Off Campus Free Speech

[SkyDekker 1,465]

11 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

OK. I'm a little lost. Sometimes I think I'm being concise, but do miss the mark on occasion. Help me understand which part or why you think I'm contradicting myself. 

Ok, I'll try. Your argument started here, with the following statement:

2 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Absolutely. Other than they have to exist - Otherwise, you wind up with a "China or Russia" type BoR

It implies that without the 2nd the country would devolve into China or Russia. In response gowlerk responded that Canada has managed not to devolve into China and Russia and that Canada does not have a 2nd amendment or similar language. In other words, Canada proves that without a right to bear arms, a country does not devolve into China or Russia.

In response to that you said, but Canada has a privilege that can be taken away. The US has a right. Which I fully agree with, but that proves again that a right to bear arms doesn't have to exists to protect against devolving into China or Russia.

Lastly, I will add a new point to your argument. Other than the US there are 2 countries left with a constitutional right to bear arms: Mexico and Guatemala....

Edited April 30, 2021 by SkyDekker

[BIGUN 1,307]

6 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

but that proves again that a right to bear arms doesn't have to exists to protect against devolving into China or Russia.

But it can and has happened. 

https://mises.org/wire/brief-history-repressive-regimes-and-their-gun-laws 

EDIT: And, that's just a short list. 

Edited April 30, 2021 by BIGUN

[SkyDekker 1,465]

1 minute ago, BIGUN said:

But it can and has happened. 

https://mises.org/wire/brief-history-repressive-regimes-and-their-gun-laws 

Sure, but the opposite has happened too.

Probably a good time to remember that it was (a subset of) the pro-gun crowd who wanted to use force to change a democratic election in the US. Was just a few months ago.

[gowlerk 2,190]

2 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

But it can and has happened. 

https://mises.org/wire/brief-history-repressive-regimes-and-their-gun-laws 

But far more often it does not. And you can not show that the gun laws were what lead to the oppressions. Because it did not, the oppression led to the gun laws. The free world is far larger than the good'ole'USA. And somehow it manages to stay free without a right to bear arms. The argument is hollow.

[JerryBaumchen 1,362]

35 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

But far more often it does not. And you can not show that the gun laws were what lead to the oppressions. Because it did not, the oppression led to the gun laws. The free world is far larger than the good'ole'USA. And somehow it manages to stay free without a right to bear arms. The argument is hollow.

Hi Ken,

Re:  The free world is far larger than the good'ole'USA. And somehow it manages to stay free without a right to bear arms.

Absolutely!

I am not for taking away all guns that us Americans own ( not me in that 'us' ).  However, I strongly want 'something' to change.  These mass shootings of innocent people is simply unacceptable to me.

I would support Keith's previous ideas if it were that or nothing.

To say that the 2nd is absolute defies our right to amend the Constitution.*

Jerry Baumchen

*  Which I will not see in my lifetime.  Although, back in '63 I said the same thing about the removal of the Berlin Wall.  Look what happened.

[gowlerk 2,190]

6 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Which I will not see in my lifetime.  Although, back in '63 I said the same thing about the removal of the Berlin Wall.  Look what happened.

Words can easily be stronger and longer lasting than mere walls. 

Edited April 30, 2021 by gowlerk

[gowlerk 2,190]

5 hours ago, sfzombie13 said:

i don't think the school is considered an agent of the state in this case.  there goes my day now. 

Public schools are not allowed to have religious services because they are agents of the state.

[riggerrob 643]

Returning to the original question ... If someone slanders or defames an institution (school, church, corporation, etc.) they can be sued for slander.

For example, a few years ago a driver slandered Coast Mountain Bus company on social media. Since he was a new-hire - still on probation - they fired him.

[billvon 2,990]

7 minutes ago, riggerrob said:

Returning to the original question ... If someone slanders or defames an institution (school, church, corporation, etc.) they can be sued for slander.

Agreed.  But there is no way a teen's post that says "F*** school F*** softball, F*** cheer, F*** everything" could be construed as slander.

[BIGUN 1,307]

53 minutes ago, billvon said:

But there is no way a teen's post that says "F*** school F*** softball, F*** cheer, F*** everything" could be construed as slander.

Agreed. And, even though the district had established a code for cheerleaders which required the members of the squad to “respect their school, coaches, teachers, and other cheerleaders and teams…There will be no toleration of any negative information regarding cheerleading, cheerleaders or coaches on the internet.” 

She posted a Snap photo of her and a friend holding up their middle fingers with the text, “f*** school f*** softball f*** cheer f*** everything” superimposed on the image. 

The girls in the image were not wearing their uniforms and did not share the name of the school district.  The school district invoked the "cheer code" and dismissed her from the squad.  At the hearing, school officials testified that the discipline was imposed because of the student’s use of profanity - out of school, off campus, no identifying school colors or mascots or anything else on their clothes - it was just them "expressing" themselves. 

From my perspective; the school was caught up in a whirlwind of "let's do something." I think it was overreach on the school's part. Just my opinion. 

[jakee 1,489]

4 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Canada has, "No Right to Bear Arms." We do. You have a privilege - which can be taken away. 

So can the right. The same constitution which enumerates the right also enumerates the process by which it can be taken away.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

1 hour ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Ken,

Re:  The free world is far larger than the good'ole'USA. And somehow it manages to stay free without a right to bear arms.

Absolutely!

I am not for taking away all guns that us Americans own ( not me in that 'us' ).  However, I strongly want 'something' to change.  These mass shootings of innocent people is simply unacceptable to me.

I would support Keith's previous ideas if it were that or nothing.

To say that the 2nd is absolute defies our right to amend the Constitution.*

Jerry Baumchen

*  Which I will not see in my lifetime.  Although, back in '63 I said the same thing about the removal of the Berlin Wall.  Look what happened.

Now that the Supreme Court has accepted New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett things will either get vastly worse or somewhat better. Originalists Barrett and Gorsuch will be faced with addressing the historically flawed reasoning Scalia used to craft Heller. If they truly believe that preambles matter and there was no individual right to open carry under English Law things might just open up for some reasonable regulation. I highly doubt either will be true to their professed legal philosophies but then anything is possible.

[BIGUN 1,307]

16 hours ago, jakee said:

So can the right. The same constitution which enumerates the right also enumerates the process by which it can be taken away.

No argument, but it is a serious process. 

[sfzombie13 324]

18 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Public schools are not allowed to have religious services because they are agents of the state.

i had to work yesterday and didn't have time to find any precedents, but i believe that the school loses 1st amendment protection when the student left, did not have any school identification on, and didn't mention the school name or any other identifying things.  no school to id, no school 1st amendment protection.  but i am not a lawyer of supreme court justice.

[brenthutch 444]

19 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

Sure, but the opposite has happened too.

Probably a good time to remember that it was (a subset of) the pro-gun crowd who wanted to use force to change a democratic election in the US. Was just a few months ago.

It’s funny how a pro-gun crowd forgot to bring their guns. 

Edited May 1, 2021 by brenthutch

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Despite the court rulings, Washington DC still has some very strict gun laws.

A few of the idiots were arrested before the insurrection attempt for possession of magazines that were of illegal size.
The message was pretty clear.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

On 5/1/2021 at 5:04 AM, brenthutch said:

It’s funny how a pro-gun crowd forgot to bring their guns. 

If you think insurrection in the US is funny I guess.

[billvon 2,990]

11 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

If you think insurrection in the US is funny I guess.

Hey, a cop lost his eye!  One lost part of his finger.  Another was beaten with an American flag.  Six ended up with concussions.  To right wingers, that's funny stuff right there.

[ryoder 1,590]

3 minutes ago, billvon said:

Hey, a cop lost his eye!  One lost part of his finger.  Another was beaten with an American flag.  Six ended up with concussions.  To right wingers, that's funny stuff right there.

These are the same ones that like to display the "Thin Blue Line" flag, right?

Edited May 3, 2021 by ryoder

[brenthutch 444]

1 hour ago, SkyDekker said:

If you think insurrection in the US is funny I guess.

They were just petitioning their government for a redress of grievances and following Maxine Waters advice.  “Get in their face”. If it was an insurrection they would have brought guns.

Edited May 3, 2021 by brenthutch

[SkyDekker 1,465]

4 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

They were just petitioning their government for a redress of grievances and following Maxine Waters advice.  “Get in their face”. If it was an insurrection they would have brought guns.

I can't say I am overly surprised that you think what happened on January 6th is normal behaviour.

[gowlerk 2,190]

1 minute ago, SkyDekker said:

I can't say I am overly surprised that you think what happened on January 6th is normal behaviour.

They would have brought guns it they thought they could. Instead they brought improvised weapons to club the police with.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

35 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

I can't say I am overly surprised that you think what happened on January 6th is normal behaviour.

Fortunately the FBI and Justice Dept seem to think it was criminal behavior.

500 arrested. And counting.
One plea deal announced.
Betcha there will be a lot more.

Kinda funny that the first plea deal made public involved an "Oath Keeper".
I wonder if part of that 'Oath' he swore was to maintain loyalty to the group.

[Phil1111 1,149]

5 hours ago, gowlerk said:

They would have brought guns it they thought they could. Instead they brought improvised weapons to club the police with.

In the mean time they are back to gerrymandering, vote rigging, various laws to steal the vote.

[billvon 2,990]

35 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

In the mean time they are back to gerrymandering, vote rigging, various laws to steal the vote.

Restrictions on gun ownership - UNCONSTITUTIONAL!  CRIMINAL!  JUST LIKE HITLER!
Restrictions for COVID protection - SOCIALISM!  NANNY STATE!  THIS THING I SAW ON YOUTUBE!
Restrictions on voting - well, that's fine.  That's not really a RIGHT right, you know.