Bob Levy article on Parker

Glad to see him get the column inches. He deserves to be heard. Also, it's true that the Slimes readership isn't what it used to be, and based on this and other occasional voices of editorial sanity which are now being published, they must be very afraid they will go under.

"What restrictions on gun possession and use would be permissible? Almost no one argues that 2nd Amendment rights are absolute. After all, under the 1st Amendment, the right to free speech does not protect disturbing the peace; religious freedom does not shield human sacrifice."-Levy

Let's examine that statement. In answer to the first sentence which is a question, the answer is "NONE" that is what "...shall not be infringed." means.

Then it is followed with a non-sequitir as logical reasoning used as justification for infringements which are not allowed. The subject was changed from the exercise of rights which are guaranteed by our constitution to the commission of crimes which is not. That shift in the dialogue works only on the stupid. Unfortunately, there are many more of them than the intelligent.

Since the exercise of rights and the commission of crimes are not even peripherally related that makes this argument as justification for denial of rights invalid. No sane man can see it any other way.

However, for the sake of argument let's assume that fraudulent argument has merit. Can it not also apply to the second amendment? Of course it can.

To paraphrase: "............... After all, under the 1st Amendment, the right to free speech does not protect disturbing the peace; religious freedom does not shield human sacrifice." Let's change it to read ".........
After all, under the second amendment, the right to keep and bear arms does not protect murder, robbery, or unwarranted harm to others."

Isn't that statement just as true? Yes. So, even granting faux legitimacy to their own argument, only reaffirms the fact that rights cannot be restricted. Criminal acts can be and should be, but rights cannot be restricted in expectation of abuse.

They lose this debate any time they engage someone with the presence of mind to point this out.

We lose the debate through surrender when we stand there in dumb silence because we have not done our mental homework and don't call them on the falsity of their argument, nor point out that even if that argument were legitimate it speaks for us, not them.

Shame on people on our side who are only irritable about this issue, but too lazy or too afraid of ridicule to think it through and fight the damn fight.

There is not a defensible reason to be only irritable, we should be enraged enough to call them out.

Now, I do believe Levy believes he is friendly to the second amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights. Everything he has said and spoken and written leads one to believe so. However, his granting of legitimacy to tactical assertions in the example he uses of the talking points regarding the first amendment, suggests he has been Stockholmed, at least, partially and is identifying, somewhat, with the other side. He has tried to advance his viewpoint by granting legitimacy to a false argument in order to appear "reasonable".

I think perhaps he should reassess his premise. That one does not hold true.

Well, I wish what you say were the case SA, but that's just not the real world. I'd personally be happy to get strict scrutiny, much like the First Amendment. His premise is consistent with our legal history, and yours is, not. Rights aren't absolute.

I concur with RKV. A literal interpretation of the Constitution makes for a fine and dandy academic discussion, but if you start making the argument publicly, you'll be dismissed as just another gun nut.

You can't expect the courts, special interest groups or even the public to stomach an unrestricted right to do anything - yell fire in a crowded theater or possess a weapon of mass destruction.

The Second Amendment has long been the bastard stepchild of the Bill of Rights. The most realistic best-case scenario is that the Supremes put it on equal footing with the First Amendment.

There are reasonable restrictions on 2A even if we repeal all gun control laws.

They are the same sort that apply to 1A---usage of the right to inflict harm.

"You can't expect the courts, special interest groups or even the public to stomach an unrestricted right to do anything - yell fire in a crowded theater or possess a weapon of mass destruction."-Assman

I am so tired of this false argument. O.W. Holmes was wrong. You not only can yell "fire" in a crowded theater but have a duty to do so if the theater is on fire.

I think Mr. Holmes was wrong in his assumption that the average citizen was smart enough to know that. And further, to know that yelling "fire" in a crowded theater when there was no fire was an abuse of first amendment rights, which infringes the rights and physical security of others. He assumed that average Joe would know his intent in that statement. He was wrong, evidence your comment.

Yet, no one would suggest you register your vocabulary, or get a permit to use it, or have your tongue cut out so you couldn't yell fire in a crowded theater. First amendment rights as are all the others absolute. Abuse of them is punishable and should be, but only after the abuse has occurred.

But since you believe that rights are not absolute, I forbid you to reply to this comment, just in case you are going to say something that would be a tort, misdemeanor, crime or just unpopular.

You can have no legitimate argument with my directive that you remain silent, without belying your philosphy that responsible exercise of rights may be regulated prior to the exercise of them.

Further, while rights are absolute, the abuse of them, is not the exercise of a right. The exercise of my rights means I cannot infringe yours. It doesn't mean you get to tell me beforehand that I cannot exercise them because you think I might do something harmful. If I do something harmful to others unjustifiably, then I have committed a crime, not exercised a right.

You need some serious comprehension rehabilitation.

I think we actually agree, StraightArrow. It's just that you have redefined the terms of the argument. How can one "abuse" an absolute right? By the very term, "abuse" indicates that the right is NOT absolute.

That was exactly my point. Once abuse occurs by incursion into the rights of another, it is by definition, not a right that is being exercised, but a prohibited behavior that is being exercised. Up until that point a right is absolute.

Prior restraint of a right for what somebody maybe might possibly do makes it no right at all. Prior restraint of those not involved in crime, abuse of others,,etc. because of something someone else did also nullifies that right to something of lesser stature.

I have an absolute right to carry any arms I deem appropriate to my use. I do not have a right to violate others with the accouterments of my right or to use them in any manner restrictive of the rights of others. Others are likewise restrained.

An absolute right does not confer immunity from the consequences of misdeeds. We are not at all on the same page on this, because you believe that prior restraint of the exercise of a right for acts not committed are acceptable. It is not.

A misdeed masquerading as the exercise of rights is a refuge of the hypocritical. The use of the argument that misdeeds, so masquerading is the same as exercise of a right, and therefore rights may be restricted is also a hallmark of the hypocritical. Though done for different purposes, both are equally wrong and immoral.

Even allowing for our rights to be absolute, our liberty cannot be absolute in a free society. I am not at liberty to use my rights to infringe upon yours, ergo my rights must be respectful of your rights and vice versa. That does not mean I don't have absolute rights. It does mean I do not have absolute liberty. My liberty extends only as far as, but not beyond, your rights, again with the vice versa. That is as much liberty as is possible to maintain in viable and mostly free society.

You are confusing the issues of total liberty to do anything one wishes regardless of the rights of others, with the assumption that because certain behaviors are prohibited by law and morality, rights therefore cannot be absolute. They are.

It is behaviors we, as a society, have the right and the just power to limit. We do not have the right, as a society, to limit the exercise of individual rights absent those prohibited behaviors. Assuming of course, that "prohibited behaviors" equates to abuse of others and their rights. Any lowering of that bar nullifies all rights for all people.

Oh, and by the way, your right to express a further opinion on this issue was restricted. Remember?

You do not have an absolute right to free expression.

I see you pretty much thought that invalid. Why?

Because you have no power over me.