Do you notice how gun nuts never talk about any limits to gun ownership?

[Blues Man]

It's Time to Stop Using the 'Fire in a Crowded Theater' Quote

 

[Pilot1]

Are they cool with the prospect of people open carrying fully automatic wherever they go? After all, it’s the second amendment! Why is this not a thing?! Surely at GOP conventions those tough republican politicians would feel safe with knowing any fucker carrying a weapon around them is allowed to. Republicans’ idea of limiting gun violence is more guns after all. More guns the better!

If they do draw the line at these scenarios, then don’t they see how ridiculous it is to say any from of gun control is unconstitutional? Who are republicans to arbitrarily decide what level of gun laws are acceptable but democrats can’t? Hell, even their St. Scalia said gun control measures were constitutional.

Do you notice how kids have freedom of speech? You may pretend they don’t because what they choose to say can be punished by an adult in charge, but adults can be punished for what they say as well by adults in charge. After all, you can lose your job if you find yourself catcalling that new hot intern everyday.

All that matters when it comes to the first amendment and kids is that they can’t be charged with a crime for their speech. Now all this being said, are toddlers being denied their bill of rights by not being able to carry a gun?

Dude the Second Amendment gives us the right to walk armed.

Well Government does not grant rights. We have a Natural Right as human beings to defend ourselves by any means necessary. Our Constitution just protects that right FROM Government with the Second Amendment.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Oh, I agree we need to amend. But we also need to amend the 2nd as well. You can't have one without the other.

And, to force an amendment, force the consequences of not amending. It it the only proper way.

Doing that is risky, because the second could be expanded. How much lobbying money with the NRA throw around to expand on the restrictions on both federal and state governments.?

.

 

[dannyboys]

Are they cool with the prospect of people open carrying fully automatic wherever they go? After all, it’s the second amendment! Why is this not a thing?! Surely at GOP conventions those tough republican politicians would feel safe with knowing any fucker carrying a weapon around them is allowed to. Republicans’ idea of limiting gun violence is more guns after all. More guns the better!

If they do draw the line at these scenarios, then don’t they see how ridiculous it is to say any from of gun control is unconstitutional? Who are republicans to arbitrarily decide what level of gun laws are acceptable but democrats can’t? Hell, even their St. Scalia said gun control measures were constitutional.

Do you notice how kids have freedom of speech? You may pretend they don’t because what they choose to say can be punished by an adult in charge, but adults can be punished for what they say as well by adults in charge. After all, you can lose your job if you find yourself catcalling that new hot intern everyday.

All that matters when it comes to the first amendment and kids is that they can’t be charged with a crime for their speech. Now all this being said, are toddlers being denied their bill of rights by not being able to carry a gun?

You lost any credibility the second you posted "fully automatic guns" you fucking MORON!
Any luck selling off all those 'Hands Up Don't Shoot' T shirts yet?
GO AWAY!

 

[M14 Shooter]

2nd only applies to the Federals, not the states.

Why do you, Stolen Valor Boy, continually make and repeat statements you know are not true?

The Feds have only gone as far as saying that you can only have the weapon for the defense of your home as long as you adhere to the State and lower government laws.

Why do you, Stolen Valor Boy, continually make and repeat statements you know are not true?

 

[M14 Shooter]

When your freedom of Speech becomes a danger to the public health then the government can, will and does limit it....

Interesting.
Tell us, Stolen Valor Boy:
How does simple ownership/possession of an AR15 or any other "bearable arm" endanger the public health?

 

[M14 Shooter]

[
Funny how the Federal Courts agree with me since I am using them as my sources.

This is another statement you know to be untrue, Stolen Valor Boy - the courts have been very clear on the incorporation of the bill of rights against actions by the states.

 

[Likkmee]

Here's a deal.
I'll get some gold teeth and a hoodie and drink a half of noddahead. Then me and Tyrone kick your front door off the hinges and shoot your dog with my Glock. You call 911. See who gets to you first.Oh wait. We cut the phone lines and you don't use wifi because it's " unhealthy" Right ?
Sound like fun "bro" ?

 

[M14 Shooter]

No Court has allowed yelling Fire in a crowed Auditorium when there is no fire, there are laws against that.

Unsurprisingly, your illustrate your ignorance of this issue, Stolen Valor Boy
There are no laws against falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater.
There ARE laws again inciting panic, etc; courts have ruled the 1st Amendment is not an affirmative defense against charges of same because the right to free speech does not including harming others or placing them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.

How, exactly, do you think this applies to simple ownership/possession of a firearm?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Those are expressly written in the first amendment. And yes, they can limit those. Like yelling "Fire" in a crowded auditorium when no fire exists. It's not absolute. Or by any number of things that is called "Swatting". When your freedom of Speech becomes a danger to the public health then the government can, will and does limit it even though the 1st amendment says what it does. The State has that right and obligation.

Wrong.

By that standard, ANY speech could be deemed a danger to public health, and ALL free speech banned.

It's when your speech is used as an instrument that unjustly deprives others of their rights or that inexcusably places other in actual, imminent danger.

Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is justified when there is an actual fire.

Also, prior restraint of free speech is prohibited. So, it is only a matter of consequences arising from free speech that make the right of free speech limited.

Under this standard, you want prior restraint on the exercise of all rights because they MIGHT be a danger to someone else.

That is wholly inappropriate.

.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Should I prove to you, first, how many lives have been spared by denying private sales of hand grenades to the public?

Your desperation is duly noted. Hand grenades have never been part of the discussion. Please grow up and address the topic. If you cannot, please remain on the sideline.

Why, Markle, I am addressing the topic quite directly. The topic is the post by PolishPrince that Clinton's limiting some firearm sales was a total failure. All I am doing is asking how he measures that it was a total failure. For example, are these 1,000 people who are dead that Clinton assumed would be alive with this limitation? If so, could we get their names? I can't be held responsible if you can't follow a simple conversation.

The fact is the federal assault weapon ban was found to have no effect on crime or murder rates so it was allowed to sunset.

And the FBI stats prove the point. Rifles of any kind are used in less than 2% of all murders and those rifles with the plastic doodad add ons account for less than 1% of all murders

Knowing this how can you think banning a rifle with plastic pistol grips (AKA an "assault rifle") will have any effect on crime?

Well, then, why didn't you just say that you have no facts to back up your assertion that Clinton's gun restrictions were a failure?

 

[Pilot1]

The bottom line is very little crime, and very, very few deaths are caused by criminals using what the Left likes to call an "Assault Rifle". During the ten year Assault Weapons Ban, the stats for crime committed using these guns did not change.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The bottom line is very little crime, and very, very few deaths are caused by criminals using what the Left likes to call an "Assume Rifle". During the ten year Assault Weapons Ban, the stats for crime committed using these guns did not change.

1982-2018, about 10 people/year were murdered with an 'assault weapon' in a mass shooting; being murdered with an 'assault weapon' is the least likely way someone might be murdered.

 

[DJT for Life]

People overreact.

Look at New Zealand. They are in the process of disarming their entire country.

Wouldn't it have been easier just to deny a visa to Australians?

 

[Blues Man]

Should I prove to you, first, how many lives have been spared by denying private sales of hand grenades to the public?

Your desperation is duly noted. Hand grenades have never been part of the discussion. Please grow up and address the topic. If you cannot, please remain on the sideline.

Why, Markle, I am addressing the topic quite directly. The topic is the post by PolishPrince that Clinton's limiting some firearm sales was a total failure. All I am doing is asking how he measures that it was a total failure. For example, are these 1,000 people who are dead that Clinton assumed would be alive with this limitation? If so, could we get their names? I can't be held responsible if you can't follow a simple conversation.

The fact is the federal assault weapon ban was found to have no effect on crime or murder rates so it was allowed to sunset.

And the FBI stats prove the point. Rifles of any kind are used in less than 2% of all murders and those rifles with the plastic doodad add ons account for less than 1% of all murders

Knowing this how can you think banning a rifle with plastic pistol grips (AKA an "assault rifle") will have any effect on crime?

Well, then, why didn't you just say that you have no facts to back up your assertion that Clinton's gun restrictions were a failure?

I never used the word failure. Why is it you people here can't seem to keep straight who you are responding to?
I gave you the facts from the FBI stats on crime

What more do you want? I'm still waiting for your facts that crimes were prevented because of any gun law.

Clinton's ban was allowed to sunset because it produced no measurable effect on crime

The Effects of Bans on the Sale of Assault Weapons and High-Capacity Magazines
The assault weapons ban didn't work. A new version won't, either

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Effects of Bans on the Sale of Assault Weapons and High-Capacity Magazines
The assault weapons ban didn't work. A new version won't, either

The 1994 AWB had no effect because it could not have an effect.

 

[Pilot1]

This is why the Democrats are now talking about banning ALL semi auto firearms.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This is why the Democrats are now talking about banning ALL semi auto firearms.

Which, unquestionably, violates the constitution.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

This is why the Democrats are now talking about banning ALL semi auto firearms.

You mean that if you are a Democrat you are required to require a total ban of all semi auto firearms? Let me check the Democrat contract. .............still checking.............bare with me...................nope, it ain't in there. Do I have a different version than all the rest of the world? Must have because I know you always tell the truth, butthead.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This is why the Democrats are now talking about banning ALL semi auto firearms.

Apparently there -is- significant support for this among Democrats:
Survey: Majority of Democrats want to ban semi-automatics, half want to ban all guns
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/h8n9gvrqyj/econTabReport.pdf

73 percent of self-identified Democrats “strongly” favor banning semi-automatic firearms. The survey found that an additional nine percent “somewhat” favor a ban of that sort.