What you’d find even more fascinating is actually reading the case, where the judge makes exactly the same point that comparing first amendment to the second amendment is totally unreasonable. While the judge doesn’t specifically draw on the abridge/infringe distinction, I don’t see why recognizing it implies we must slide all the way down the slope to turn a nuance into a chasm, just to satisfy your notion what a logical conclusion is.
I couldn’t disagree more. Feeling safe because you are carrying a gun does not mean that you are licking your lips at the thought of blasting away at local school children.
To me, that’s akin to saying that if you feel safer wearing a seat belt, then you are a lousy driver. Of course, all of the things you say are true, and situational awareness is key, but once you have controlled for all of that, I don’t see a thing wrong with carrying a gun, even though I don’t carry one myself.
I’m not sure what case you are citing, but the judges attempting to make a distinction between the first and second amendment are doing so only with a pre-determined outcome in mind.
If your boss gives you a list of 10 things you are allowed to do at work, then there is certainly a commonality between those 10 that can be compared against each other. And I believe that the restrictions on both need to be similar and reasonable.
The case this thread is about.
Very true. I did not read it. A district court judge’s opinion is going higher up and his reasoning will probably be for naught. Probably SCOTUS will weigh in again to see about NYC, NJ, MD, and the like of may-issue carry laws. I was speaking in the abstract.
In the abstract, I think the first, second, fourth, fifth, and fourteenth have taken a beating, the ninth and tenth have basically been totally ignored, and the commerce clause has been treated as something not unlike a blank check. In the abstract, our government has gone from an entity granted only a few powers by the constitution to an entity barely held in check by the constitution.
In the abstract… 
Really? You don’t think that the fact that two different words with two different meanings were used implies that they should be treated differently?
SCOTUS has already found numerous limitations on the 2nd amendment constitutional. Limitations that would be struck down in a second if they were attached to freedom of speech or the press.
Well, look who wants to jump onto the DHS domestic terrorist watchlist today! 
Come on. Even conceding your point, the words have very, very similar meanings. You think we should hinge our whole policy on these dictionary definitions? We should have court cases talking about how such and such only touches at the edges, but this and this destroys the right?
First, no, they don’t have similar meanings. In particular I’m now pretty confident that the writers meant the obsolete definition of infringe as defeat or invalidate. This is a very different meaning than abridge, which is merely to curtail or diminish. There is no constitutional prohibition on curtailing the right to bear arms, only on invalidating it completely.
Second, I find it hard to believe that you think it controversial that there are more broad allowances for limiting the right to bear arms than there are for limiting the right to free speech or a free press. Many states require you to register to own a gun. Background checks are required. You can’t have one if you are a felon or insane. Certain types of guns have been banned completely at the federal level.
Can you imagine any analogous law limiting free speech passing constitutional muster? Requiring newspapers to register with the state and pass a background check? Banning free verse poetry in general?
It seems clear to me that the second amendment right is on a vastly different footing than the first amendment ones - and that this is as it should be considering both the plain meaning of the words used and the somewhat cryptic preamble to the second.
What about the not at all cryptic preamble to the first amendment that CONGRESS shall pass no law?
And I do disagree with those prior restraints on owning and carrying arms.
I’m afraid I’m not following you (honestly can’t tell if your “not at all” is sarcastic or not). My opinion is that the first amendment is, compared to the second, a model of clarity. Or maybe you are making an argument that the first doesn’t apply to the states? Clarify please.
Fine (although, I think, clearly wrong). But your point was that any judge differentiating the two was working towards a predetermined outcome. Couldn’t it be that he or she is just using the clear meaning of the words and a great deal of existing jurisprudence?
Even in Heller the court held that: “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
There is no way that the limitations described here as valid would be upheld if they were aimed at freedom of speech or the press.
The first sentence is an insult and nothing I said could be interpreted that way. I have reported your post.
The seat belt analogy is wrong, because seat belts still work if you aren’t paying attention. A firearm is worse than useless without situational awareness. If you pull your gun after someone sticks a gun in your face, then you are just going to get yourself killed.
BTW, a seat belt doesn’t make me feel safer, it just reminds me that my life is at risk and I won’t even move to the other side of the parking lot without fastening mine.
When someone says that a gun will make them feel safer, then that is a red warning flag to me. You want to always be alert. That is a good rule when you are driving also.
My state just vetoed the Castle Doctrine bill so I guess you’re allowed to break into houses and terrorize the occupants in Minnesota at will, but overall there’s been a big shift in gun rights over the past decade or two. I think the Brady Bill and “Scary Guns” ban was what really caused the gun rights people to realize a good offense is the best defense. 10 years ago almost no states had open or concealed carry and none had the castle doctrine; now all but a handful have carry and 31 have a castle doctrine and the “assault” weapons ban is history, and the Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd amendment is an incorperated individual right.
Whaaa? I’ll wait for a ruling before I post in this thread further.
Nobody said otherwise. You’re reading way to much into a single comment and extrapolating a lot of baloney from it. Saying having a firearm makes you feel “safer” in “certain situations” in no way implies that one is fearless or has no need to maintain situational awareness. That you seem to believe this is bizarre in the extreme.
This is true, but even as a gun-rights person I acknowledge that there is a necessity to concede some things for the purposes of public safety. Speech never killed anybody, and even if you were to argue that some speech is inflammatory and can lead to riots where people do get killed the Supreme Court covered that potential with the restriction in Brandenburg of “incitement to imminent lawless action”.
The two are fundamentally different, and I have no issue with them being treated as such so long as a good case can be made for why they the guns in question should be controlled. Cosmetic reasons? Forget it, I’ll oppose that until the day I die. Actual potential for violence? I’m on board with that. The proscription on felons and the mentally ill is perfectly acceptable to me.
Let us reason together:
Joel, in your first post of this exchange, I would suggest that your claim that a person who “feels safer” should not be permitted to carry a firearm could be construed as insulting. It would not be ruled an insult on this forum, and you did go on in a second paragraph to explain your rationale in a way that was not insulting, per se, but the statement certainly comes across as a declaration that a person holding that view was not competent to carry a firearm.
jtgain then replied with a declaration of disagreement followed by a straw man argument large enough to hide the Statue of Liberty, but nothing in his statement actually insults you.
Everyone needs to just dial it back and leave any personal comments out of the discussion.
(It also gains no points to declare that one has reported a post, as that is liable to hijack the thread into a separate argument regarding whether a post would or would not warrant a Warning or a Mod Note.)
[ /Moderating ]
It is not a matter of permitting. The problem is that what they are doing that is unwise, because it gives them an unwarranted feeling of security. It actually makes them less safe. I don’t think it has any relevance to whether they should be issued a CCW or not. If a firearm every makes you inclined to go anywhere or do anything that you wouldn’t do if you were unarmed, then are actually making yourself less safe.
Another point I want to make. When you are armed, you never, ever do anything that could escalate a situation. You have a greater responsibility than an unarmed citizen. It someone cuts you off, you don’t give them them the finger. It some guy says something disrespectful about your girlfriend, you don’t ‘discuss’ it with them. “A soft answer turneth away wrath”, is your guide word. Of course, I’m not armed right now. 
It bothers me so long as being a felon is not synonymous with being violent. As much as I think white collar crimes should be, well, crimes, I don’t get particularly scared about such an individual owning a gun. As much as I think selling drugs shouldn’t be a crime, I don’t get particularly scared about such an individual owning a gun. Additionally, a lot of states restrict people with non-felonies on their record, if the jail time was over a year, and even if this was a non-violent offense. I still think the dial is on the wrong setting.