Zaghadka,

>>It, as a group, can be called anything they want. It doesn't
>>change anything towards that particular amendment being a
>>promiss, not a right.
>
> That a bit glib though, Mr. Wieser.

You know what I find "glib" ?

That the people who refer to that promiss as a right somehow always seem to
have missed the part about its limitations.

.... but I think I already made that quite clear.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Zaghadka,

>>And I see you ignored/dropped the part where I mentioned repeated
>>that that "right" of yours is limited towards the gouverment only.
>>Not towards anyone else. A not-so-minor "detail" I would say.
>
> Did you ever look up that article I posted on Common Carrier status?

I have no idea what article you are referring to there. Sorry.

> There absolutely *is* a way for it to apply to entities other than
> the government. The phone company - a common carrier - legally can't
> limit speech;

It looks to me that you are (on purpose?) mixing different Laws up. AFAIK
that "can't legally limit speech" needed a seperate Law - one thats bound to
the monopolistic nature of certain companies (your "common carrier" status
in the above).

Also, its not a citizens right, but a demand from the gouverment to a
company not to interfere (in any way. Including not listening in to those
conversations). Granted, to the benefit of its citizens. But that doesn't
make it a citizens right in any sense of the word.

> Better yet, get a JD, pay your dues, and start arguing this
> nonsense before a federal judge. It'd be good for a laugh.
> You'll probably be found in contempt.

Even better than that : you go and try to argue to a federal judge that the
fourth amendment grants you the right to force other people to put posters
of whatever you want to talk about on their front windows. Go on, try it.
I could use the laugh myself.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 08:34:37 +0100, "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>And I see you ignored/dropped the part where I mentioned repeated that that
>>"right" of yours is limited towards the gouverment only. Not towards anyone
>>else. A not-so-minor "detail" I would say.
>
>Did you ever look up that article I posted on Common Carrier status? At
>the time you said it was more than you wanted. If you haven't, how the
>hell are you making these arguments with just a single sentence from the
>Bill of Rights?
>
>There absolutely *is* a way for it to apply to entities other than the
>government. The phone company - a common carrier - legally can't limit
>speech; they can only transmit it

That has nothing to do with the First Amendment. The government has
classified phone companies as common carriers. Common carriers cannot
censor what their customers want to send. That is a result of laws
passed by congress, not the first amendment.

>The government not only has an obligation to not abridge speech,
>but also to support speech through regulation. That's more than a
>tradition. It's vetted law.

Wrong. No such obligation exists.

>The right of free speech also
>consists of two centuries of case law, precedent, and dissents.

Sure, like any other law.

--
Tim Slattery
timslattery <at> utexas <dot> edu

On Thu, 01 Feb 2024 12:02:45 -0500, Tim Slattery
<TimSlattery@utexas.edu> wrote:

>Wrong. No such obligation exists.

You are wrong--again.

If there is no freedom of speech (First Amendment), then there *also*
is no right to own a gun (Second Amendment).

Nor would there be freedom of religion (First Amendment again). Guess
how the RWNJs would react--and how quickly--if they were ALL required
to be Muslim, and their women and female children were required to
wear burkas, not allowed to drive, must be escorted by a male family
member in public, and so on.

In summary, you do not have a clue. And your postings show that fact.

jerryab <jerryab@juno.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 01 Feb 2024 12:02:45 -0500, Tim Slattery
><TimSlattery@utexas.edu> wrote:
>
>>Wrong. No such obligation exists.
>
>You are wrong--again.
>
>If there is no freedom of speech (First Amendment), then there *also*
>is no right to own a gun (Second Amendment).

I didn't say there was no freedom of speech. The First Amendment
prohibits the government from restricting speech. It does not require
the government to force private entities to print or air things that
they don't want to.

As for the second amendment: gun nuts - and "originalist" judges -
overlook the first clause of tha second amendment. "A well regulated
militia being necessary to the ecurity of a free state". We now have a
large standing army, navy, marine corps, air force, space force. A
miitia, as the founders understood it, is no longer a requirement for
"the security of a free state". So the second clause is moot.

>Nor would there be freedom of religion (First Amendment again). Guess
>how the RWNJs would react--and how quickly--if they were ALL required
>to be Muslim, and their women and female children were required to
>wear burkas, not allowed to drive, must be escorted by a male family
>member in public, and so on.
>
>In summary, you do not have a clue. And your postings show that fact.

--
Tim Slattery
timslattery <at> utexas <dot> edu

Tim,

> The First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting
> speech.

Sigh ... No, it doesn't.

All it says is that it won't restrict speech **AIMED AT THE GOUVERMENT**.
Thats quite a limitation in scope - and one thats most always, quite likely
willfully, ignored.

As such a "freedom of speech right" (using the first amendment as its
source) toward anyone but the gouverment simply doesn't exist ...

> It does not require the government to force private entities to print
> or air things that they don't want to.

.... and as such there is nothing to tack the above requirement onto.

Worse : All the first amendment promisses is *not* to act. But somehow
people are able to twist and warp that into a "the gouverment *must* act"
conviction.

also : although the first amendment allows citizens to say whatever they
want towards the gouverment, it doesn't say anything about the gouverment
having to listen to them (and what they do not hear they can't (be forced
to) repeat either. :-) ).

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 11:38:06 -0500, Tim Slattery
<TimSlattery@utexas.edu> wrote:

>As for the second amendment: gun nuts - and "originalist" judges -
>overlook the first clause of tha second amendment

Not quite. Good guess though.

Militias are state level, so it creates some interesting problems.
Southern states would never allow slaves into their militias because
the President could nationalize the state militia when needed--and
that would mean arming the slaves to fight in the militia. OOPS !!!

The real reason the Second Amendment became obsolete/irrelevant is
documented in federal law passed by Congress in 1792.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792

The US govt was pretty broke after the Revolutionary War, so it was
essential to cut unnecesary expenses. One expensive--and ongoing--cost
of govt is equipping the military. Which is why the Second Militia Act
of 1792 was so important at the time.

That Act shifted the cost of equipping many of the militias to the
people who were serving in it. In today's terms, it meant each militia
member had to pay about US$2500 to buy the *minimally required* gear.
They could NOT just bring any weapon and have it count as valid. They
were required to buy *military grade* weapons. No sharing either.
Kind of tough for soldiers to *share* a rifle, ammnunition, bayonet,
etc in combat.

This was a "national defense" matter. You don't really have a
"fighting" soldier who does NOT have a weapon or ammunition. Thus, the
weapons and related gear were exempt from seizure for any reason (such
as taxes of any type, debts owed, and so on).

THE ABOVE is the reason for the *initial requirement* for the Second
Amendment. The following is why the Second Amendment became
irrelevant.

That changed when the requirement to provide your own military-grade
tweapon was eliminated. Thus, there was *no governmental need* for
citizens to have/own a weapon. The govt now provided all the weaponry,
ammunition, and so on.

That large change was based on the new technical ability to mass
produce items, which did not really exist prior to the Revolutionary
War. Before, guns were all unique because they were individually
produced by hand. No common parts or interchangeability between
weapons produced by the same individual gun maker. Prices for items,
particularly when made/sold in volume, fell dramatically.

jerryab,

>>As for the second amendment: gun nuts - and "originalist" judges -
>>overlook the first clause of tha second amendment
>
> Not quite. Good guess though.
>
> Militias are state level,

Indeed, that is what they are.

So whats the percentage of gun-carrying citizens thats part of a militia and
allow themselves to be regulated by it/the state ? Hearing the gun lobby
bark its displeasure about its members being regulated in /any/ way I get
the feeling its a shockingly low number.

And only that (in a state militia) percentage may claim the "right to bear
arms" from the fourt amendment.

Though your connection between the "right to bear arms" amendment and the
"right to free speech" one does actually exist, but not for your (dreamed
up) if-then reason : Both groups of people are picking the parts outof their
amendments they like and can use, and forcefuly ignore all the rest.

By the way: Its "nice" to see how you shifted the argument from one
amendment to a fully different one - almost as if you realized you could not
win the first one ...

.... and it looks like you're not faring any better with this one. :-)

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

"R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> wrote:

>Tim,
>
>> The First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting
>> speech.
>
>Sigh ... No, it doesn't.
>
>All it says is that it won't restrict speech **AIMED AT THE GOUVERMENT**.
>Thats quite a limitation in scope - and one thats most always, quite likely
>willfully, ignored.

Wrong.

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of
the press .."

It says nothing about the topic of the speech that congress shall not
abridge.

>also : although the first amendment allows citizens to say whatever they
>want towards the gouverment, it doesn't say anything about the gouverment
>having to listen to them

True enough. Citizens can make their opinions known to the government.
If government doesn't act on that opinion, citizens are free to vote
the current government out.

--
Tim Slattery
timslattery <at> utexas <dot> edu

"R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> wrote:

>And only that (in a state militia) percentage may claim the "right to bear
>arms" from the fourt amendment.

No. The fourth amendment has to do will illegal search and seizure.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall
not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized."

--
Tim Slattery
timslattery <at> utexas <dot> edu

On Sat, 3 Feb 2024 09:45:59 +0100, "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid>
wrote:

>So whats the percentage of gun-carrying citizens thats part of a militia and
>allow themselves to be regulated by it/the state ? Hearing the gun lobby
>bark its displeasure about its members being regulated in /any/ way I get
>the feeling its a shockingly low number.

Probably about zero. IF they had a choice, which they do not.

>And only that (in a state militia) percentage may claim the "right to bear
>arms" from the fourt amendment.

There are no "state militias". Now there is the National Guard.
Therefore, following the logic: No state militias, no Second Amendment
right to own a gun..

>Though your connection between the "right to bear arms" amendment and the
>"right to free speech" one does actually exist, but not for your (dreamed
>up) if-then reason : Both groups of people are picking the parts outof their
>amendments they like and can use, and forcefuly ignore all the rest.

Not quite. You missed the key point. The original claim was where is
the RIGHT to free speech put in writing as law in the US? The answer
is the First Amendment. THEN it was claimed that is NOT a RIGHT. That
claim then brings up the contradiction (by the US courts) that owning
a gun is a RIGHT per the Second Amendment. Based on the original
poster's claim, owning a gun is NOT a RIGHT--because it can be taken
away, just as the freedom of speech claim allegedly CAN be taken away.
>By the way: Its "nice" to see how you shifted the argument from one
>amendment to a fully different one - almost as if you realized you could not
>win the first one ...

Actually, I win both. Not because I say so, but because my
documentation for the Second Amendment being irrelevant/not in force
is factually true. First AND Second Amendment rights are equally
valid--or they are NOT. Can't have one be valid and the not. So, which
is it--and WHY?

Courts ignoring the law (i.e. what Congress passed and was signed into
law) is nothing new. If the RIGHT to own a gun was real (as alleged by
the various groups), then the LEGAL AUTHORITY to take guns from people
for matters such as DEBTS OWED would be impossible. THAT fact was
established AND MADE LAW in the Second Militia Act of 1792 (end of
Paragraph 1). But it lasted only a few years. The govt began supplying
all the military equipment needed to the soldiers, AND the govt
PROHIBITED soldiers from providing their own weapons for military
purposes. WHY? Because the govt wanted to control which weapons and
other gear was supplied in order to allow quick and easy exchange of
components between weapons and so on--both at home AND on the
battlefield--in order to have as many fight-capable soldiers available
at all times. Soldiers without a working weapon are essentially
club-wielders if they use a non-working rifle. They would be killed
very easily by an ENEMY WITH a working rifle.

jerryab,

> There are no "state militias".

[quote]
A State Defense Force (SDF) is a state militia under the command of the
chief executive of that state only. Twenty-five states in America have some
kind of SDF
and all states have laws allowing one. Whether they call it state guards,
state military reserves, or state militias, they are not a part of the
National Guard of that state
[/quote]

Are you sure about that ?

> Not quite. You missed the key point. The original claim was where
> is the RIGHT to free speech put in writing as law in the US? The
> answer is the First Amendment.

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/

Again, you're sure about that ? Than it should be easy for you to quote
where it says a right is granted.

Again, all its says is that the gouverment /won't make laws/ to "abridge
free speech". It doesn't even say that other citizens are forbidden from
shutting someone up.

Also, your kind of "free speech right" has actually been "abridged" by the
Law several times. Slander isn't allowed. Yelling "fire!" in a packed
cinema isn't allowed either. Putting a bullhorn on someones ear and talk
abot something isn't allowed either.

Also, companies can put conditions in their employee contracts that they are
not allowed to talk about certain things (often referred to as NDAs).

I'm sure you can come up with a number of others yourself.

> THEN it was claimed that is NOT a RIGHT.

Yep, I certainly did so.

And you've yet to come up with an underbuilding to why you think it does.
And no, pointing your finger in some direction and claiming that its
mentioned "over there" doesn't cut it.

> That claim then brings up the contradiction (by the US courts) that
> owning a gun is a RIGHT per the Second Amendment.
> Based on the original poster's claim, owning a gun is NOT a RIGHT--because
> it can be taken away, just as the freedom of speech claim allegedly CAN be
> taken away.

What you never had cannot be taken away from you.

You're still hammering that you had-and-have a "freedom of speech right",
but have not brought anything forward with which you explain, let alone
underbuild it.

> Actually, I win both. Not because I say so, but because my
> documentation for the Second Amendment being irrelevant/not
> in force is factually true.

"Your documentation" ? Did you actually post it in this thread ? Where ?

> First AND Second Amendment rights are equally valid--or they
> are NOT. Can't have one be valid and the not.

Kid, you're the only one here who thinks that the validity of those
amendments are linked to one another. I don't

> So, which is it--and WHY?

and as such I choose answer D - "none of the above".

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Tim,

>>All it says is that it won't restrict speech **AIMED AT THE GOUVERMENT**.
>>Thats quite a limitation in scope - and one thats most always, quite
>>likely willfully, ignored.
>
> Wrong.
>
> It says nothing about the topic of the speech that congress shall
> not abridge.

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/

I see I got a bit too exited in my interpretation of that amendment, and as
such owe you an apology.

Though it raises a new problem : although that constitution mentions
"freedom of speech", it doesn't seem to define what that means (what its
limits, if any, are).

-- from another post:

>>And only that (in a state militia) percentage may claim the "right to
>> bear arms" from the fourt amendment.
>
>No. The fourth amendment has to do will illegal search and seizure.

My apologies, I should (ofcourse) have said that its the second amendment.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On Sat, 3 Feb 2024 20:55:11 +0100, "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid>
wrote:

>although that constitution mentions "freedom of speech", it doesn't seem to define what that means (what its
>limits, if any, are).

There are no limits to what a person *could* say. It depends upon a
variety of other factors, which we do not know.

For example: How is this speech being made to the public? IF it is to
the public, that is. There are so many variables (in a private venue
that limits what is allowed to said, for example). Speaking in a
church or pub vs Speakers' Corner in London.

Musk screeches "free speech" on X, but they CENSOR a variety of
things--such as posts that contradict Musk. So everyone knows he is
*knowingly* lying.

Same for the Truth Social web site: Not allowed to criticize or even
contradict what is posted. So, no free speech there either.

TV, radio, etc ALL have restrictions on what can be said--and when.

When you have it figured out, tell Congress so they can make it law.
Ditto to the US Supreme Court--so they can enforce it. Meanwhile, I
shall not worry about it.

On Sat, 3 Feb 2024 20:52:04 +0100, "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid>
wrote:

>Slander isn't allowed. Yelling "fire!" in a packed cinema isn't allowed either. Putting a bullhorn on someones ear and talk
>abot something isn't allowed either.
>
>Also, companies can put conditions in their employee contracts that they are
>not allowed to talk about certain things (often referred to as NDAs).
>
>I'm sure you can come up with a number of others yourself.

The key point is simple: You CAN say what you choose. But you can ALSO
be held responsible for the *content* of what you said. Doubt that
claim? Recent judgment in court against a former US politician for US
$83.3-million PLUS interest, costs, etc. So NOT ILLEGAL to say what
you want--IF you are willing (OR NOT !!!) to pay the penalty if you
harm someone else.

>> THEN it was claimed that is NOT a RIGHT.

>Yep, I certainly did so.

So how is the RIGHT to own a gun determined *to be right* when it is
declared in the Second Amendment--precisely as the Freedom of Speech
is claimed to NOT be a right in the First Amendment. Nice
contradiction. Fun time with the freedom of religion too--which is
also in the First Amendment.

>And you've yet to come up with an underbuilding to why you think it does.
>And no, pointing your finger in some direction and claiming that its
>mentioned "over there" doesn't cut it.

You claim "no right" in the First Amendment. Thus, applying your
rationale (or lack thereof) to the Second Amendment means no right to
own a gun. The US courts contradict your logic when applied to the
Second Amendment. Thus, your logic fails on its claims.

>> That claim then brings up the contradiction (by the US courts) that
>> owning a gun is a RIGHT per the Second Amendment.
>> Based on the original poster's claim, owning a gun is NOT a RIGHT--because
>> it can be taken away, just as the freedom of speech claim allegedly CAN be
>> taken away.
>
>What you never had cannot be taken away from you.

The US courts do not support your presumption.

>You're still hammering that you had-and-have a "freedom of speech right",
>but have not brought anything forward with which you explain, let alone
>underbuild it.

The First Amendment states people have that right.

>> Actually, I win both. Not because I say so, but because my
>> documentation for the Second Amendment being irrelevant/not
>> in force is factually true.
>
>"Your documentation" ? Did you actually post it in this thread ? Where ?

Yes, I posted it earlier. Link was to the Second Militia Act of 1792.
Look further up the thread.

>> First AND Second Amendment rights are equally valid--or they
>> are NOT. Can't have one be valid and the not.
>
>Kid, you're the only one here who thinks that the validity of those
>amendments are linked to one another. I don't

What you think, or don't, is not my problem. What happens when rights
get violated? Consequences can be expensive. Don't ask me, look at the
payment imposed by the court (over US $83.3-million) based on the
First Amendment statement publicly made by that former politician. He
exercised his First Amendment right in public. Then the BIG PAYMENT
imposed. But he was ALLOWED TO MAKE THAT STATEMENT IN PUBLIC. Just as
he did the FIRST TIME. A significant payment imposed upon him then
also. So, it seems he did NOT "learn his lesson" the first time he was
held liable. Will he learn AFTER this second liability payment for his
"free speech"? Good question. We will find out.

Also remember: The various courts literally shut up that former
politician by either severely limiting his time to speak and/or by
completely removing him from the courtroom. A court is NOT a "free
speech" location, nor is it for political crap, etc.

>> So, which is it--and WHY?
>
>and as such I choose answer D - "none of the above".

Avoiding what you can not answer. Not a surprise.

On Sat, 3 Feb 2024 20:52:04 +0100, "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid>
wrote:

>[quote]
>A State Defense Force (SDF) is a state militia under the command of the
>chief executive of that state only. Twenty-five states in America have some
>kind of SDF
>and all states have laws allowing one. Whether they call it state guards,
>state military reserves, or state militias, they are not a part of the
>National Guard of that state
>[/quote]
>
>Are you sure about that ?

It is NOT a militia and does not meet the requirements/definition of a
militia per the govt. Militias were state groups BUT were under the
obligation to become federalized at the order of the President. SDF
can not be federalized, thus it is NOT a militia as defined under
federal law.

The National Guard is the current-day version of state militias.

jerryab,

>>although that constitution mentions "freedom of speech", it doesn't
>>seeem to define what that means (what its limits, if any, are).
>
> There are no limits to what a person *could* say.

Ah yes, lets pull the whole thing into the area of what sounds a human is
capable of emitting. That just firts snugly into the context of this
thread, doesn't it ?

For the rest, legal culpability, I think I already said that.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Jerry,

>>Slander isn't allowed. Yelling "fire!" in a packed cinema isn't
>>allowed either. Putting a bullhorn on someones ear and talk
>>abot something isn't allowed either.
>>
>>Also, companies can put conditions in their employee contracts that they
>>are
>>not allowed to talk about certain things (often referred to as NDAs).
>>
>>I'm sure you can come up with a number of others yourself.
>
> The key point is simple: You CAN say what you choose. But you can ALSO
> be held responsible for the *content* of what you said.

Kid, I'm going to cut it short : as long as you are unwilling (likely
unable) to point out where the first amendment grants you the /right/ to say
anything you want (and nobody is allowed to stop you and anyone can be
forced to propagate your speech) I'm going to halt this conversation.

Your choice : either you show me where your "right to free speech" is
mentioned in the first amendment, or this conversation ends here.

>>and as such I choose answer D - "none of the above".
>
> Avoiding what you can not answer. Not a surprise.

Lol. You have been and are still avoiding my "where is that right described
?" all this time, but are now trying to accuse me of it.

Whats that word again ? Ah yes,

Hypocrite.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

jerryab,

> It is NOT a militia and does not meet the requirements/definition of a
> militia per the govt. Militias were state groups BUT were under the
> obligation to become federalized at the order of the President. SDF
> can not be federalized, thus it is NOT a militia as defined under
> federal law.
>
> The National Guard is the current-day version of state militias.

Kid, I'm not even going to ask you to come up with some underbuilding for
the several claims in the above, as you've shown you don't believe in
trivialities like that.

But, as you seem to say that state militia do not exist anymore the second
ammendment (and its "right to bear arms") must ofcourse be considered
null-and-void.

And no, you can't have it both ways.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

P.s.
A quick google just now returned a website, showing a "State Militias" list
from 2024, with just 11 of the 50 states *not* having one.

On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 09:07:49 +0100, "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid>
wrote:

>A quick google just now returned a website, showing a "State Militias" list
>from 2024, with just 11 of the 50 states *not* having one.

<yawn>

How many states have MORE THAN ONE "State Militias"?

Then, which ONE is *THE* "State Militia"?