142
143

Yes, they can do this. (i.imgur.com)

roh8880 が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
ベスト
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]gloriously_ontopicArmy Veteran -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (73子コメント)

A right is a right.

[–]Boogilywoo2 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Canadian Here, serious question. Is there a specific right in the states that this is violating? I'm largely ignorant of US law.

No disagreement it's very scummy, just curious on actual legality.

[–]MostfunguyUnited States Air Force 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (2子コメント)

The right to bear arms I think he's referring to

[–]Boogilywoo2 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Oh. Thank you for the speedy response!

[–]MostfunguyUnited States Air Force 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

haha I just happened to be on the page

[–]CaptObvius 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The United States constitution is written (as opposed to almost every other government creating document in the world) specifically to outline what rights the government has (not what rights the people have), and leaves all other rights to states and the people. That is why it is so short and seemingly not specific.

The bill of rights was added to ensure that certain rights were never encroached on by the government despite them already being given to us by the simplicity of our constitution.

Just a little thing that most people, even in the US, dont understand about our founding documents.

[–]evanneverAir Cavalry Veteran 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (8子コメント)

Negative. We have a well established system of restricted rights. Your right to free speech doesn't mean you can harass someone, nor does your right to bear arms mean you can do so in all places at all times.

[–]Jedibean 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Relevant xkcd

[–]xkcd_transcriber 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Image

Title: Free Speech

Title-text: I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express.

Comic Explanation

Stats: This comic has been referenced 703 times, representing 2.0941% of referenced xkcds.

xkcd.com | xkcd sub | Problems/Bugs? | Statistics | Stop Replying | Delete

[–]KylsixUnited States Army 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Sort of. People see the constitution wrong - it's not a list of our freedoms, it's restrictions on the US Government's ability to restrict our rights.

In your free speech argument, you absolutely have the right to say whatever you want to someone. This is also a common point of misunderstanding about our rights - and a key distinction. You can say whatever you want, from hate speech to threatening language. There's even a supreme court case affirming that. However, a person can react to that language in civil court, meaning they can sue for defamation, libel, or other damages. The only way criminal action can be taken against someone for saying something is if there is legitimate reason to believe the words precede action.

[–]gloriously_ontopicArmy Veteran -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (4子コメント)

I think you are talking about encroachment on others' rights; private property, self defense from harms.

[–]evanneverAir Cavalry Veteran 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

I guess the real question is: If the person the letter was addressed to has been judged by a mental health professional as a danger to themselves or others, do you feel they should still have legal access to firearms?

[–]RumpleForeSkin72Army Veteran 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (2子コメント)

People have their rights stripped and trampled each and every day all over the country... for far, far less substantial reasons.

[–]flood6Air Force Veteran 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (1子コメント)

And it should cause outrage each and every time.

[–]RumpleForeSkin72Army Veteran 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

You are very right it should, but is seems like there are so few fucks given unless it is the right to bear arms that is infringed upon.

[–]mrtomhimself 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Not in the military. Also, he's probably (I have no idea really) signing certain rights away if he's agreeing to VA benefits.

[–]LongTallTexanMarine Veteran 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (3子コメント)

If someone is receiving benefits from the VA, they are no longer in the military. Also, your right to own a firearm is not infringed upon while in the military, the only rights that's diminished (with few exceptions) are those given by the first ammendment (though in some cases, the 13th could be argued). Finally, no rights of any sort are signed away by agreeing to receive benefits from the VA

[–]CaptObvius 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

the only rights that's diminished (with few exceptions) are those given by the first ammendment (though in some cases, the 13th could be argued).

Really?

4th Amendment. Constantly. All fucking day. Especially Thursday.

5th Amendment that SPECIFICALLY excludes military

except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia

8th. They take away half your pay for damn near anything. Pretty excessive. Also, what is with the digging of holes or burning shit as a punishment? That is unusual as fuck. I have done neither in the last decade or so.

[–]mrtomhimself 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

The first part I know. That last part though, I don't get. Aren't they essentially taking away his right in order for him to receive VA benefits?

[–]LongTallTexanMarine Veteran 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

They are not taking away his right in order for him to receive benefits. He is being told that he is not able to responsibly manage his finances, and they assume therefor that he is not able to responsibly manage a firearm. It's not an exchange of right for benefits, it's him not being able to manage his life. I'm not saying they're right, but I don't know that there aren't other circumstances being factored in though.

[–]mephdArmy Veteran 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Rights are defined in part by responsibility. Without responsibility you lose the right. This is a fundamental basic of constitutional law. This is why children don't have the same rights as adults, and convicts lose some of their rights after going to prison.

[–]tempestorionAir Force Veteran 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (11子コメント)

Yes, but blindly letting someone get a weapon without knowing their story like the VA does is really stupid and dangerous. They're clearly trying to prevent a veteran from having access to a deadly firearm in the event he has a PTSD-induced episode. We live in a country still struggling to protect its prior service-members, so I'm relieved to see some intervention taking place when it's needed.

[–]gloriously_ontopicArmy Veteran 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (10子コメント)

This does nothing but deprive due process. Most veterans already have a gun and will have access anyway. I get trying to help, but this is overreaching.

[–]Hard_Time_EXTREME -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (9子コメント)

he is not entitled to due process since he is not being charged with a crime.

*incorrect statement by me, see below for further discussion.

[–]gloriously_ontopicArmy Veteran 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

He is being deprived of the right to bear arms. A crime is not necessary to be afforded due process.

[–]Hard_Time_EXTREME -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

it would seem that VA has fulfilled the requirements of due process anyway

[–]gloriously_ontopicArmy Veteran 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The Brady Law is not Constitutional because it violates the 2nd,4th, and 5th Amendments. And I find it appalling to think that someone on r/military would be in favor of these laws that punish thought-crimes. I won't convince you here, so please have a good day and I hope you get the dystopia you so fervently want.

[–]CaptObvius 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (5子コメント)

He is being deprived of his liberties under the second amendment.

5th amendment

[N]or shall any person . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

14th Amendment

[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

There does not need to be a crime or charge, or trial, et al for due process to matter.

[–]Hard_Time_EXTREME 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Either way, due process is consists of 3 things

1.) Notice, usually wirtten, of deisicon or action taken

2.) right to grieve

3.) right to appeal

souce

all of those have been granted in this letter.

[–]CaptObvius 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

he is not entitled to due process since he is not being charged with a crime.

I believe that was your statement.

I didnt say he was being deprived of due process. I just said that you were wrong by pointing out he is entitled to due process after you claimed he is not. Are you now saying that he is entitled to due process? Did you just provide a source to show you are wrong?

[–]Hard_Time_EXTREME -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I am saying, even if my previous statement was wrong (which it very likely may be) he was still given due process.

So to bring it all together, whether he is entitled to due process or not, he was given due process.

[–]CaptObvius 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

He is entitled to it. Your statement was wrong, FYI.

[–]Hard_Time_EXTREME 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Noted: Statement wrong.

entitled or not, he got due process

[–]lowlatitude -5 ポイント-4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Hell yeah! Never mind those other rights. We should be allowed nukes in our basements, garages, or closets. That's me bearing arms! :/

[–]gloriously_ontopicArmy Veteran 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Sure, if you can AFFORD ONE.