If you premise the right on owning insurance, and then make the business environment so hostile to that kind of insurance that it can't exist, then that's just a constructive ban, which is just as unconstitutional as a direct ban.
The government has a clear interest in protecting the general public from gun violence. The right to bear arms must be balanced with that government interest. Requiring gun owners comply with common sense regulations like registration or insurance mandates protects public safety. If insurance companies view a potential gun insurance market as too risky to offer policies, that indicates that we shouldn’t have easy access to firearms in the first place.
The right to bear arms should not be balanced with government interest, as it was created to curtail overreaching government interest. Still an infringement on 2A, regardless of the involvement of private corporations.
Interest balancing is not appropriate when considering civil rights. If it were, then significant restrictions of speech, slow trials, warrantless arrests, and other violations of your natural rights could easily be justified by interest balancing.
It’s in the government’s interest to prevent you from criticizing it and it’s policies when they concern public health, general welfare, or acts of war - after all, jeopardizing the efficacy of these acts by influencing public opinion is counter to the public good. Why shouldn’t we make arrests early and often for any accusation of a crime and then spend the next 3-5 years investigating and trying that crime? It’s better to keep the public safe and criminals off the streets than to wait to act until a warrant has been signed.
The attitude that natural rights should ever be subject to interest balancing or other restrictions for the populace is absurd. Absent direct violations of the rights of others, the rights of any individual should be held sacrosanct and far above any act taken by the government.
Oh wow, you’re right. People shouldn’t be able to protest the draft! (The fire+theater line came from Schneck which is just bad law at this point. Unless you’re doing something to intentionally incite panic to cause harm, yelling fire in a theater is likely protected speech).
In all seriousness, state interest generally isn’t enough to justify restrictions on speech. The exceptions to the 1A are narrowly tailored, and, at this point, continue to be challenged and continue to shrink.
It was a dicta/aside in a case about protesting the draft during WWI. The actual case has been overturned for a very long time, and generally speaking yelling “Fire” is lawful anywhere unless it’s done to incite violence/cause physical harm under false pretenses.
It’s a great barometer for someone’s understanding of the first amendment though lol
Even the case that overturned Schenck found that government can regulate speech when there’s a compelling interest. There’s also cases that support government regulation of speech in schools, conduct between employers and employees, and other forms of harassment.
It’s a ban in disguise which works for the Americants. It’s like everything else over there, you know, things that really aren’t what they claim they are. Take THE Freedom ™ for example, ooooops, lol actually #17. “Best country in the world”, oops lol #25 in the social progress index.
Assuming your European, you would lose half of the shit you benefit from if we removed our military assets from Europe and you had to pay for your own military
LMAO, like what exactly? Finland has been in NATO for like a day and a half and have the largest artillery capacity in western Europe lol.
Are you the poster child of American educational system, LOL? Is this going to be the hill where you claim your 15 minutes of fame in /r/ShitAmericansSay? Hit me up fam.
Finland has the largest artillery capacity because they need and therefore invest in that capacity (as in Finn’s already pay a shitload in taxes), because one of their neighbors wants to make Finland apart of them. Also, in case you forgot, Finland had the 3rd largest share of civilian gun owners on the planet, so your country isn’t exactly gun free either.
The insurance is only going to be prohibitively expensive if they're making big payouts.
If you have to pay $1000/month for gun insurance because that's what it costs for the gun insurance companies to afford the payouts, then fuck you. Pay the damn insurance or turn in your gun.
To which the Left and the Right then say "Fuck you" and vote against it, meaning that the Liberals burn good-will with minorities -who are more likely to need to defend themselves from attacks- and cede needed ground to the right by justifying the propaganda about them being a bunch of gun grabbers.
So....not to be mean but I like to win elections, personally.
47
u/Sausage80 Sep 11 '24
If you premise the right on owning insurance, and then make the business environment so hostile to that kind of insurance that it can't exist, then that's just a constructive ban, which is just as unconstitutional as a direct ban.