Reply to Gun owner map

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Gun owner map"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Gun ownership is a right.  You have no argument until 2/3 of the states repeal the second amendment .  If you choose to nullify the constitution ... You will bring on the end of your comfortable existence .[/quote]

Great.  Show me where that right includes you being able to hide your gun ownership from the public.

Also, this whole "end of your comfortable existence" just got filed along with last month's declarations that America is Done For, after Obama won.   You and your pathetic little band of Walter Mittys.  Probably don't even know shit about firearms.  [/quote]

Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness.

Note the Liberty part?

How one cannot see all the layoffs, joblessness, etc. around them and see that as a good thing, is amazing. Now THAT'S being Walter Mitty!

[/quote]

How many times does this need to be explained?  Liberty has limits.  You can't drive your car drunk, you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater, and you shouldn't be able to turn your house into an arsenal without taking some responsibility for it.[/quote]

Owning a gun is not a crime. Driving drunk is.[b] You can't yell fire in a crowded movie theatre because that is PRIVATE PROPERTY[/b]. Owning a gun in itself, is not a crime, nor is it irresponsible. Treating all gun-owners as if they are irresponsible and have already committed a crime is indeed about liberty.[/quote]

Uh, no, you are wrong about that.  You can re-read the Supreme Court cases on 1st Amdt if you like.

As for your last point, everyone, even the most conservative constitutional scholars, recognize limits on the right to bear arms.  It's just a matter of what limits are constitutional.  If you want to go with this all or nothing approach, you are going to lose.  Scalia won't back you.  Thomas won't back you.  Nobody will back you.[/quote]

Sigh:

[i]"Yet Brandenburg claimed the First Amendment protected his speech. His appeal reached the Supreme Court, and the Court agreed with him, in contrast with the earlier Schenck decision. Advocacy, even when it encourages law-breaking, helps the marketplace of ideas, ruled the Court. Had Brandenburg instructed followers to commit a specific crime, he’d have committed a number of offenses himself. But the First Amendment protects speech that merely advocates general, indefinite illegal action.

[b]With that ruling, the Court overturned the Schenck decision that had introduced "shouting fire in a crowded theater." No longer was "clear and present danger" a sufficient standard for criminalizing speech. To break the law, speech now had to incite "imminent lawless action."[/b]

So if a court can prove that you incite imminent lawlessness by falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, it can convict you. If you incite an unlawful riot, your speech is "brigaded" with illegal action, and you will have broken the law. But merely falsely shouting "fire" does not break the law, even if it risks others’ safety."[/i][/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics