Free to express what? They will excise Free Speech. Terrorist thoughts will be criminalizeed. So to will speech criticizing the State. All they do is frighten the citizenry with terrorism, communissm, any other ism will do just as well. They will make neighbors snitches within a climate of fear just like the Monsters On Maple Street.
We will not find justice at the hands of corrupt judges. (See YouTube videos) Judge to Judge on Illegal Payments to Judges / Evil Triangle of Court Corruption / Richard fine / Dr Shirley Moore slush funds /SBX 211. To end this title wave of corruption in our country must start with the corrupt judges. We can not bring evidence of corruption to corrupt judges. Los Angeles Superior Court judges are illegally and unconstitutionally taking 50,000.00 each for a total of 23 million per year.
Everybody says the final solution to the RACE problem is for EVERY White country and ONLY White countries to bring in the third world and assimilate with them. Immigration, tolerance, and especially assimilation are being used against the White race. All this immigration and intermarriage is for EVERY White country and ONLY White countries. Anti-White is called anti-racist, but it leads to the disappearance of one race and only one race, the White race. It is genocide.
I'm sure this has been said before, but it bears repeating. A person who is going to use a gun to break the law is not going to care about the laws pertaining to the acquisition and carrying of the gun. Gun laws keep law abiding citizens from getting, carrying, and using guns in a legal fashion to protect themselves and others from those willing to break the law.
'Too clever by half' is how this guy comes off on his blog and in person. His presentation of the crime reduction experienced by states with concealed permit laws give's him away. First, it doesn't need to be a "massive, massive" difference to be worthy. Second, the entire argument is utilitarian versus principled. Also, when choosing to comment on constitutional language, he doesn't mention that the second amendment doesn't start with "Congress shall.." like the first amendment. Interesting...
@glennd7962 no the second amendment ends with "shall not be infringed", all states with CCW have seen reductions in overall crime including homicide, and if by utilitarian you mean according to facts and by principled you mean emotional then you are correct.
Volokh needs to keep his post as law professor there as long as possible, so there's less influence of a future liberal law professor being hired in his place. ;)
if you can regulate rights, then you have no rights at all.
"No State shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor." --Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105, US Supreme Court, 1943.
"The U.S. Supreme Court broadly and unequivocally held that requiring licensing or registration of any constitutional right is itself unconstitutional." --Follett vs. Town of McCormick, S.C., 321 U.S. 573 [1944]
I'm giving this video 5 stars and adding it to my favorites.
Because I'm a "liberal libertarian," I sometimes disagree with Prof. Volokh's "conservative libertarianism," but I've still been a fan of his blog for years because he is open minded and honest about the facts.
When the issue of concealed carry laws come up, I don't hear anyone questioning whether these are an infringement on our 2nd Amendment right. Why do I need to get a license to carry a pistol?
which is why exactly? Seems the people in Vermont, Alaska, and Montana (most of it at least) seem to be doing just fine. And then there's the huge number of states that grant permetless open carry.
Permits on rights is not only a bad idea, and potentially illegal, but also accomplishes NOTHING.
That seems reasonable, but then, when the government wants to license the carrying of guns, then those in power will limit *who* gets to carry to their friends, eventually. I do agree that people need to be trained in the safe use of guns. Some of us were raised around guns and understand how to use them safely, but many weren't blessed with that upbringing.
@oilhammer04: If the government wanted to begin limiting carrying rights in any way (beyond weeding out incompetent or criminal applicants) that would be an entirely different piece of legislation. Despite the popular rhetoric, no piece of legislation can act as the beginning of a "slippery slope", because each is a step, not a slope. They *may* begin a staircase, but since each step must be passed individually, the scenario you propose must be supported by the majority to ever occur.
@oilhammer04 It's one of those things where everyone should have the right to own and carry a gun but some people are incompitant. I guess the problem would fix its self because all the dump ass' would get shot for fucking around, you know.
Volokh is refreshingly articulate in a time when so many are not, especially among politicians when they aren't speaking on script. Obama and Palin come to mind.
Free to express what? They will excise Free Speech. Terrorist thoughts will be criminalizeed. So to will speech criticizing the State. All they do is frighten the citizenry with terrorism, communissm, any other ism will do just as well. They will make neighbors snitches within a climate of fear just like the Monsters On Maple Street.
911FalseFlagTerror01 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We will not find justice at the hands of corrupt judges. (See YouTube videos) Judge to Judge on Illegal Payments to Judges / Evil Triangle of Court Corruption / Richard fine / Dr Shirley Moore slush funds /SBX 211. To end this title wave of corruption in our country must start with the corrupt judges. We can not bring evidence of corruption to corrupt judges. Los Angeles Superior Court judges are illegally and unconstitutionally taking 50,000.00 each for a total of 23 million per year.
danielcooper1000 1 year ago
Professor Volokh is a genius! No one will ever take my right away for free speech.
Americathebrave100 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Everybody says the final solution to the RACE problem is for EVERY White country and ONLY White countries to bring in the third world and assimilate with them. Immigration, tolerance, and especially assimilation are being used against the White race. All this immigration and intermarriage is for EVERY White country and ONLY White countries. Anti-White is called anti-racist, but it leads to the disappearance of one race and only one race, the White race. It is genocide.
BEGOODTOYOURDOG1 1 year ago
I'm sure this has been said before, but it bears repeating. A person who is going to use a gun to break the law is not going to care about the laws pertaining to the acquisition and carrying of the gun. Gun laws keep law abiding citizens from getting, carrying, and using guns in a legal fashion to protect themselves and others from those willing to break the law.
TheWeizOne 1 year ago 5
'Too clever by half' is how this guy comes off on his blog and in person. His presentation of the crime reduction experienced by states with concealed permit laws give's him away. First, it doesn't need to be a "massive, massive" difference to be worthy. Second, the entire argument is utilitarian versus principled. Also, when choosing to comment on constitutional language, he doesn't mention that the second amendment doesn't start with "Congress shall.." like the first amendment. Interesting...
glennd7962 1 year ago
@glennd7962 no the second amendment ends with "shall not be infringed", all states with CCW have seen reductions in overall crime including homicide, and if by utilitarian you mean according to facts and by principled you mean emotional then you are correct.
getnick77 1 year ago
How about atavist judges? Are they outside of the law?
Mackingster 1 year ago
I suggest that if everyone was armed we would live in a FAR more polite society.
welkinator 1 year ago
5 stars
yougiberishtube 1 year ago
Volokh needs to keep his post as law professor there as long as possible, so there's less influence of a future liberal law professor being hired in his place. ;)
whoo689 1 year ago
if you can regulate rights, then you have no rights at all.
"No State shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor." --Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105, US Supreme Court, 1943.
"The U.S. Supreme Court broadly and unequivocally held that requiring licensing or registration of any constitutional right is itself unconstitutional." --Follett vs. Town of McCormick, S.C., 321 U.S. 573 [1944]
bigboss686 1 year ago 8
Adding The Volokh Conspiracy to my list of blogs...
highonhayek 1 year ago
I think it is funny that since 'conspiracy' is a tag, Alex Jones is all over the related videos.
dankalmanson 1 year ago
Switzerland has a gun in every house and one of the lowest violent crime rates.
"Guns are deeply rooted within Swiss culture - but the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept."
-BBC
furyofbongos 1 year ago 6
He's a mountain of jello. Seems Volokh could go either way on just about any issue.
averagejoe040 1 year ago
Aristotle was the same way lol
Wormtail81 1 year ago
That's because anything that's actually an issue has valid points on both sides...
BoojumFed 1 year ago
The Volokh Conspiracy. Great blog.
BFC2011 1 year ago
Alabama's constitution has no doctrine of enumerated powers I see.
migkillertwo 1 year ago
yeah. fairness doctrine isnt that threatening... right.
onvogmasaj 1 year ago
I'm giving this video 5 stars and adding it to my favorites.
Because I'm a "liberal libertarian," I sometimes disagree with Prof. Volokh's "conservative libertarianism," but I've still been a fan of his blog for years because he is open minded and honest about the facts.
Thanks for making and uploading this video :-)
LiberalViewer 1 year ago 10
When the issue of concealed carry laws come up, I don't hear anyone questioning whether these are an infringement on our 2nd Amendment right. Why do I need to get a license to carry a pistol?
oilhammer04 1 year ago 6
@oilhammer04 same reason you need a licence to drive a car.
thughug22 1 year ago
which is why exactly? Seems the people in Vermont, Alaska, and Montana (most of it at least) seem to be doing just fine. And then there's the huge number of states that grant permetless open carry.
Permits on rights is not only a bad idea, and potentially illegal, but also accomplishes NOTHING.
Nation-wide Vermont Carry, sez I!
WeerdBeard 1 year ago 5
The constitution does not speak specifically to the right to drive a car, but it does recognize the right to keep and bear arms.
oilhammer04 1 year ago 2
@oilhammer04 I'm just saying that some people can't get a licens to drive because they can't do it safely.
thughug22 1 year ago
That seems reasonable, but then, when the government wants to license the carrying of guns, then those in power will limit *who* gets to carry to their friends, eventually. I do agree that people need to be trained in the safe use of guns. Some of us were raised around guns and understand how to use them safely, but many weren't blessed with that upbringing.
oilhammer04 1 year ago
@oilhammer04: If the government wanted to begin limiting carrying rights in any way (beyond weeding out incompetent or criminal applicants) that would be an entirely different piece of legislation. Despite the popular rhetoric, no piece of legislation can act as the beginning of a "slippery slope", because each is a step, not a slope. They *may* begin a staircase, but since each step must be passed individually, the scenario you propose must be supported by the majority to ever occur.
BoojumFed 1 year ago
BoojumFed: You might want to Google Volokh + "Slippery Slope". His discussion of how 'stairs' turn into escalators is worth noting.
jfb1138 1 year ago
@oilhammer04 It's one of those things where everyone should have the right to own and carry a gun but some people are incompitant. I guess the problem would fix its self because all the dump ass' would get shot for fucking around, you know.
thughug22 1 year ago
Which amendment was that again? The one that asserts your right to own and drive a car?
KaelinSaint 1 year ago
Volokh is refreshingly articulate in a time when so many are not, especially among politicians when they aren't speaking on script. Obama and Palin come to mind.
oilhammer04 1 year ago 2
right on volokh.
sugarkang 1 year ago
Volokh's blog is great.
chevydriver1123 1 year ago 2
A libertarian law professor? sweet!
whoo689 1 year ago 14
And here I thought it wasn't possible.
I never thought I'd live to see the day.
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago 2
4:09 - 4:40
I like this guy.
CountArtha 1 year ago
I'm getting an error occurred.
KaiLuck 1 year ago