's who did the harm?

Or will you eventually say that it is the rights themselves that lead to the harm because of the actions engaged in while exercising that right?

And will I get an "A" this semester?

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/harm

wrightme · Feb 9, 2011

Bikenut said:
Are you looking for the definition of "harm"? Or are you fishing for what would be the acceptable limits of "harm"? And for who gets to decide what "harm" is and what those limits are? And who controls the entire process of administering the distribution of equity between the harmed and the one's who did the harm?

Or will you eventually say that it is the rights themselves that lead to the harm because of the actions engaged in while exercising that right?

And will I get an "A" this semester?

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/harm

I believe the definition of his method is "deflect and obfuscate."

Bikenut · Feb 9, 2011

wrightme said:
I believe the definition of his method is "deflect and obfuscate."

On the contrary... I suspect he has a goal in mind and is attempting to direct the conversation in a direction that will achieve that goal. But since I don't like being manipulated I'll bet I don't get an "A" this semester.

Venator · Feb 9, 2011

DrTodd said:
Define "harm".

Property damage is harm. If the flag was destroyed and was the property of the public harm was done.

DrTodd · Feb 9, 2011

Bikenut said:
On the contrary... I suspect he has a goal in mind and is attempting to direct the conversation in a direction that will achieve that goal. But since I don't like being manipulated I'll bet I don't get an "A" this semester.

Believe it or not, I was just trying to understand the argument. Like I said originally, I find issue with both sides. I asked for a definition of "harm" because I wished to know if "fear" could be "harm", I'm sure the Anti's think so. But I really shouldn't have to explain my motives, just as I would never ask anyone here for theirs... at least not before now. Btw, who is trying to manipulate whom?? Need I remind you the question still hasn't been answered, but that is really now beside the point.
I find it odd by me asking a very short question and trying to have the conversation go where it will with the only goal being "understanding"... with no one being forced to choose how to answer, I am instead accused of "manipulation" .... and then the accusation is bolstered by appealing to emotion. I didn't think intelligent individuals resorted to such behavior. I must say, though, everything that has been said now in support this is very clear and I have been shown the true strength of the argument... thank you.
I expected better and am really, for the very first time in this forum, very embarrassed by my association with this forum and am, at the same time,... very sad.

Jack-w-1911 · Feb 9, 2011

Bikenut said:
No.. I am saying that a person should be punished for the harm that was caused during the actions performed while exercising a right. It is the harm caused that is the responsibility for the actor to own up to and repair and/or be punished for... not the exercising of a right.

Do I have the right to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater... even if there is no fire? Yep... in it's pure form the right to free speech does give me the right to do so... court decisions to the contrary not with standing... but it is the harm to the crowd and theater resulting from the panic caused by my exercising my free speech in an irresponsible manner by yelling "FIRE" when there was no fire that I am responsible for... and should be punished for. Not the right... not even the word I uttered... but the harm that word caused in the circumstances involved.

And I already explained that you have the right to burn a flag if you want but if you do it in a way that causes harm then there will be consequences for the action of exercising the right to burn a flag. Especially if you don't own the entire flag or burn it in a manner that causes actual harm of some kind. And I would suspect that you would be responsible for repainting the flag pole.

A right is a conceptual thing but is also a very real thing when it is exercised as a behavior... or when it is restricted by laws that make it a privilege. And to the mind of a person who considers themselves to be superior to others and expect those others to obey their obvious "betters" the concept of something that cannot be controlled is anathema and it must be destroyed. And the first step to destroying a right is to make it a privilege subject to the whims of those who dole out that privilege. It doesn't take very long for the list of folks deemed worthy of a privilege to dwindle until there are only the elite who make that list are left... and it is only they who will exercise what used to be a right for all... to control... all.

Two thumbs up for this post.

Anti's "reasonable" restriction of firearms and their magazines etc. etc., is equal to muzzling, sewing ones mouth shut or cutting ones tongue out to prevent them from yelling fire in a crowded theater.

The day anti's can say that wearing a muzzle or cutting their own tongues out is reasonable, will be the day I will debate with them about what are "reasonable" firearms restrictions.

Bikenut · Feb 10, 2011

DrTodd said:
Believe it or not, I was just trying to understand the argument. Like I said originally, I find issue with both sides. I asked for a definition of "harm" because I wished to know if "fear" could be "harm".

If you wished to know if "fear" could be "harm" but didn't want to "nudge" the conversation into a direction where that might be mentioned why didn't you simply ask if "fear" could be considered "harm"?

I'm sure the Anti's think so.

I do not believe the anti's think that "fear" is "harm"... it is my belief they are using the emotion of "fear" as a vehicle, an excuse, to accomplish their ends of ridding the world of anything that makes them "feel" as if they are not in control. This is, at the core, a societal issue (not limited to rights) of one group of people who think with their emotions desiring control over the other group of people who think with their logic.

But I really shouldn't have to explain my motives, just as I would never ask anyone here for theirs... at least not before now. Btw, who is trying to manipulate whom?? Need I remind you the question still hasn't been answered,

The question of what is "harm" is easily answered by looking in any dictionary... including a legal dictionary. But then... you already said you really were wanting to know if "fear" could be considered "harm" so you weren't looking for the definition of harm... only wanting to know if "fear" fit the definition of "harm".

but that is really now beside the point.

No... it was the point.

I find it odd by me asking a very short question and trying to have the conversation go where it will with the only goal being "understanding"... with no one being forced to choose how to answer, I am instead accused of "manipulation" .... and then the accusation is bolstered by appealing to emotion.

You already stated that you asked what "harm" was because you wanted to know if "fear" was "harm" but you didn't ask if "fear" was "harm" ... you were hoping the conversation would go in that direction. And force is not the only means of manipulating a conversation since passive manipulation by means of leading questions works extremely well.

And nowhere did I appeal to emotion when I spoke of the conversation being "manipulated"... humor .. yes, emotion .. no. I find it interesting that an appeal to emotion could be found in my post quoted below. The same post you quoted at the beginning of your post I am replying to now.

Bikenut said:

On the contrary... I suspect he has a goal in mind and is attempting to direct the conversation in a direction that will achieve that goal. But since I don't like being manipulated I'll bet I don't get an "A" this semester.

Click to expand...

I didn't think intelligent individuals resorted to such behavior.

Indeed.

I must say, though, everything that has been said now in support this is very clear and I have been shown the true strength of the argument... thank you.

Which argument is clear? I confess I'm unclear as to which argument you are now referring to. The one about "rights"? Or the one about manipulating a conversation?

I expected better and am really, for the very first time in this forum, very embarrassed by my association with this forum and am, at the same time,... very sad.

DrTodd... I have enjoyed many of your posts in the past because they are factual, usually to the point, and often enlightening. I look forward to your future postings when you address the issues you have with the other side of the "rights" argument.

I must say that this entire discussion has been..... interesting.

DrTodd · Feb 10, 2011

Bikenut said:
I must say that this entire discussion has been..... interesting.

If you wish to continue, I ask only that you ascribe to me the best of intentions and take part in an honest, reasoned conversation and I likewise will do the same. I rarely see things in terms of "winning v losing"... expecially not in a discussion about which I have no pre-concieved notion of what view is right or wrong... or even if after some level of agreement there even is a "right or wrong".
The reason that I did not ask if "fear" could be a part of a definition of "harm" is because I was wondering what YOU considered as "harm". You used the word, and in that use must be an operational definition.

For example, some may argue that "harm" only includes physical aspects... I hit you, you are "harmed". But if I only stand there and call you names, no "actual" harm takes place... am I correct?

But then, I posed the situation where I commit some public property damage... no physical damage to anyone, but definitely damage to inanimate objects such as a flag, pole, etc. So if YOU (or anyone else) believe I have caused "harm" in my scenario, then I need to know that and, if so and we can concede that point,we have expanded harm to include this attribute, too.

Going further... although one may believe that the Antis are full of b.s when they say they have :fear"... let's say they do hold this belief. For argument's sake, can't we at least pretend that they honestly do consider "fear" or "belief of physical injury" part of the equation... and then discover if that is valid?

So, indulge me by returning back to the question: Is fear a "harm"? If you think it MAY be in some situations, then that information is helpful for the discussion too. I really do want to know...

So, in a nutshell:

Is physical damage to a human harm... (I think we have answered this one in the affirmative, but if you don't think so, we can go back)

Is property damage harm... seems arguable...

Is "fear" a "harm"... perhaps arguable, too. Perhaps we could call it a belief... ie a belief someone will cause one of the two aforementioned acts which may constitute harm. You decide.

So, in essence, can the exercise of a person's rights (let's limit it to those listed in the US Bill of Rights for now) be infringed/punished/limited? I think you have answered with a yes to the physical damage... but can the other two notions (property damage and a "belief that either physical damage and property damage are imminent or probable") regarding harm be added?

Isn't the last one where the issue really lies... we see the wearing of a firearm as something that is a right but the anti's see it as an indication that either injury or death is immenent or at the very least, probable?
Isn't this belief in an increased probability of death or injury also ostensibly why the state makes drunk driving illegal, why the state makes assault illegal, and why some claim that yelling fire in a crowded theater is illegal... that the probability of harm is raised to such a degree that the law must step in and limit the EXCERCISE of some right?
Remember, by admitting that this is the ostensible reason that the government feels it necessary to make laws (protect individuals from a probable harm), I AM NOT saying I agree with this line of reasoning... just asking if it could be argued that the "probable harm"( ie a belief) is used to support such laws, correctly or not.

CharleyMarbles · Feb 11, 2011

Bikenut said:
A right is a conceptual thing but is also a very real thing when it is exercised as a behavior... or when it is restricted by laws that make it a privilege. And to the mind of a person who considers themselves to be superior to others and expect those others to obey their obvious "betters" the concept of something that cannot be controlled is anathema and it must be destroyed. And the first step to destroying a right is to make it a privilege subject to the whims of those who dole out that privilege. It doesn't take very long for the list of folks deemed worthy of a privilege to dwindle until there are only the elite who make that list are left... and it is only they who will exercise what used to be a right for all... to control... all.

If anyone is paying attention it is AND has been happening for years, Just look at the number of "crimes" the are being upgraded to "felony" status.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see it for what it is ???

Jack-w-1911 · Feb 11, 2011

DrTodd said:
If you wish to continue, I ask only that you ascribe to me the best of intentions and take part in an honest, reasoned conversation and I likewise will do the same. I rarely see things in terms of "winning v losing"... expecially not in a discussion about which I have no pre-concieved notion of what view is right or wrong... or even if after some level of agreement there even is a "right or wrong".
The reason that I did not ask if "fear" could be a part of a definition of "harm" is because I was wondering what YOU considered as "harm". You used the word, and in that use must be an operational definition.

For example, some may argue that "harm" only includes physical aspects... I hit you, you are "harmed". But if I only stand there and call you names, no "actual" harm takes place... am I correct?

But then, I posed the situation where I commit some public property damage... no physical damage to anyone, but definitely damage to inanimate objects such as a flag, pole, etc. So if YOU (or anyone else) believe I have caused "harm" in my scenario, then I need to know that and, if so and we can concede that point,we have expanded harm to include this attribute, too.

Going further... although one may believe that the Antis are full of b.s when they say they have :fear"... let's say they do hold this belief. For argument's sake, can't we at least pretend that they honestly do consider "fear" or "belief of physical injury" part of the equation... and then discover if that is valid?

So, indulge me by returning back to the question: Is fear a "harm"? If you think it MAY be in some situations, then that information is helpful for the discussion too. I really do want to know...

So, in a nutshell:

Is physical damage to a human harm... (I think we have answered this one in the affirmative, but if you don't think so, we can go back)

Is property damage harm... seems arguable...

Is "fear" a "harm"... perhaps arguable, too. Perhaps we could call it a belief... ie a belief someone will cause one of the two aforementioned acts which may constitute harm. You decide.

So, in essence, can the exercise of a person's rights (let's limit it to those listed in the US Bill of Rights for now) be infringed/punished/limited? I think you have answered with a yes to the physical damage... but can the other two notions (property damage and a "belief that either physical damage and property damage are imminent or probable") regarding harm be added?

Isn't the last one where the issue really lies... we see the wearing of a firearm as something that is a right but the anti's see it as an indication that either injury or death is immenent or at the very least, probable?
Isn't this belief in an increased probability of death or injury also ostensibly why the state makes drunk driving illegal, why the state makes assault illegal, and why some claim that yelling fire in a crowded theater is illegal... that the probability of harm is raised to such a degree that the law must step in and limit the EXCERCISE of some right?
Remember, by admitting that this is the ostensible reason that the government feels it necessary to make laws (protect individuals from a probable harm), I AM NOT saying I agree with this line of reasoning... just asking if it could be argued that the "probable harm"( ie a belief) is used to support such laws, correctly or not.

my .02

IMO fear can be harm in some instances ie; If I drew down on someone, I haven't physically harmed anyone, but have caused so much fear that, IMO, have caused them harm. So with that in mind, I say the threshold of fear actually causing harm should be pretty high. Dealing with or tolerating people carrying a gun on their hip or a rifle on their back is the same as dealing with or tolerating semi's on the freeway (which many people do fear, and poses more danger than firearms) or going to the doctor (which many people do fear, which arguably poses more danger than firearms). People have a choice to go out in the public and deal with the dangers of being in public or stay on their own property and not deal with the many dangers that exist in public. No one has the right to "have it their way". That's what's great about the Constitution, it's a one size fit's all solution to freedom. Just like the firearm, it equalizes people and provides the fairest solution to the masses.

I fully believe that a lot of anti's have fear, but does their fear of my 2md Amendment rights, trump my right to defend my life against a violent crime?

Indeed life is complicated, but far too many over-complicate the basic issues surrounding freedom, which is what the Constitution & America is all about. When in doubt of what rights trump other rights we have to side with the most basic of rights, so as to not allow gray areas to develop, that always ends up tipping the scales to the socialistic side. These gray areas that are allowed to develop consistently chip away at our most basic rights. And if we don't reverse our present course we will eventually, over time, turn all of our rights into privileges. Mob Rule.

Bikenut · Feb 11, 2011

DrTodd said:
If you wish to continue, I ask only that you ascribe to me the best of intentions and take part in an honest, reasoned conversation and I likewise will do the same.

If I wish to continue? You would put terms onto my participating in a conversation? Since the owners of this private property forum have granted all the privilege of participating in conversations according to the stipulations they themselves have set forth... I don't think anyone other than the owners can put conditions on participating in a conversation.

I rarely see things in terms of "winning v losing"... expecially not in a discussion about which I have no pre-concieved notion of what view is right or wrong... or even if after some level of agreement there even is a "right or wrong".

I suspect (please note my suspecting is not the same as accusing) that you desire this conversation to go in a certain direction in order to either prove or disprove you own beliefs concerning restricting rights.

The reason that I did not ask if "fear" could be a part of a definition of "harm" is because I was wondering what YOU considered as "harm". You used the word, and in that use must be an operational definition.

Then why did you not simply ask that instead of, and you admitted to in a past post, hoping to have the conversation go in a certain direction? And then take umbrage when I stated that I "suspected" that was what you wished to do?

For example, some may argue that "harm" only includes physical aspects... I hit you, you are "harmed". But if I only stand there and call you names, no "actual" harm takes place... am I correct?

But then, I posed the situation where I commit some public property damage... no physical damage to anyone, but definitely damage to inanimate objects such as a flag, pole, etc. So if YOU (or anyone else) believe I have caused "harm" in my scenario, then I need to know that and, if so and we can concede that point,we have expanded harm to include this attribute, too.

The harm done by your lighting a flag on fire under the conditions you set forth has been explained... several times. Are you hoping the conversation will uncover a different "harm" your scenario might present? If so please enlighten me.

Going further... although one may believe that the Antis are full of b.s when they say they have :fear"... let's say they do hold this belief. For argument's sake, can't we at least pretend that they honestly do consider "fear" or "belief of physical injury" part of the equation... and then discover if that is valid?

What is the point of pretending something is real in order to waste time and effort debating the validity of something that isn't real?

When it is understood that "fear" is, at the core, an emotion resulting from the realization of a loss of control of circumstances then it is also understood that fear inspires the desire to regain, or institute, control of those circumstances. "Fear" may be the emotion felt but the actual driving force is the need to control in order to assuage the emotion of "fear" because feeling fear is uncomfortable.

So, indulge me by returning back to the question: Is fear a "harm"? If you think it MAY be in some situations, then that information is helpful for the discussion too. I really do want to know...

So, in a nutshell:

Is physical damage to a human harm... (I think we have answered this one in the affirmative, but if you don't think so, we can go back)

Is property damage harm... seems arguable...

Is "fear" a "harm"... perhaps arguable, too. Perhaps we could call it a belief... ie a belief someone will cause one of the two aforementioned acts which may constitute harm. You decide.

So, in essence, can the exercise of a person's rights (let's limit it to those listed in the US Bill of Rights for now) be infringed/punished/limited? I think you have answered with a yes to the physical damage... but can the other two notions (property damage and a "belief that either physical damage and property damage are imminent or probable") regarding harm be added?

This has already been explained also. No right can be infringed or limited but the individual who caused harm during the actual behaviors performed while exercising a right should be what (who) is punished.

Isn't the last one where the issue really lies... we see the wearing of a firearm as something that is a right but the anti's see it as an indication that either injury or death is immenent or at the very least, probable?

I believe that is an incorrect assertion... I believe the antis do not see it as an indication that either injury or death is imminent... or even probable. What they see is an inescapable truth that they are suddenly not in control. They are not Lord and Master of all they survey (that is an internal ego thing we all have to a certain extent) but there is someone who has the means to exert power over them... to control them. Whether or not the person actually uses the gun to exert control is immaterial... their ego already took a slap and that, to a personality that needs to be in control to avoid feeling the uncomfortable emotion of "fear", is just plain unacceptable.

And I believe the antis unashamedly use the emotion of fear as a means of regaining or instituting control. That is why, when someone makes a statement similar to "Guns scare me!!", the emphasis is on getting rid of the gun in order to help that person regain control so as not be afraid instead of getting psychiatric help so the person can get over their irrational fear.... it isn't about the gun, or the fear, it is all about the control.

Isn't this belief in an increased probability of death or injury also ostensibly why the state makes drunk driving illegal, why the state makes assault illegal, and why some claim that yelling fire in a crowded theater is illegal... that the probability of harm is raised to such a degree that the law must step in and limit the EXCERCISE of some right?

The concept of what is "legal" or "illegal" is how behavior is punished. Please let us not confuse what is "legal" or "illegal" with what is a "right". And please let us not confuse where the responsibility of causing harm lies. It does not lie with the "right" nor does it lie with the exercising of that right. Any harm caused by the behaviors engaged in while exercising a right are the sole responsibility of the individual who caused the harm.

And a law that makes doing something illegal does not limit the exercising of a right... it punishes for exercising a right in a manner someone in control doesn't like. The only limit a law can have on the actual exercising is for an individual to decide to not exercise a right in that controlled manner because they do not wish to endure the punishment.

But a person who doesn't care about any possible punishment engages in exercising that right in that "illegal" manner anyway. Such as a person who carries a pistol concealed without benefit of having first paid the government for the privilege of a concealed permit. Such a person is exercising the pure right to keep and bear but is doing it in a manner the government has decreed it has control over by requiring a permit to engage in exercising the right to keep and bear by concealing a pistol.

Please let us not misunderstand... no law limits the exercising of a right but all laws allow someone else to control how a right is exercised.

Remember, by admitting that this is the ostensible reason that the government feels it necessary to make laws (protect individuals from a probable harm), I AM NOT saying I agree with this line of reasoning... just asking if it could be argued that the "probable harm"( ie a belief) is used to support such laws, correctly or not.

Let us be honest... the government doesn't give two farts in the wind about protecting individuals from harm. The government is concerned with perpetrating itself, perpetrating it's control over the population, and generating revenue for itself. Anything beneficial experienced by the population from those things is intentional and is nothing more than the proverbial "carrot".

A restriction (of anything by anyone, including governments) is always a means to control. And any means to control is always presented as beneficial to those it will control... by the one's who want to do the controlling. Go against that control and the population discovers the "carrot" is rapidly followed by the "stick".

And attempting to put conditions (restrictions) on my participating in this conversation is also an attempt to control. I didn't say that was an intentional thing... or even a bad thing... I'm just recognizing it for what it is.

DeRoche-case-tossed-out-of-court

Michigan Moderator

Regular Member

Bikenut

Guest

Michigan Moderator

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Banned

Bikenut

Guest

Michigan Moderator

Bikenut

Guest

Regular Member

Bikenut

Guest

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter

Michigan Moderator

New member

Bikenut

Guest

Michigan Moderator

Regular Member

New member

Bikenut

Guest