Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

2nd Amendment Right

Fly
Posts: 2,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 1:38:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 1:05:15 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
Do they apply to all citizens?

https://www.youtube.com...

I once read an article about a (white) man who open carried an AR-15 into an airport. It happened to be legal in that city-- can't remember which one. People were scared, and the police constantly harrassed him, and he insisted that all was legal. I considered making a thread over the issue of where the law and law enforcement collide when it comes to open carry.

So, to sum up, open carry = constant police questioning. Black open carry = don't do it/for whites only.

Sadly, the video is not surprising at all. I DID, however, see a black man open carry at a Tea Party rally without any hassle, but he had that "Mormon" appearance and was surrounded by whites who were not alarmed. The context was right for it. Other than that exception, we live in a society where black crime is disproportionate to the black population, so this controversial policy at best will not go over well for that populace...
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 1:39:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Is this really an example of a 2nd amendment issue, or an issue of biased police response? If the latter, then why frame it as such?

But, to answer your question, no, it doesn't apply to everyone.
My work here is, finally, done.
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 1:46:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 1:39:17 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Is this really an example of a 2nd amendment issue, or an issue of biased police response? If the latter, then why frame it as such?

But, to answer your question, no, it doesn't apply to everyone.

OK, sure, it doesn't apply to felons or mentally disturbed people. Anyone else?
slo1
Posts: 4,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 1:52:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 1:05:15 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
Do they apply to all citizens?

https://www.youtube.com...

This is the entire black lives matter movement. I would not say this is a statistically valid example, but there are plenty of valid analysis that clearly proves blacks are treated more agressively by the police and judicial system.

It is an undeniable fact, yet many conservatives try to pretend it is not fact.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 1:53:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 1:46:11 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 8/12/2015 1:39:17 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Is this really an example of a 2nd amendment issue, or an issue of biased police response? If the latter, then why frame it as such?

But, to answer your question, no, it doesn't apply to everyone.

OK, sure, it doesn't apply to felons or mentally disturbed people. Anyone else?

I didn't have sound and I didn't watch the end of the video. Did he get to keep his gun?
If so, clearly blacks do, which makes this not a 2nd amendment issue. After all, even the white guy was stopped and questioned, which suggests just as much that possessing the gun in full display is not allowed.
My work here is, finally, done.
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 1:56:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 1:53:12 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/12/2015 1:46:11 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 8/12/2015 1:39:17 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Is this really an example of a 2nd amendment issue, or an issue of biased police response? If the latter, then why frame it as such?

But, to answer your question, no, it doesn't apply to everyone.

OK, sure, it doesn't apply to felons or mentally disturbed people. Anyone else?

I didn't have sound and I didn't watch the end of the video. Did he get to keep his gun?
If so, clearly blacks do, which makes this not a 2nd amendment issue. After all, even the white guy was stopped and questioned, which suggests just as much that possessing the gun in full display is not allowed.

The police confiscated the weapon.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 2:00:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 1:56:09 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:

The police confiscated the weapon.

That's a shame.
But, he should be getting it back, right? Since he does have the right to have the gun, right? He had a permit and all that, right? So, he can sue the police or whatever, right?

So, if he can do all that, again, this isn't an issue of 2nd amendment rights, is it?
It is an issue of police bias.
My work here is, finally, done.
katie.snappy
Posts: 108
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 2:01:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 1:56:09 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
The police confiscated the weapon.

Yes, but this isn't a 2nd amendment issue. This is an issue of biased police.
Fly
Posts: 2,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 2:13:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 2:00:18 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/12/2015 1:56:09 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:

The police confiscated the weapon.

That's a shame.
But, he should be getting it back, right? Since he does have the right to have the gun, right? He had a permit and all that, right? So, he can sue the police or whatever, right?

So, if he can do all that, again, this isn't an issue of 2nd amendment rights, is it?
It is an issue of police bias.

Are you surprised that the treatment by police was so starkly different? I was not. But I have also already seen other videos of how differently white and black gun bearers are treated by police. It's pretty dang typical.

I agree that the issue is not one of Constitutional rights but of inevitable flaws in law enforcement. But even that distinction is merely academic. If you get arrested, detained, and later released every time you excercise your rights, do you really have the same rights as those who merely get questioned for a few minutes?
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 3:02:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 2:13:05 PM, Fly wrote:
At 8/12/2015 2:00:18 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/12/2015 1:56:09 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:

The police confiscated the weapon.

That's a shame.
But, he should be getting it back, right? Since he does have the right to have the gun, right? He had a permit and all that, right? So, he can sue the police or whatever, right?

So, if he can do all that, again, this isn't an issue of 2nd amendment rights, is it?
It is an issue of police bias.

Are you surprised that the treatment by police was so starkly different? I was not. But I have also already seen other videos of how differently white and black gun bearers are treated by police. It's pretty dang typical.

I am generally surprised, but who isn't surprised by things that are foreign to them. But, yes, I am quite aware of the bias that exists. However, I am also aware of how people can exploit this issue (see the OP) and see other issues in play.

What I would like to see is a comparison using the same officer, the same place, the same time, and the same appearance. Which is largely impossible, probably.
I've been told to talk to black folks about racism and their experience, and the people I have talked to aren't treated like this, but I know others are. However, the ones I talk to have a different dress, attitude, and demeanor than the other ones, who dress, act, and think very differently. (after all, there is a reason I don't talk to them LOL)

I'd also like to know of any times blacks are not hassled, or whites are. I get that there is a disparity, but people love to misrepresent things all the time (see: police deaths). Assume there were reports of a man with his discription firing shots in a city park, the police's actions would be wholly justified, right? And, I highly doubt this information would be made public by these advocates. (not saying this happened, which is doubtful, but do we even know if this is the same part of the city, and, to be fair, it's not like there has been police being shot at of late)


I agree that the issue is not one of Constitutional rights but of inevitable flaws in law enforcement. But even that distinction is merely academic. If you get arrested, detained, and later released every time you excercise your rights, do you really have the same rights as those who merely get questioned for a few minutes?

The same rights? Yes. Even if it is academic it must still be framed as such, since the only reason there is this distinction is due to specific law enforcement (personnel or policy). Being stopped and questioned is still not a right to bear arms, and is considered detainment by many. I get what you are saying, and the effect is notable, but saying they have no rights is too far a stretch. It would be like me saying I don't have the right to speech because I use a megaphone at a bus station or get beat up for what I say.
My work here is, finally, done.
katie.snappy
Posts: 108
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 3:17:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 2:13:05 PM, Fly wrote:
If you get arrested, detained, and later released every time you excercise your rights, do you really have the same rights as those who merely get questioned for a few minutes?

You have the same rights, but others address those rights very differently.
Fly
Posts: 2,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 3:27:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 3:02:19 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/12/2015 2:13:05 PM, Fly wrote:
At 8/12/2015 2:00:18 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/12/2015 1:56:09 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:

The police confiscated the weapon.

That's a shame.
But, he should be getting it back, right? Since he does have the right to have the gun, right? He had a permit and all that, right? So, he can sue the police or whatever, right?

So, if he can do all that, again, this isn't an issue of 2nd amendment rights, is it?
It is an issue of police bias.

Are you surprised that the treatment by police was so starkly different? I was not. But I have also already seen other videos of how differently white and black gun bearers are treated by police. It's pretty dang typical.

I am generally surprised, but who isn't surprised by things that are foreign to them. But, yes, I am quite aware of the bias that exists. However, I am also aware of how people can exploit this issue (see the OP) and see other issues in play.

What I would like to see is a comparison using the same officer, the same place, the same time, and the same appearance. Which is largely impossible, probably.
I've been told to talk to black folks about racism and their experience, and the people I have talked to aren't treated like this, but I know others are. However, the ones I talk to have a different dress, attitude, and demeanor than the other ones, who dress, act, and think very differently. (after all, there is a reason I don't talk to them LOL)

I'd also like to know of any times blacks are not hassled, or whites are. I get that there is a disparity, but people love to misrepresent things all the time (see: police deaths). Assume there were reports of a man with his discription firing shots in a city park, the police's actions would be wholly justified, right? And, I highly doubt this information would be made public by these advocates. (not saying this happened, which is doubtful, but do we even know if this is the same part of the city, and, to be fair, it's not like there has been police being shot at of late)


I agree that the issue is not one of Constitutional rights but of inevitable flaws in law enforcement. But even that distinction is merely academic. If you get arrested, detained, and later released every time you excercise your rights, do you really have the same rights as those who merely get questioned for a few minutes?

The same rights? Yes. Even if it is academic it must still be framed as such, since the only reason there is this distinction is due to specific law enforcement (personnel or policy). Being stopped and questioned is still not a right to bear arms, and is considered detainment by many. I get what you are saying, and the effect is notable, but saying they have no rights is too far a stretch. It would be like me saying I don't have the right to speech because I use a megaphone at a bus station or get beat up for what I say.

You are being unclear here and have the appearance of being contradictory, and it is the second time you have phrased the issue this way-- you say that "being stopped and questioned is still not a right to bear arms" and in the very next sentence you say "... but saying they [presumably black people] have no rights is too far of a stretch." (Although that is not what I am saying)

So, I really cannot tell what you are saying with this second time you have stated an apparent contradiction regarding rights.

I will clarify what I am saying: black people have the same rights as everyone else on paper but not in practice. I cannot put it any simpler than that. It sounds simple enough, but an alarmingly large number of people in the US refuse to concede even that much.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 3:35:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 3:27:56 PM, Fly wrote:

You are being unclear here and have the appearance of being contradictory, and it is the second time you have phrased the issue this way-- you say that "being stopped and questioned is still not a right to bear arms" and in the very next sentence you say "... but saying they [presumably black people] have no rights is too far of a stretch." (Although that is not what I am saying)

So, I really cannot tell what you are saying with this second time you have stated an apparent contradiction regarding rights.

I will clarify what I am saying: black people have the same rights as everyone else on paper but not in practice. I cannot put it any simpler than that. It sounds simple enough, but an alarmingly large number of people in the US refuse to concede even that much.

I'm sorry. I'm at work, and I have to leave my thoughts constantly.
What I am trying to say is that I agree that the effects are different, but I don't like the phrasing of "not having the same rights". The effect of the disparity is important to note, but it isn't the same as not having a right. The consequences of exercising said right is different, and that is the way it should be phrased.
A convicted felon has no right to own a gun. That is a lack of a right.
Better?
My work here is, finally, done.
Fly
Posts: 2,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 3:50:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 3:35:16 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/12/2015 3:27:56 PM, Fly wrote:

You are being unclear here and have the appearance of being contradictory, and it is the second time you have phrased the issue this way-- you say that "being stopped and questioned is still not a right to bear arms" and in the very next sentence you say "... but saying they [presumably black people] have no rights is too far of a stretch." (Although that is not what I am saying)

So, I really cannot tell what you are saying with this second time you have stated an apparent contradiction regarding rights.

I will clarify what I am saying: black people have the same rights as everyone else on paper but not in practice. I cannot put it any simpler than that. It sounds simple enough, but an alarmingly large number of people in the US refuse to concede even that much.

I'm sorry. I'm at work, and I have to leave my thoughts constantly.
What I am trying to say is that I agree that the effects are different, but I don't like the phrasing of "not having the same rights". The effect of the disparity is important to note, but it isn't the same as not having a right. The consequences of exercising said right is different, and that is the way it should be phrased.
A convicted felon has no right to own a gun. That is a lack of a right.
Better?

That much is easily agreed upon. But rights and the free exercise of those rights are not at all that simple. For example, let's say that the government (at any level, really, it doesn't matter) decided to impose a very high tax on ammunition-- say 100% to make it easy-- essentially doubling the price of ammunition. Do you still have your 2nd amendment rights? From what you have stated here, I can presume that you would say yes outright (if you are being consistent). But I would put a large amount of money on an attorney for the NRA or whatever arguing quite convincingly that government doubling the cost of operating a firearm constitutes abridgment of 2nd amendment rights.

The point being that such things are not as simple as they seem-- which is why we have attorneys. We love to disparage them until we actually need one to stand up for our interests.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 4:23:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 3:50:28 PM, Fly wrote:
At 8/12/2015 3:35:16 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/12/2015 3:27:56 PM, Fly wrote:

You are being unclear here and have the appearance of being contradictory, and it is the second time you have phrased the issue this way-- you say that "being stopped and questioned is still not a right to bear arms" and in the very next sentence you say "... but saying they [presumably black people] have no rights is too far of a stretch." (Although that is not what I am saying)

So, I really cannot tell what you are saying with this second time you have stated an apparent contradiction regarding rights.

I will clarify what I am saying: black people have the same rights as everyone else on paper but not in practice. I cannot put it any simpler than that. It sounds simple enough, but an alarmingly large number of people in the US refuse to concede even that much.

I'm sorry. I'm at work, and I have to leave my thoughts constantly.
What I am trying to say is that I agree that the effects are different, but I don't like the phrasing of "not having the same rights". The effect of the disparity is important to note, but it isn't the same as not having a right. The consequences of exercising said right is different, and that is the way it should be phrased.
A convicted felon has no right to own a gun. That is a lack of a right.
Better?

That much is easily agreed upon. But rights and the free exercise of those rights are not at all that simple.
I never said they were, but neither is bias or discrimination, either.

For example, let's say that the government (at any level, really, it doesn't matter) decided to impose a very high tax on ammunition-- say 100% to make it easy-- essentially doubling the price of ammunition. Do you still have your 2nd amendment rights? From what you have stated here, I can presume that you would say yes outright (if you are being consistent). But I would put a large amount of money on an attorney for the NRA or whatever arguing quite convincingly that government doubling the cost of operating a firearm constitutes abridgment of 2nd amendment rights.

That's a good bet, but this is a poor example.
In your example, exercising said right is compromised before it can be exercised (i.e. purchasing ammunition), while in this case, the right is compromised as a direct result of exercising it. I'd say the latter is actually worse, since it shows government doesn't care, which means the law is meaningless.

A right existing and being ignored is a very dangerous and serious issue, and should not be lumped with a right not existing at all.


The point being that such things are not as simple as they seem-- which is why we have attorneys. We love to disparage them until we actually need one to stand up for our interests.
True that.
My work here is, finally, done.
Fly
Posts: 2,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 4:46:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 4:23:09 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/12/2015 3:50:28 PM, Fly wrote:
At 8/12/2015 3:35:16 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/12/2015 3:27:56 PM, Fly wrote:

You are being unclear here and have the appearance of being contradictory, and it is the second time you have phrased the issue this way-- you say that "being stopped and questioned is still not a right to bear arms" and in the very next sentence you say "... but saying they [presumably black people] have no rights is too far of a stretch." (Although that is not what I am saying)

So, I really cannot tell what you are saying with this second time you have stated an apparent contradiction regarding rights.

I will clarify what I am saying: black people have the same rights as everyone else on paper but not in practice. I cannot put it any simpler than that. It sounds simple enough, but an alarmingly large number of people in the US refuse to concede even that much.

I'm sorry. I'm at work, and I have to leave my thoughts constantly.
What I am trying to say is that I agree that the effects are different, but I don't like the phrasing of "not having the same rights". The effect of the disparity is important to note, but it isn't the same as not having a right. The consequences of exercising said right is different, and that is the way it should be phrased.
A convicted felon has no right to own a gun. That is a lack of a right.
Better?

That much is easily agreed upon. But rights and the free exercise of those rights are not at all that simple.
I never said they were, but neither is bias or discrimination, either.

For example, let's say that the government (at any level, really, it doesn't matter) decided to impose a very high tax on ammunition-- say 100% to make it easy-- essentially doubling the price of ammunition. Do you still have your 2nd amendment rights? From what you have stated here, I can presume that you would say yes outright (if you are being consistent). But I would put a large amount of money on an attorney for the NRA or whatever arguing quite convincingly that government doubling the cost of operating a firearm constitutes abridgment of 2nd amendment rights.

That's a good bet, but this is a poor example.
In your example, exercising said right is compromised before it can be exercised (i.e. purchasing ammunition), while in this case, the right is compromised as a direct result of exercising it. I'd say the latter is actually worse, since it shows government doesn't care, which means the law is meaningless.

A right existing and being ignored is a very dangerous and serious issue, and should not be lumped with a right not existing at all.

You seem to overlook the fact that at the outset here, you were claiming the opposite-- that the black person's rights were not being compromised-- under the reasoning that he was supposedly released eventually and reunited with his firearm.

The good news is that now, you have reversed your position and acknowledge that the free exercise of his rights were de facto compromised by undue harrassment and detention by law enforcement.

I should note the date of this occurring...

I cannot resist noting now that the Constitution does not guarantee the unrestricted right to open carry, but that is a WHOLE other can of worms...


The point being that such things are not as simple as they seem-- which is why we have attorneys. We love to disparage them until we actually need one to stand up for our interests.
True that.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 5:02:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 4:46:08 PM, Fly wrote:

You seem to overlook the fact that at the outset here, you were claiming the opposite-- that the black person's rights were not being compromised-- under the reasoning that he was supposedly released eventually and reunited with his firearm.

The good news is that now, you have reversed your position and acknowledge that the free exercise of his rights were de facto compromised by undue harrassment and detention by law enforcement.
When you highlighted what I wrote, I can see why you would think that, but my position has not reversed. The exercise of his rights were compromised, or rather, by exercising them freely there was an undue penalty (legally at that).
My point is that I don't like the phrasing of "no rights" or "less rights" in this context, because the right is very much there, which is why it is an issue, just that the consequence is different, and it shouldn't be (or have a damn good reason), and more importantly, the solution to the problem isn't an issue of law, but of law enforcement.
No right requires a law to rectify. Unequal enforcement of law (i.e. undue compromise of free exercise of right) requires policy, training, or discipline. This is the distinction I was trying to make.

I should note the date of this occurring...
Not sure why, but okay :/

I cannot resist noting now that the Constitution does not guarantee the unrestricted right to open carry, but that is a WHOLE other can of worms...
Very much so, but, again, let's find someone to take that bet on the NRA lawyer.
My work here is, finally, done.
Lexus
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 5:13:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 1:38:38 PM, Fly wrote:
At 8/12/2015 1:05:15 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
Do they apply to all citizens?

https://www.youtube.com...

I once read an article about a (white) man who open carried an AR-15 into an airport. It happened to be legal in that city-- can't remember which one. People were scared, and the police constantly harrassed him, and he insisted that all was legal. I considered making a thread over the issue of where the law and law enforcement collide when it comes to open carry.

Harassing someone for carrying a gun into an airport isn't the colliding of law and law enforcement, it's trying to keep people safe. Seriously, do you think that harassing someone for carrying a gun into an airport goes against open carry :u
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 5:16:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 5:13:30 PM, Lexus wrote:
At 8/12/2015 1:38:38 PM, Fly wrote:
At 8/12/2015 1:05:15 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
Do they apply to all citizens?

https://www.youtube.com...

I once read an article about a (white) man who open carried an AR-15 into an airport. It happened to be legal in that city-- can't remember which one. People were scared, and the police constantly harrassed him, and he insisted that all was legal. I considered making a thread over the issue of where the law and law enforcement collide when it comes to open carry.

Harassing someone for carrying a gun into an airport isn't the colliding of law and law enforcement, it's trying to keep people safe. Seriously, do you think that harassing someone for carrying a gun into an airport goes against open carry :u

Actually, I do, if the airport is public.
My work here is, finally, done.
Fly
Posts: 2,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 5:27:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 5:02:05 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/12/2015 4:46:08 PM, Fly wrote:

You seem to overlook the fact that at the outset here, you were claiming the opposite-- that the black person's rights were not being compromised-- under the reasoning that he was supposedly released eventually and reunited with his firearm.

The good news is that now, you have reversed your position and acknowledge that the free exercise of his rights were de facto compromised by undue harrassment and detention by law enforcement.
When you highlighted what I wrote, I can see why you would think that, but my position has not reversed. The exercise of his rights were compromised, or rather, by exercising them freely there was an undue penalty (legally at that).
My point is that I don't like the phrasing of "no rights" or "less rights" in this context, because the right is very much there, which is why it is an issue, just that the consequence is different, and it shouldn't be (or have a damn good reason), and more importantly, the solution to the problem isn't an issue of law, but of law enforcement.
No right requires a law to rectify. Unequal enforcement of law (i.e. undue compromise of free exercise of right) requires policy, training, or discipline. This is the distinction I was trying to make.

Now, you have lost me again. No one is saying that a new law needs to be enacted to "rectify a right." I also do not see how you did not reverse your initial position (rights not being compromised) given your last post about rights being compromised.

Perhaps we need to agree to not knowing whether we agree or disagree here? That would be a first...

I should note the date of this occurring...
Not sure why, but okay :/

Well, it would have been the first time that my line of argument caused someone online to reverse their position. But, according to you, that still has not happened, so I feel as if I am in "The Twilight Zone" with your argument currently...

I cannot resist noting now that the Constitution does not guarantee the unrestricted right to open carry, but that is a WHOLE other can of worms...
Very much so, but, again, let's find someone to take that bet on the NRA lawyer.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Fly
Posts: 2,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 5:35:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 5:13:30 PM, Lexus wrote:
At 8/12/2015 1:38:38 PM, Fly wrote:
At 8/12/2015 1:05:15 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
Do they apply to all citizens?

https://www.youtube.com...

I once read an article about a (white) man who open carried an AR-15 into an airport. It happened to be legal in that city-- can't remember which one. People were scared, and the police constantly harrassed him, and he insisted that all was legal. I considered making a thread over the issue of where the law and law enforcement collide when it comes to open carry.

Harassing someone for carrying a gun into an airport isn't the colliding of law and law enforcement, it's trying to keep people safe. Seriously, do you think that harassing someone for carrying a gun into an airport goes against open carry :u

Um... when law enforcement feels compelled by the public in the name of public safety (which was the case in this particular situation) to detain a citizen for performing a completely lawful act, that IS a collision between law and law enforcement.

Please don't make me exemplify any number of the infinitely many reductio ad absurdums that opposing this concept would invite...
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 5:42:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 5:27:10 PM, Fly wrote:
At 8/12/2015 5:02:05 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/12/2015 4:46:08 PM, Fly wrote:

You seem to overlook the fact that at the outset here, you were claiming the opposite-- that the black person's rights were not being compromised-- under the reasoning that he was supposedly released eventually and reunited with his firearm.

The good news is that now, you have reversed your position and acknowledge that the free exercise of his rights were de facto compromised by undue harrassment and detention by law enforcement.
When you highlighted what I wrote, I can see why you would think that, but my position has not reversed. The exercise of his rights were compromised, or rather, by exercising them freely there was an undue penalty (legally at that).
My point is that I don't like the phrasing of "no rights" or "less rights" in this context, because the right is very much there, which is why it is an issue, just that the consequence is different, and it shouldn't be (or have a damn good reason), and more importantly, the solution to the problem isn't an issue of law, but of law enforcement.
No right requires a law to rectify. Unequal enforcement of law (i.e. undue compromise of free exercise of right) requires policy, training, or discipline. This is the distinction I was trying to make.

Now, you have lost me again. No one is saying that a new law needs to be enacted to "rectify a right." I also do not see how you did not reverse your initial position (rights not being compromised) given your last post about rights being compromised.

Perhaps we need to agree to not knowing whether we agree or disagree here? That would be a first...
ARGH!!!
Why can I not communicate my thoughts?!?
I would say we are in agreement, I think I am trying to highlight a very nuanced issue perhaps. I don't think it largely matters. We both agree that the disparity is an issue, the disparity is in the treatment/reaction/consequences in exercising a lawful act, and I think the issue is just how we label it.

I should note the date of this occurring...
Not sure why, but okay :/

Well, it would have been the first time that my line of argument caused someone online to reverse their position. But, according to you, that still has not happened, so I feel as if I am in "The Twilight Zone" with your argument currently...

Mark it down if you wish. You made me realize my communication skills suck. LOL
My work here is, finally, done.
Lexus
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 5:58:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 5:35:22 PM, Fly wrote:
At 8/12/2015 5:13:30 PM, Lexus wrote:
At 8/12/2015 1:38:38 PM, Fly wrote:
At 8/12/2015 1:05:15 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
Do they apply to all citizens?

https://www.youtube.com...

I once read an article about a (white) man who open carried an AR-15 into an airport. It happened to be legal in that city-- can't remember which one. People were scared, and the police constantly harrassed him, and he insisted that all was legal. I considered making a thread over the issue of where the law and law enforcement collide when it comes to open carry.

Harassing someone for carrying a gun into an airport isn't the colliding of law and law enforcement, it's trying to keep people safe. Seriously, do you think that harassing someone for carrying a gun into an airport goes against open carry :u

Um... when law enforcement feels compelled by the public in the name of public safety (which was the case in this particular situation) to detain a citizen for performing a completely lawful act, that IS a collision between law and law enforcement.

Please don't make me exemplify any number of the infinitely many reductio ad absurdums that opposing this concept would invite...

Asking someone why they are carrying a gun into an airport isn't detaining them. But you haven't provided the full story for us all to know the context
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 6:06:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 5:58:09 PM, Lexus wrote:

Asking someone why they are carrying a gun into an airport isn't detaining them. But you haven't provided the full story for us all to know the context

Not being allowed to leave by law enforcement is considered detainment, otherwise, this lawsuit couldn't have happened, and a/the supreme court wouldn't have ruled on it.
http://www.tampabay.com...

The legal gray area is what constitutes detainment.
My work here is, finally, done.
Fly
Posts: 2,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 6:10:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 5:58:09 PM, Lexus wrote:
At 8/12/2015 5:35:22 PM, Fly wrote:
At 8/12/2015 5:13:30 PM, Lexus wrote:
At 8/12/2015 1:38:38 PM, Fly wrote:
At 8/12/2015 1:05:15 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
Do they apply to all citizens?

https://www.youtube.com...

I once read an article about a (white) man who open carried an AR-15 into an airport. It happened to be legal in that city-- can't remember which one. People were scared, and the police constantly harrassed him, and he insisted that all was legal. I considered making a thread over the issue of where the law and law enforcement collide when it comes to open carry.

Harassing someone for carrying a gun into an airport isn't the colliding of law and law enforcement, it's trying to keep people safe. Seriously, do you think that harassing someone for carrying a gun into an airport goes against open carry :u

Um... when law enforcement feels compelled by the public in the name of public safety (which was the case in this particular situation) to detain a citizen for performing a completely lawful act, that IS a collision between law and law enforcement.

Please don't make me exemplify any number of the infinitely many reductio ad absurdums that opposing this concept would invite...

Asking someone why they are carrying a gun into an airport isn't detaining them. But you haven't provided the full story for us all to know the context

"Detention" is one of those $60,000 words when it comes to law enforcement. Here is the Christian Science Moniter's coverage of the incident:

http://www.csmonitor.com...

There are many more if you Google it.

What some people (like the open carry guy) don't realize is that by pushing a law to its limits, one exposes not only the law's limits but its flaws. And if it is a law you like, you DON'T want to expose its flaws for all to see. In firearms lingo, that's a backfire.

They are under the mistaken notion that a privilege (open carry anywhere) must be exercised frequently in order to be kept viable.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Fly
Posts: 2,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 6:12:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
rather, *detainment* than "detention."
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 6:15:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 6:10:26 PM, Fly wrote:

They are under the mistaken notion that a privilege (open carry anywhere) must be exercised frequently in order to be kept viable.

I assumed it was more of a frequent exercise to condition people to not be "AH!!! A GUN!!! Run away!"
My work here is, finally, done.
Fly
Posts: 2,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 6:21:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 6:15:58 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/12/2015 6:10:26 PM, Fly wrote:

They are under the mistaken notion that a privilege (open carry anywhere) must be exercised frequently in order to be kept viable.

I assumed it was more of a frequent exercise to condition people to not be "AH!!! A GUN!!! Run away!"

Oh, I'm sure it's both concurrently. But it is backfiring on them. Rather, it makes it look as though the citizens with the most lethal weaponry are lacking in reasonableness and good judgment. Not good PR...
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
jnedwards11
Posts: 352
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 7:01:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 1:05:15 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
Do they apply to all citizens?

https://www.youtube.com...

Yes,

Look up YouTube videos of white people open carrying ARs and being unduly harressed. The fact is, open carrying a rifle that has such a public stigma is likely to result in incidents like the one in this video. Without a pre-stated purpose, or obvious intention, that practice is just scarey to the ignorant.

I have to wonder how many of the commenters here have ever even seen a black person open carry, or any resulting incident from that experience. I would bet the latter has likely never been seen by anyone here, and the former is probably infrequent at best. Conservatively I see a black person who is open carrying a firearm at least once a month. I have NEVER EVER seen a Richmond police officer respond to that practice with anything less than aplomb.

Really make me wonder if these comments are based on any actual real insight, or just a desire to be part of the cool crowd