Forum: Off-topic

Forum Veteran Joined: Dec 15, 2006 - 12:28 AM Posts: 760

Freedoms have limits and responsibilities. (Press, Speech, & Information)

Some sociopathic people go around and bang their drum and demand unlimited disclosure and information under the information act.

Some sociopathic people go around and bang their drums and demand unlimited free speech.

The freedom of information act and the free-speech, and free press laws have limits. There are other laws and rights that need to be considered: there must be reason (good judgment) used to maintain a balance of these laws and rights for all citizens. I’m sure we will not all agree exactly where to draw the line. However I think that the vast majority of us can agree that only the tinfoil hat crowd think that the freedom of information act and freedom of speech and freedom of the press is unlimited.

A common example: The freedom of speech does not give you the right to falsely induce panic and risk people lives by yelling fire in a crowded theater, when there is no fire.

Some less common examples:

The freedom of speech does not give you the right to use a blow horn to shout obscenities under your neighbor’s window at three in the morning to advocate global warming hysteria.

The freedom of information act, does not give you the right to know and advertise the launch codes to our missiles, etc…. (melodramatic, somewhat technically incorrect: but makes my moral/legal point to the layman)

The freedom of speech does not give you the right to take over an organized event to promote your agenda.

The freedom of speech does not give you the right to slander people.

The freedom of speech, press and information should not be in a way that unduly sacrifices our national/world security.

----
One should also remember that there is a right of privacy. Most of these privacy rights are unwritten and are a matter of courtesy, honor and civility.

Freedom of speech and the freedom of information act does not necessarily give you the right to disclose troop location, strength, readiness, size, names, etc… On the contrary; in some cases if you reveal or even collect this information it can be considered a crime.

The individual should exercise their rights responsibly as not to unduly infringe on the rights of others. People should be respectful of other people’s rights; instead of being so sociopathic (self-centered).

The government (Enforcement, judicial system, and legislative systems) should also keep in mind that there needs to be a reasonable balance of rights.

I am sick and tired of these people that want to jeopardize national/world security for their own personal reasons. I’m sick and tired of people violating my (or other peoples) rights; thinking they are exercising their rights.

Part of having freedom and rights is to take some responsibility and not try not to violate other peoples freedoms and rights; otherwise you may lose your rights and freedom.

Again I reiterate. Your rights and freedoms does not give you the right and freedom to violate other people’s rights and freedoms; otherwise you could possibly face consequences.

With freedom comes responsibility. If you don’t exercise your freedoms responsibly; you may lose them.

F-16.net Sponsor

Not sure what prompted this but reminds me...

Many years ago I was stationed in San Antonio and learned that a famous aviation author (Janes, books, etc) was coming to talk a a guest of a local ROTC det but it was open to anyone. The guy may have been Bill Gunston but more importantly the guy was British. This will become important later.

Anyhoo, his talk was supposed to be about the B-2, and since I had previously been on the flight test team, I went with my B-2 patch on my flight suit. He talked just a few minutes on the B-2 and diverged to Aurora and "Area 51". The gist of the talk was that the govt was keeping them a secret and had no right to do so, after all they were funded with public (tax) dollars. I thought that was real ironic given he was British and didn't contribute one Penny in US income tax. I then got cranky as he persisted, pointing out that I had friends flying the B-2 and if they were put in harms way because of the crap he was spouting out I would personally hunt him down.

He seemed genuinely shocked to be called out on this...given that his audience was military and future military (ROTC) I was shocked at his response.

Anyway, I agree, freedom only goes so far.

Great discussion here!

I've got to agree, but I also think that rights and freedoms need to be more broadly acknowledged and respected in some areas. My personal pet peeve is the Second Amendment and the way I feel it has been eviscerated over the years.

I am an expatriated Californian. I moved to Nevada almost four years ago - October 26, 2004 to be precise. I will not move back if I can at all help it. Their firearms laws are one of the reasons. In fact, they're probably the biggest reason.

In California, there's a waiting period and one new handgun a month. Here in Nevada, you can buy a gun and take it home the same day. If you live in Clark County, you have to register handguns (not great, but livable) and your first handgun has a 72 hour waiting period. I purchased my AK-47 at The Gun Store on Tropicana. After an instant (and I mean instant) background check, I handed over my Visa card and walked out with my rifle and two 30 round magazines. The rifle and each of the magazines are a felony to posses in California. I only have one handgun (had to wait for that one), but my next one will be an in and out one stop deal. I might buy two on my next trip. Nevada trusts its citizens.

In California, it's very difficult to get a concealed carry permit and it's illegal in most places to carry a gun openly. Nevada has "shall issue" permits for concealed carry - if they can't find a legal reason you should not be allowed to have a carry permit, they have to give you one. It's also legal to open carry anywhere in the state.

Switchblades are banned in California and are illegal to transport across state lines for commercial purchases under federal law. They're not legal to carry in Nevada, but at least you can own them here Smile

And one of my favorite subjects - NFA weapons Twisted Evil

These are weapons covered under the [url]National Firearms Act of 1934[/url]. These include machineguns, silencers, short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, destructive devices, and "any other weapons" which are generally disguised firearms. There are ways to own these in California (actually ways to own anything - you have to have the money and connections), but again Nevada trusts its citizens. As long as you follow the federal law, fill out the Form 4, send in the fingerprints, passport photos, $200 check and all, and you get that transfer tax stamp on your copy of the Form 4 you're good. You can have a silenced machinegun (yes, I want one but I don't have $18,000), a mortar, or a fully functional main battle tank.

I know that in quite a bit of this country, many people would die of shock if they knew this to be true. People don't realize what that Second Amendment means, regardless of what some politician or a group of lawyers in black robes says it means.

Quote:

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.

Here's a link to a high resolution scan of the original Bill of Rights:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... of1_AC.jpg

I'll let you decide for yourselves. My personal opinion is that it is meant to give the citizenry access to the full complement of military arms and that I should be able to have anything that isn't classified - like an F-86 with live guns for example. Remember that in the time of the founders the militia was every able-bodied male between a certain set of ages. This is codified in law and has not been repealed, so is still in effect. They were expected to show up if mustered with their own arms and those arms were to be consistent with military arms in common use.

I have no problem discussing any of my lawful activities (not that there are unlawful activities to discuss Wink

) so I have no problem saying that I currently own my Yugo AK-47 (actually an M70AB1 with full wood stock), a Steyr M95, a Swiss K-31, a 1946 Mosin Nagant M44, a 1928 Mosin Nagant 91-30, a Marlin Model 60 .22, and a Hi-Point C9 pistol. I regularly go out in the desert and have fun shooting all of them Cool

I will also have no problem using them in the defense of myself or others. I hope to purchase an AR-15 sometime in the near future, too.

There's something that has always perplexed me about a license to carry concealed. If the "full faith and credit" clause means that every state has to accept every other state's driver's licenses, why doesn't it mean the same thing for all other licenses - like concealed carry Confused

If you've read this far, thanks! My closing thoughts: Firearms and knives are inanimate objects. They're tools. I won't do this because it's not really responsible or even reasonable, but I could load every one of my guns, chamber a round in each, move the safeties to the fire position and nothing more will happen unless someone puts a few pounds of pressure on a trigger. I could lay every knife in existence on a massive surface and nothing will happen unless someone exerts their will on one. It is the intent and the actions of the user that are important. We hear that we need to ban this gun or that gun or carrying guns because of crime. That's punishing the law abiding for the actions of the criminals. It's treating citizens as if we're third graders who all get their paste taken away because a couple of kids were eating theirs. Sure, these rights have limits. Nobody should be able to threaten another with a weapon without good cause. Nobody should be able to act recklessly with a weapon. We should still be allowed to own them and carry them as is our God given right which is acknowledged in the Constitution of the United States of America.

Now that I've vented, gone just a bit off topic, and had a chance to think it over I think I've come up with a good expression of my thoughts on the limitations of the rights of an individual in the United States.

Your rights cannot infringe on my rights.

Parrothead -
You describe one of the reasons I love New Hampshire. No waiting periods, state law prohibits the registration of firearms, open carry is legal, concealed carry is as easy as getting a $10 permit from your local police station (so they can make sure you're not a felon) And look at the crime levels in NH...

PARROTHEAD FOR PRESIDENT !!!! Off Topic

parrothead wrote:

Great discussion here!
Nobody should be able to threaten another with a weapon without good cause.

I’ve noticed there are fewer prairie dogs and horned toads these days. Hearing about that arsenal I’m a little hesitant to post this, but since only Congress can declare war…….

The obvious question:
Which person decides what good cause is? The gunner or the gunee?

Quote:

Your rights cannot infringe on my rights.

If I have “rights” that I can’t exercise because they infringe on your rights, doesn’t that infringe on my rights? Your rights and my rights are theoretically the same. How can this happen?

Can you define a “right” as only existing when it is mutually exclusive of all other defined “rights”? That might considerably limit us both.

In our current world, there are very obviously situations where you, in exercising what you consider to be your “not to be infringed upon rights”, unintentionally, and maybe unavoidably infringe on what someone else considers to be their “not to be infringed upon rights”. One person’s music is another person’s noise.

We’ve got a complex and convoluted legal system and that’s why there are civil lawyers & civil court judges. Solutions to disagreements were less elegant, but much simpler in Dodge City.

This whole current concept does not lend itself to oversimplification.

regards, OL

(parrothead, not president, but maybe sheriff)

ATC wrote:

Parrothead -
You describe one of the reasons I love New Hampshire. No waiting periods, state law prohibits the registration of firearms, open carry is legal, concealed carry is as easy as getting a $10 permit from your local police station (so they can make sure you're not a felon) And look at the crime levels in NH...

Sounds about right to me Smile

I might have to consider moving there, but I do enjoy having a big, open desert to play in Wink

Tim wrote:

PARROTHEAD FOR PRESIDENT !!!! Off Topic

While I might think it sounds like a great idea, I think you've just described some people's worst nightmare Laughing

One problem I'd have in getting elected is that I have a habit of speaking my mind without worrying who's in the room or what they'll think of it. I'm sometimes I'm amazed I still have a job after some of the things I've said to my manager and some of the things I've suggested he do...

outlaw162 wrote:

parrothead wrote:

Great discussion here!
Nobody should be able to threaten another with a weapon without good cause.

I’ve noticed there are fewer prairie dogs and horned toads these days. Hearing about that arsenal I’m a little hesitant to post this, but since only Congress can declare war…….

The obvious question:
Which person decides what good cause is? The gunner or the gunee?

Thanks for a good bit of humor there Smile

Sorry to disappoint you, but my targets so far have only consisted of inanimiate objects - usually 8oz cheap-o unopened store brand soda cans. They go boom in a nice way when hit Twisted Evil

I should say that the AK is only semi-auto and will stay that way as much as I wish it to be different.

My collection is still pretty small and I hope to add to it in the near future. Aside from the AR-15, future likely acquisitions (as in I really want one) include a shotgun or three (pump, over/under, side x side), a handgun or two (one will likely be a .22, another .40 or .45),a Yugo underfolder AK (semi-auto M70AB2) and a semi-auto rifle chambered in 7.62x54R. Nothing for Congress or anyone else to worry about Wink

Now, if I ever win Megabucks or the Lottery, look out Twisted Evil

If I had the money, I'd take a functional main battle tank or two, a couple of howitzers, a few belt-fed crew served guns (think quad .50, minigun, M-60, M-240, etc), a collection of full auto rifles (think M-16s, AK-47s, M2 carbines, BARs) and submachineguns (MP-5 with integral suppressor, Thompson, Sten gun), some short barreled rifles and shotguns, a few AOWs (a cane gun and a pen gun would fit nicely as would a pager gun) and of course a nice collection of suppressors. Then I'd need enough ammo to feed 'em all Shocked

As to the question of good cause, I think it's pretty much common (maybe uncommon these days) sense. Defense of one's self or another would be a good starting point. Protection of National Security would be another good example. Being cut off by a drunken tourist who's more interested in the fountains at the Bellagio than preventing a collision would not. I think you can see where I'm going, but I do understand your point as well.

outlaw162 wrote:

Quote:

Your rights cannot infringe on my rights.

If I have “rights” that I can’t exercise because they infringe on your rights, doesn’t that infringe on my rights? Your rights and my rights are theoretically the same. How can this happen?

Can you define a “right” as only existing when it is mutually exclusive of all other defined “rights”? That might considerably limit us both.

In our current world, there are very obviously situations where you, in exercising what you consider to be your “not to be infringed upon rights”, unintentionally, and maybe unavoidably infringe on what someone else considers to be their “not to be infringed upon rights”. One person’s music is another person’s noise.

We’ve got a complex and convoluted legal system and that’s why there are civil lawyers & civil court judges. Solutions to disagreements were less elegant, but much simpler in Dodge City.

This whole current concept does not lend itself to oversimplification.

regards, OL

(parrothead, not president, but maybe sheriff)

With regards to conflicting rights, I agree that my post was a gross oversimplification. It was late and I was pretty darn tired - kinda like now. I'll have to think some more on it and come back later with some more thoughts and examples.

And yes, I'd be much more likely to be Sheriff than President!

Thanks again everyone for the great thread, intelligent and thoughtful responses, and kind words Thumb

Tim wrote:

PARROTHEAD FOR PRESIDENT !!!! Off Topic

One other question.

How can you be "off topic" in the Off-topic Forum?

Very Happy

regards, OL

You guys kill me LMAO

outlaw162 wrote:

One other question.

How can you be "off topic" in the Off-topic Forum?

Very Happy

regards, OL

To answer your question, sir, the area is defined as off topic, but the thread has a topic which is expected to be adhered to Wink

Think of it kind of like Bureau of Land Management land out in the desert of Nevada with a whole bunch of people in the wilderness. Some are practicing marksmanship ( Thumb

) while others are practicing knitting and still others are practicing a religion. It's all "off topic" as there is no singular use for the land, but to each group there is a common use. Something tells me that the marksmen would be frowned upon if they tried to practice marksmanship in either of the other areas while they were in use by their respective groups Razz

Ya know, that last paragraph I just wrote kinda reminds me of what I know about Burning Man - I think I might have to go there Cool

Sorry for being Off Topic

Quote:

How can you be "off topic" in the Off-topic Forum?

Was kinda redundant huh? WTF

parrothead wrote:

Now that I've vented, gone just a bit off topic, and had a chance to think it over I think I've come up with a good expression of my thoughts on the limitations of the rights of an individual in the United States.

Your rights cannot infringe on my rights.

Well said, everyone has the right to be stupid.

Your exercise of this right can not require me to pay for your activity, offer sympathy for the outcome, or accept your stated opinions or actions when they infringe, or clash, with my rights and opinions.

I agree with a lot that I've read. One thing that's been P!$$ing me off lately, are these pudnockers and bozos who have come to this site demanding information subjects, such as tail numbers that are sitting alert, and the pilots who fly them.

One particular genius had the nerve to get mad when I called him out on this. His personal information is now being looked over by Federal agents wearing badges and guns. Foreigner he may have been, but rest assured, one can face American Federal charges even if a foreign citizen, if caught committing or attempting to commit a crime on foreign soil, if said crime is directed at American citizens or property.

There's a large group of former terrorists sitting in a holding tank at Gitmo right now who could attest to that.

Personally, I don't give a d@mn if somebody thinks it's his right to know things he has no business knowing. Oh, you only wanted that information, so you could "build a more accurate model". Uh huh. Rolling Eyes

Just like Lee Harvey Oswald wanted to buy some Carcano cartriges so he could merely "sight in his rifle", or Ted Bundy wanted a van with blacked out windows, so that he could merely "drive in privacy", right?

Some may think I'm over-reaching here, but I'm deeply concerned. Point is, not too many of us know each other in person. It's very easy to craft a cover story, especially over the internet. Someone's stated purpose may sound harmless enough, but for someone to divulge certain pieces of information, could have disasterous consequences. Remember, one may really be the innocent man he says he is, but Joe Baggodonuts, who can also read the information on the same website, may not be.

What especially troubles me, is when people start asking for the names of aircrew and other associated personnel when related to recent or current operations. Nobody should be that stupid, or careless to ever let that information be known. The same person seemed downright hostile when I gave my reasons for why he should not receive that information.

I'm a flyer myself, and in my short time flying, have already flown more than one high visibility mission...and if a story were to ever leak, tying my name to a specific combat operation or mission, and I were put in personal jeopardy because of it, I, like Roscoe told that other bozo, would also hunt the author down. I have a Smith & Wesson 629, which does quite an excellent job of rearranging craniums. Twisted Evil

Simply because something is not classified, does not give one carte blanche to cease using common sense.

Great post there, TC Smile

I got to thinking some more about it and there's something that was brought to mind about the whole rights thing - oh yeah, guns too Wink

The concept I wish to discuss is prior restraint and its connection to the aforementioned rights and their limitations. I can't recall right now just where I read the article or who wrote it, but I recall the substance quite clearly.

First, let's examine some things that people do which are not covered as rights. Practicing medicine or law is not a right. People must be licensed to do these things. Driving a car is not a right. Flying a plane is not a right. The government can by force of law prevent you from doing any of these things unless you jump through their hoops. They have a prior restraint on them. You must have a license to drive a car or fly a plane and those vehicles must be registered and insured.

Next, let's look at the First Amendment:

Quote:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Pretty simple when you read it, right?

Following the First Amendment, we now examine the Second Amendment:

Quote:

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.

Again, very simple and easy to understand.

Now we add in the concept of prior restraint as applied to the above amendments.

Many states (CA), counties (Clark County, NV) and cities (Chicago) have laws on the books requiring at least registration of handguns. Some of the other laws regarding firearms include not being able to carry a gun (or any other weapon) at all, requiring a license or a permit for ownership or purchase, restrictions on transportation, and severe limitations on the types of firearms or other weapons which can be legally owned. This is prior restraint on the free exercise of rights acknowledged in the Second Amendment.

People accept and applaud these prior restraints. They think they are made safer by them. No matter that felons are prohibited from ownership as they have proven themselves to be incapable of responsible conduct. It also doesn't matter to them that by definition criminals do not care for these laws, thus the laws only serve to disarm the lawful in the face of the lawless. No, to them it does not matter that this God Given RIGHT which is recognized by the Second Amendment is written right there into the RULES ON HOW THE COUNTRY SHALL BE RUN.

But now how about the First Amendment?

Can you only imagine if similar laws were enacted with respect to the First Amendment "for the public good" or "to prevent violence" or for any other reason? What would be the public reaction if printers, computers, or pen and paper were made to require a license to own or to carry? What if the government decided that no average citizen has the right to own and or use a printing device which is capable of so many pages per minute, so must be prohibited from owning that printing device? What if the government decided that being able to reach a certain number of people is enough, so you don't need a website which is accessible by anyone in the world? Or how about if they limited the size of signs which could be carried in public?

People talk about the fire in a crowded theater argument as well as the libel and slander angles. The thing is that there is no prior restraint. Nobody duct tapes the mouths of people entering a theater. Nobody has any legal method of preventing someone from libeling or slandering another. THE ACTIONS ARE PUNISHED, NOT THE ABILITY OR MEANS OF COMMITTING THE ACTIONS.

Consider a possible prior restraint on part of the Sixth Amendment.

Quote:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Nobody thinks to license jurors, but what if they did? What if the defendant were compelled to pay for the licensing of jurors or be forced to forgo the benefit of this Constitutional Protection? What if someone accused of a crime were presented with a requirement to pay a fee for every witness brought on their behalf or every subpoena issued on their behalf?

Sure, rights have limits. But are they really rights if prior restraint is applied? I don't think so.

AND TC FOR VICE PRESIDENT !!!! Not Worthy

Ilike the sound of that ticket "The Parrothead and TC show"

Forum: Off-topic

Freedoms have limits (Press, Speech, & Information)