Bible license?

Ezra Smack · 06-29-2008, 12:16 PM

Should the government license and regulate the possession of Bibles? This book contains information that can and has led to serious violence and lawlessness as many people see it as being the ultimate authority, not the state.

How about people who publish or broadcast political opinions professionally? Should they be licensed and regulated so that they do not proffer opinions that are contrary to the purposes of the government? Ideas can be very dangerous, especially in the wrong hands. Shouldn’t there be some reasonable restrictions on who is allowed to spread potentially dangerous political ideas?

Should there be strict laws regarding who may possess Bibles and newspapers?

No you say? After all these are constitutionally protected items. This is exactly what has happened to another constitutionally protected item,
Firearms. There is no constitutional provision for federal gun laws of any kind. These items, just like Bibles and newspapers are supposed to be beyond the reach of the Federal governments reach. The only restrictions, safety regulation to keep guns out of the hands of children, convicted felons and the mentally ill should be administered at the state level.

jimeigh · 06-29-2008, 08:31 PM

i don't think this belongs in this subforum

Ezra Smack · 06-29-2008, 10:56 PM

No it does not. I first posted it on 'The Floor' becausing it is buzzing after the SCOTUS decision about firearms. Who ever moved it obviously did not bother to read it all the way through.

Can you move it back please?

WickedLou9 · 07-02-2008, 09:27 AM

That's really a poor comparison. There are distinct differences between the 1st and 2nd ammendments, they are held in different regard and they have different purposes.

First things first, no right is absolute, not even free speech. I can't get on a plane and start yelling about mecca and blowing up the infidels. Clearly this is speech that should be prevented. Why? Because it violates the rights of others by placing them in serious danger.

With that said, the 1st ammendment is not first by accident. Free speech and the free and open exchange of ideas is the very core of our democracy. No other rights can exist unless we have this one. A government of, by and for the people can not exist where the free exchange of ideas is limited. The first ammendment is paramount to all others. That's not to say that the other rights are not important, they are, but the first is most important and the test for whether or not it can ever be infringed is much more stringent then for any other right.

I say this because you are comparing two different rights as if they were on equal footing. They are not.

Your second mistake was comparing the level of danger that others are placed in when a gun is carelessly left around and when a book is left lying about. Such an assertion is, frankly, ridiculous. Information is not directly dangerous to anyone. If a bible falls into the hand of a child or a criminal, nothing will happen. You can not use a bible to rob a store, to kill someone, etc. A loaded gun carelessly left lying about has serious risk. As such there are restrictons that can reasonably be placed on the conditions for ownership of a firearm to ensure that the rights of others are taken into consideration.

Now the other question you bring up is federal vs states rights.
Most gun regulation is at the state level already. Yes the federal government has some authority but it usually involves issues that are between the states. If you traffic in illegal firearms and you cross state lines, the federal government can regulate.
I do agree with you that the federal government does often overreach it's limitations and I don't think that is limited to gun laws. They over-reach in many areas.
But if you are purely talking about the regulation of firearms by any entity than the state vs federal is really another issue.

thewise1 · 07-02-2008, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

That's really a poor comparison. There are distinct differences between the 1st and 2nd ammendments, they are held in different regard and they have different purposes.

First things first, no right is absolute, not even free speech. I can't get on a plane and start yelling about mecca and blowing up the infidels. Clearly this is speech that should be prevented. Why? Because it violates the rights of others by placing them in serious danger.

wha...?

I'm not sure how that places anyone in danger.

WickedLou9 · 07-02-2008, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

wha...?

I'm not sure how that places anyone in danger.

you're kidding me right? Causing a panic on an aircraft wouldn't endanger anyones lives?

thewise1 · 07-02-2008, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

you're kidding me right? Causing a panic on an aircraft wouldn't endanger anyones lives?

I can't see that causing panic, in all honesty.

WickedLou9 · 07-02-2008, 05:16 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

I can't see that causing panic, in all honesty.

Really? Even after what happened on 9/11, if someone stood up and prtended to be an arab terrorist and called for the death of infidels, you don't think anyone might be afraid? really?

thewise1 · 07-02-2008, 05:22 PM

Fear is different from panic

WickedLou9 · 07-03-2008, 08:49 AM

Originally Posted by thewise1

Fear is different from panic

So even assuming the unlikely scenerio you put forth that no one would panic in a situation where they are trapped on a plane with a terrorist 45,000 in the air likely facing thier death... You think it's OK to put that sort of fear , the fear of death, into 200 people just for shits?