07-14-2014 07:46 AM
4,617 ... 148149150151152 ...
tools
  1. Scott7217's Avatar
    I would take a right to internet to be more valuable in the context of a free and open internet, free from government censorship and/or the abuse of information that traverses the web. We don't currently allow the government to open and read every letter we send via the post office, so why is that okay with e-mail?
    The right to the internet might already fall under the existing rights to free speech, free press, and peaceful assembly. Having the government read people's email without their consent might violate their right to freedom from unreasonable searches.
    11-14-2013 08:43 PM
  2. Aquila's Avatar
    The right to the internet might already fall under the existing rights to free speech, free press, and peaceful assembly. Having the government read people's email without their consent might violate their right to freedom from unreasonable searches.
    Oh, it undoubtably does... at least in the minds of most people. Those doing the surveilance seem to think they're either exempt from the restrictions (due to needs granting higher authority) or that what they are doing does fit within the Constitution.
    11-14-2013 08:46 PM
  3. NoYankees44's Avatar
    It'd be an interesting but short argument to make. Typically suits are aimed at those that willfully cause damages, not those that try to prevent it and are unsuccessful because of the unlawful actions of others. It'd be the same thing as if someone stole your car and ran someone over. You're not at fault for the car accident and attendant injuries, even if you locked your car to prevent theft.
    I would actually say that one could make a winnable suit. It would be an up hill battle, but I could see it happening. They would just have to prove some reasonable necessity for having to shop there. Weaker cases have been made and won.

    The only real issue would be the fact that you are not required to shop there. You CHOOSE to forfeit the right to protect yourself when you enter the property. You choose to make yourself helpless. No one forces it upon you. If you want to be able to protect yourself, you are free to shop in a place that allows you too.
    11-14-2013 09:30 PM
  4. Aquila's Avatar
    I would actually say that one could make a winnable suit. It would be an up hill battle, but I could see it happening. They would just have to prove some reasonable necessity for having to shop there. Weaker cases have been made and won.

    The only real issue would be the fact that you are not required to shop there. You CHOOSE to forfeit the right to protect yourself when you enter the property. You choose to make yourself helpless. No one forces it upon you. If you want to be able to protect yourself, you are free to shop in a place that allows you too.
    That's exactly what some people do. They boycot businesses unfriendly to CCW and support those that want their business. The store can't be responsible for your choices, nor for the actions of those that choose to break the law (brandishing and/or assult and/or robbery and/or homicide) and/or rules of their establishment. It's seriously exactly like filing suit against the city or state because someone chooses to speed in their personal vehicle on a city or state owned road. That makes literally no sense.
    11-14-2013 09:46 PM
  5. NoYankees44's Avatar
    Making a good or service(internet) a right is quite frankly stupid. The Constitution is there to guarantee life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Not electricity or food. It has a much higher meaning. A more profound and important purpose. The Constitution(really more the bill of rights) is there to protect opportunity. Not success or specific benefits. It is there to make sure opportunity is not taken away, not that opportunity will necessarily be there, but to guarantee that no one can actively take it away from anyone else. That any living person can succeed with the right conditions and effort. To associate something as frivolous and petty as Internet access with this would destroy any ideals this country has left.

    Now the something along the lines of guaranteeing the right to information would be a great idea. Making sure the Internet stays open and free(as in no rules, not no cost to provide). Making sure that anyone can make a website that anyone else can view. That Internet providers can never limit what sites you go to or force their own ads on other people's site.

    I would actually argue that this is part of freedom of speech already...
    gamefreak715 likes this.
    11-14-2013 09:47 PM
  6. Scott7217's Avatar
    I would actually argue that this is part of freedom of speech already...
    I would agree that freedom of speech already covers the internet. If we're going to add something to the Constitution, we need to add something new. At the very least, we need to clarify what it means to say we have the right to the internet.

    Posted via Android Central App
    11-15-2013 02:29 AM
  7. Scott7217's Avatar
    The only real issue would be the fact that you are not required to shop there. You CHOOSE to forfeit the right to protect yourself when you enter the property. You choose to make yourself helpless. No one forces it upon you. If you want to be able to protect yourself, you are free to shop in a place that allows you too.
    You bring up a good point about choice. Can we expand that concept from a single shopping mall to an entire state? If I don't like the laws in my state, couldn't I simply move to another state with more favorable weapon laws?
    11-15-2013 03:02 AM
  8. NoYankees44's Avatar
    You bring up a good point about choice. Can we expand that concept from a single shopping mall to an entire state? If I don't like the laws in my state, couldn't I simply move to another state with more favorable weapon laws?
    I is already more or less like that, but they you get into public property. You technically own the property, and there can arguably be a much harder time taking your rights away. Plus it is a lot easier to argue that you cannot move States.
    11-15-2013 05:35 AM
  9. Aquila's Avatar
    You bring up a good point about choice. Can we expand that concept from a single shopping mall to an entire state? If I don't like the laws in my state, couldn't I simply move to another state with more favorable weapon laws?
    A business, being private property, has much more strength to property rights arguments than a government does. The State government must follow the US Constitution, while private owners can have rules on their own property which, so long as they do not directly violate any laws, can be more restrictive.

    Such as the freedom to speech: As a US Citizen you have it, and the government ought not be able to pass laws to restrict it (other than for public safety, fire in a theatre, etc), and their agents should not try to repress your speech. However, on a website, say such as The Verge, they have the right to edit, delete, use, highlight, etc your comments or blog submissions at their discretion. You have no right to free speech on their private site.

    Often the states do have laws more restrictive on firearm control than federal laws, and they can be Constitutionally challenged if residents feel they are too restrictive. In that case, leaving is not your only course of action.
    11-15-2013 05:47 AM
  10. alexlam24's Avatar
    The more you restrict a freedom, the more successful terrorists will be. Eventually they'll make you scared into banning everything.

    Sent from Samsung Z1 GPE on T-Mobile
    mrsmumbles likes this.
    11-15-2013 06:48 AM
  11. JW4VZW's Avatar
    I'm sure they would. The free option would need to be fast enough to be usable, but not so fast as to kill the market. I think basic dsl is like 768k down right?

    Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk
    I hope they would continue the buildout. That sounds about right, but I am not 100% sure.

    - - - Updated - - -

    I would take a right to internet to be more valuable in the context of a free and open internet, free from government censorship and/or the abuse of information that traverses the web. We don't currently allow the government to open and read every letter we send via the post office, so why is that okay with e-mail? Why do a small handful of companies get to bribe the Congress to pass laws restricting the free flow of information and ideas? Sure, having a connection is great, if it's "free", okay... not sure about that part, but if the web is being locked up and kept tidy by the Feds, I'm not sure there's a need to be on it.
    I would be asking what the catch is!
    11-17-2013 01:02 PM
  12. llamabreath's Avatar
    I would agree that freedom of speech already covers the internet. If we're going to add something to the Constitution, we need to add something new. At the very least, we need to clarify what it means to say we have the right to the internet.

    Posted via Android Central App
    I think that firstly, we need to clearly define what a 'Right' is.

    Not entirely directing this post to you, Scott (even though I included your post), but this has to be answered before anyone can say anything (imo).



    (⊙_⊙)
    Scott7217 likes this.
    11-17-2013 01:47 PM
  13. Aquila's Avatar
    I think Thomas Paine did a great job of explaining it.

    XT1060. Through spacetime.
    gamefreak715 likes this.
    11-17-2013 02:54 PM
  14. Tall Mike 2145's Avatar
    As I recollect, John Locke -- the British radical from who's writings much of the concept of the U.S. Constitution comes -- also had right to privacy and I think one or two others which I cannot manage to think of at the moment.

    I agree with the prior comment that no "right" is a good one to grant that inherently infringes on someone else or their rights. So, for instance, the right to indiscriminately kill anyone you want would interfere with right to life (definitely), liberty (probably), pursuit of happiness (obviously), privacy (possibly), etc.

    I'm not so much into re-writing the Constitution so that it is a never-ending litany of rights. I'd rather it define a philosophy which says certain fundamental things are important (life, liberty, property, privacy, pursuit of happiness, etc.) and defend against all acts that impinge against them. That would be a much cleaner and, I believe, more elegant solution to the problem.

    Of course, the other thing I would just kill to have would be a Constitution which after every important point had documentation -- kind of the same idea of documenting your source code -- such that:

    • The reasons why it was written are stated;
    • The assumptions made by the authors are stated;
    • What was intended is stated.

    In this way, not so much to just get rid of lawyers, but anyone with a decent education and basic intelligence could pick up the Constitution -- oh, and one thing I'd definitely put in the Constitution is the requirement that all laws must be written and documented in this way -- or any Federal statute and be able to understand anything he or she wanted or needed to.

    I'd also structure the Constitution kind of a bit like GNU/Linux (or UNIX-type OSs in general) that you have the kernel which sits in its own protected space, and cannot be touched. You then surround it with a layer that can be modified, but only in very restricted ways and with extremely great effort, and then a layer which can be modified in the way we are presently familiar. And I'd put the core stuff like our essential liberties, and right to due process, etc., in that cannot-be-modified core section of the Constitution. Things which should really not be modified but could possibly need to be modified under extreme circumstances, or in reaction to a radically different world than exists and could be envisioned, like elements of the separation of powers or commerce clause, etc., could be put there. For example, technically the FAA tramples on the airspace and overflight rights of the individual States, but nobody in their right mind would want 50 different SAAs telling pilots how to fly, and plane manufacturers how to build aircraft. So that is something the framers couldn't have imagined and therefore is sort of an exception to States Rights.
    Scott7217 likes this.
    11-18-2013 01:54 AM
  15. Scott7217's Avatar
    I is already more or less like that, but they you get into public property. You technically own the property, and there can arguably be a much harder time taking your rights away.
    So, in theory, could all the supermarkets (for example) in a state ban all weapons? People would have to either disarm before grocery shopping or go to another state to buy food. Obviously, this is an extreme example, but I'm curious to see if such a ban would hold up in court.
    11-18-2013 10:55 PM
  16. Scott7217's Avatar
    I think that firstly, we need to clearly define what a 'Right' is.
    Would a right simply be a freedom people are entitled to? Is there anything else we need to add? We can certainly expand that definition if necessary.
    11-18-2013 11:00 PM
  17. Mooncatt's Avatar
    To borrow from talk radio host Andrew Wilkow, I like the idea of your right to be free includes my right to be free from you.
    Scott7217 likes this.
    11-18-2013 11:27 PM
  18. plumbrich's Avatar
    Through my years of concealed carry, other than federal buildings police departments etc I would never encounter a business sign with "NO firearms allowed. Since the open carry laws in our state I have encountered a few. I remember when these laws were being passed I knew then some people would strap on their ole 45 front and center to draw attention to themselves and the new law. Some patrons of stores seeing a gun strapped to the side of an everyday Joe freaking out and complaining, then the stores attempt to calm these customers put up signs "No firearms allowed".

    I suspect an open carry person encountering a "No firearms allowed" sign going back to the vehicle and leaving it there are just leaving all together. I suspect someone with a cancelled carry permit and the gun is cancelled continuing on in and doing his or her shopping.

    As far as the legal issue of a private business banning firearms I don't know. If I had a business open to the public I would want my customers to have the right to protect themselves while there. Also if criminals know a large portion of my customers are armed my chances of getting robbed or having a mass shooting in my store are pretty much nil so it is a win, win for both of us.

    I don't have a problem with open carry, most of my problem is in the way some do it, not for protection but for the " look at what I can do factor." I choose to keep a CCW licenses and keep my gun concealed to not draw attention to myself because drawing attention to myself in a bad situation increases the odds of me or my family becoming a victim. On the other hand someone with an open carry gun may draw attention away from unarmed citizens giving them a chance to escape.
    11-19-2013 05:36 AM
  19. Aquila's Avatar
    To be fair, the most common businesses that do not allow firearms are giant stores like Target and Walmart, movie theaters, bars and restaurants. Oddly enough, I haven't seen signs banning them in bars in Iowa, but they were all over the place in Kansas City (MO).
    11-19-2013 05:55 AM
  20. palandri's Avatar
    So, in theory, could all the supermarkets (for example) in a state ban all weapons? People would have to either disarm before grocery shopping or go to another state to buy food. Obviously, this is an extreme example, but I'm curious to see if such a ban would hold up in court.
    It would hold up. There's been court cases dealing with stores restricting items brought into and going out of a store and they always go back to some old case where some court said something like, "An owners right to protect his own property on his own premises supersedes an individuals right ...???...??? (something)(something).
    11-19-2013 07:11 AM
  21. NoYankees44's Avatar
    So, in theory, could all the supermarkets (for example) in a state ban all weapons? People would have to either disarm before grocery shopping or go to another state to buy food. Obviously, this is an extreme example, but I'm curious to see if such a ban would hold up in court.
    It would be an interesting case, but i think that private property rights would trump in the end. The only reason it might go the other way is if every single store in a large area banned firearms. Then there may be some ground to stand on sense there would be no reasonable alternative to buying groceries(which is a necessity).

    For instance as i have already brought up new laws that allow loaded weapons to be in employees' cars at work, even if the property bans them. For most people, it was not reasonable to park somewhere else. Especially with security gates and such. While employees may not be able to defend themselves at work, they can now at least defend themselves to and from work where as before they could not.
    11-19-2013 07:45 AM
  22. msndrstood's Avatar
    If grocery stores in my area allowed open carry, I'd take my $10,000 a year business across the line to MD. Their loss, not mine. I don't need gun toting in my face at the local grocery store.

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    palandri likes this.
    11-19-2013 11:33 AM
  23. NoYankees44's Avatar
    If grocery stores in my area allowed open carry, I'd take my $10,000 a year business across the line to MD. Their loss, not mine. I don't need gun toting in my face at the local grocery store.

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    Just out of curiosity, would concealed carry be fine with you? More directly, is it seeing the weapons that bothers you, or them being present at all.
    11-19-2013 03:11 PM
  24. Scott7217's Avatar
    Here's the thing, I was in the military. Others who have posted in this thread were in the military.
    I've heard that on bases that are NOT in a combat area, military personnel are not allowed to carry firearms unless they are training or their day-to-day duties require them (e.g. military police). Is that true? If it is, it seems very odd to me. Everyone in the military is trained in the proper use of firearms, so they know how to handle them safely. I would have no problem with them carrying a sidearm at all times.

    Obviously, that changes if you're in combat. In that case, I would expect all military personnel to carry whatever weapons they have at all times.
    11-19-2013 04:05 PM
  25. msndrstood's Avatar
    Just out of curiosity, would concealed carry be fine with you? More directly, is it seeing the weapons that bothers you, or them being present at all.
    I don't like seeing them. If you want to conceal carry, that's one thing. For me, open carry is a means of intimidation. I don't want to go to the local store and be confronted with guns at every turn. My husband has his CCP, we have an assortment of firearms, and I do shoot. I just don't see the need to strap a gun on your hip to make a point.

    Plus, it scares the kids. Including my grandson, who also shoots with my husband. I think it is unnecessary. My opinion. YMMV.

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    palandri and Fairclough like this.
    11-19-2013 04:11 PM
4,617 ... 148149150151152 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Larva Cartoon - FREE and FUNNY Application
    By liontyping in forum Android Apps
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-21-2014, 11:03 AM
  2. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-25-2013, 07:33 AM
  3. POI information and Gallery
    By robjulo in forum Samsung Galaxy S4
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 11:00 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 04:28 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD