02-20-2018, 03:55 PM
(02-20-2018, 12:43 PM)David Horn Wrote: The point of Jackson's argument is societal not individual. Banning or regulating rights-based practices that degrade the society can be justified if the damage is severe enough to threaten society in general. That's obviously a subjective call, but we should be able to know it when we see it. Shouting FIRE is not an individual threat. It threatens the public ... at least that portion of the public in attendance. If the guy who sent the nuclear attack message in Hawaii had done so on purpose, that may be another example.
I believe Heller was wrongly decided. Another court may decide that as well. Short of that, however, we may find some limitations using Jackson's measuring stick.
And I believe Heller was correctly decided, that the intent of the authors of the constitution were honored, that the blues do not have the supermajority required to make the changes you are weaseling for. You can hand wave around the fact that you cannot make said changes, and try to confuse rule of law with opinion, but you are apt to fail. Values lock is engaged. Many will reject your opinion, sure of their opinions, which are as firm as yours. There are not enough people who agree with you to succeed legally.
Values change when truly complete and spread should change legal standards and law, but what is happening is that you want to change the law before your new values have spread enough. To change the law, you are willing to disrespect the law. I reject that.
That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.