mmdkyoung123
Regular Member
I think a little background info would be beneficial before I get into the heart of the argument. I am originally from Michigan, and lived in the country. I grew up going to the U.P. in the summers for vacations, and in the winter for snowmobiling and hunting. I grew up hunting and fishing. We had a pretty decent size property, and my dad started teaching my little brothers and I about guns, gun safety, and how to properly handle, and shoot guns.
My wife grew up very differently. Both of her parents were high school teachers. Her dad does not like guns, never had any in the house, and never taught his two daughters about them, other than that he felt they were dangerous. My wife and I have been married for 9 years, and she has known all along that I hunt, and go to the shooting range etc. She has come around to the point were she doesn't "fear" guns, and doesn't mind that I carry one, and actually sees it like a good thing now. She still however doesn't understand why I don't like the police approaching me aggressively, or argumentatively. (Let me be clear on this point. I do not mind an officer "investigating" a MWAG call. If the officer does his job properly, he would come in, see that I am doing nothing illegal, and ask for my ID. An officer asking for my ID don't make me upset. The LEO is allowed to "ask" me anything he wants. Where I get upset, is when I decline to give him ID, and the officer decides he is going to "show his authority", and demand that I show it, or try to intimidate me into complying.)
Our discussion last night revolved around the point that I feel like our Rights are being slowly taken away, and "regulated" to a point where it isn't a right anymore. My wife started talking about regulation, and how all Rights are open to regulation, and gave the example of the First Amendment, and yelling fire in a crowded theater. I have heard this said before, and I took a second to think about it last night and form my rebuttal to my wife. That rebuttal is the "meat" of the discussion, and what I wanted to pose to the board for thoughts and feed back.
" The First Amendment is NOT regulated. The example given is that the Right to free speech is not protected for certain things, the classic example being that you can not yell fire in a crowded theater. I believe that is false, and let me tell you why. If someone yells fire in a crowded theater, and there is a fire, there is nothing done about this other than to possibly hale the person as a hero. Now if this is a regulation that you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, shouldn't that person be in jail, regardless of if it was true and he saved someone else? If you yell fire in a crowded theater, and it is not true, you are responsible for your actions, and face the repercussions of the results of those actions. You are not charged with a "violation of verbiage" restriction. The first amendment affords you the Right of "free speech", and you are simply responsible for how you use those words. I believe that is how the 2nd Amendment is or should be used. The 2nd Amendment affords me the Right to "keep and bear arms" and I should simply be responsible for how I use those arms."
That was the main point of the argument, and I was interested in what you guys thought, and input to possibly tweak the reasoning a little bit more. Sorry it was so long.
-Mike
My wife grew up very differently. Both of her parents were high school teachers. Her dad does not like guns, never had any in the house, and never taught his two daughters about them, other than that he felt they were dangerous. My wife and I have been married for 9 years, and she has known all along that I hunt, and go to the shooting range etc. She has come around to the point were she doesn't "fear" guns, and doesn't mind that I carry one, and actually sees it like a good thing now. She still however doesn't understand why I don't like the police approaching me aggressively, or argumentatively. (Let me be clear on this point. I do not mind an officer "investigating" a MWAG call. If the officer does his job properly, he would come in, see that I am doing nothing illegal, and ask for my ID. An officer asking for my ID don't make me upset. The LEO is allowed to "ask" me anything he wants. Where I get upset, is when I decline to give him ID, and the officer decides he is going to "show his authority", and demand that I show it, or try to intimidate me into complying.)
Our discussion last night revolved around the point that I feel like our Rights are being slowly taken away, and "regulated" to a point where it isn't a right anymore. My wife started talking about regulation, and how all Rights are open to regulation, and gave the example of the First Amendment, and yelling fire in a crowded theater. I have heard this said before, and I took a second to think about it last night and form my rebuttal to my wife. That rebuttal is the "meat" of the discussion, and what I wanted to pose to the board for thoughts and feed back.
" The First Amendment is NOT regulated. The example given is that the Right to free speech is not protected for certain things, the classic example being that you can not yell fire in a crowded theater. I believe that is false, and let me tell you why. If someone yells fire in a crowded theater, and there is a fire, there is nothing done about this other than to possibly hale the person as a hero. Now if this is a regulation that you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, shouldn't that person be in jail, regardless of if it was true and he saved someone else? If you yell fire in a crowded theater, and it is not true, you are responsible for your actions, and face the repercussions of the results of those actions. You are not charged with a "violation of verbiage" restriction. The first amendment affords you the Right of "free speech", and you are simply responsible for how you use those words. I believe that is how the 2nd Amendment is or should be used. The 2nd Amendment affords me the Right to "keep and bear arms" and I should simply be responsible for how I use those arms."
That was the main point of the argument, and I was interested in what you guys thought, and input to possibly tweak the reasoning a little bit more. Sorry it was so long.
-Mike
