What is the solution? Or at least what action should be taken?

[WinterBorn]

so, you agree the 1st Amendment does not give you unlimited right of free speech?

Nope...you can't violate the Rights of others with your speech......just like the 2nd Amendment, you can't use a gun to violate the Rights of other people....already have laws that cover that......

But the 1st and 2nd amendments can be regulated.

Yes.....the 2nd Amendment is regulated...

1) You can't use a gun for a crime.

2) You can't buy, own or carry a gun if you are a felon or adjudicated dangerously mentally ill.

3) You can't knowing sell to the above two....

That is pretty much all the regulation we need to "regulate" the 2nd Amendment.

The point I was making is that the amendments can be regulated. Someone stated that they cannot be regulated.

they cant be,,,and only a commie mother fucker would,,,

Obviously they can be. They have been. And I don't see any movement to remove laws against Inciting to Riot from the books.

 

[WinterBorn]

And, as I showed you, the 1st amendment can be regulated.

then show me one law that bans speech,,,

I showed you a law that holds you criminally liable for it. Law does not silence speech. But it can punish speech in certain situations. Like inciting a riot.

see given time you can pull your head out of your ass,,you are being punished for the results of the speech and not the speech itself

Inciting a riot is a criminal act. Yes, you are punished for the speech itself.

so if i stand in an empty parking lot yelling for riots I will get arrested???

its not the speech its the results,,,

If there is a situation where they well may be a riot, and you are encouraging people to riot, you can be arrested and charged. It is not the riot that gets you arrested. It is the "Inciting" that gets you arrested.

The definition of "incite" is as follows:
"Definition of incite
transitive verb

: to move to action : stir up : spur on : urge on"

 

[progressive hunter]

then show me one law that bans speech,,,

I showed you a law that holds you criminally liable for it. Law does not silence speech. But it can punish speech in certain situations. Like inciting a riot.

see given time you can pull your head out of your ass,,you are being punished for the results of the speech and not the speech itself

Inciting a riot is a criminal act. Yes, you are punished for the speech itself.

so if i stand in an empty parking lot yelling for riots I will get arrested???

its not the speech its the results,,,

If there is a situation where they well may be a riot, and you are encouraging people to riot, you can be arrested and charged. It is not the riot that gets you arrested. It is the "Inciting" that gets you arrested.

The definition of "incite" is as follows:
"Definition of incite
transitive verb

: to move to action : stir up : spur on : urge on"

exactly,,,its not the speech but the results of it

just like if you lied about someone, they cant sue you for the lie but they can sue you because of the results of it
and again with yelling fire in a theater, if they just give you a stupid look and go on and watch the movie nothing happens, but if they get up and run around like morons do then you can get in trouble

 

[WinterBorn]

I showed you a law that holds you criminally liable for it. Law does not silence speech. But it can punish speech in certain situations. Like inciting a riot.

see given time you can pull your head out of your ass,,you are being punished for the results of the speech and not the speech itself

Inciting a riot is a criminal act. Yes, you are punished for the speech itself.

so if i stand in an empty parking lot yelling for riots I will get arrested???

its not the speech its the results,,,

If there is a situation where they well may be a riot, and you are encouraging people to riot, you can be arrested and charged. It is not the riot that gets you arrested. It is the "Inciting" that gets you arrested.

The definition of "incite" is as follows:
"Definition of incite
transitive verb

: to move to action : stir up : spur on : urge on"

exactly,,,its not the speech but the results of it

just like if you lied about someone, they cant sue you for the lie but they can sue you because of the results of it
and again with yelling fire in a theater, if they just give you a stupid look and go on and watch the movie nothing happens, but if they get up and run around like morons do then you can get in trouble

No. The law does not state there has to be a riot, just the clear and present danger of one. If you were arrested for rioting, the word "inciting" would not be part of the law. As you say, words have meaning.

 

[progressive hunter]

then show me one law that bans speech,,,

I showed you a law that holds you criminally liable for it. Law does not silence speech. But it can punish speech in certain situations. Like inciting a riot.

see given time you can pull your head out of your ass,,you are being punished for the results of the speech and not the speech itself

Inciting a riot is a criminal act. Yes, you are punished for the speech itself.

so if i stand in an empty parking lot yelling for riots I will get arrested???

its not the speech its the results,,,

If there is a situation where they well may be a riot, and you are encouraging people to riot, you can be arrested and charged. It is not the riot that gets you arrested. It is the "Inciting" that gets you arrested.

The definition of "incite" is as follows:
"Definition of incite
transitive verb

: to move to action : stir up : spur on : urge on"

I know you wont understand it, but it has to do with your rights end where others begin

 

[progressive hunter]

see given time you can pull your head out of your ass,,you are being punished for the results of the speech and not the speech itself

Inciting a riot is a criminal act. Yes, you are punished for the speech itself.

so if i stand in an empty parking lot yelling for riots I will get arrested???

its not the speech its the results,,,

If there is a situation where they well may be a riot, and you are encouraging people to riot, you can be arrested and charged. It is not the riot that gets you arrested. It is the "Inciting" that gets you arrested.

The definition of "incite" is as follows:
"Definition of incite
transitive verb

: to move to action : stir up : spur on : urge on"

exactly,,,its not the speech but the results of it

just like if you lied about someone, they cant sue you for the lie but they can sue you because of the results of it
and again with yelling fire in a theater, if they just give you a stupid look and go on and watch the movie nothing happens, but if they get up and run around like morons do then you can get in trouble

No. The law does not state there has to be a riot, just the clear and present danger of one. If you were arrested for rioting, the word "inciting" would not be part of the law. As you say, words have meaning.

I know you wont understand it, but it has to do with your rights end where others begin



and calling for a riot means you intend on violating another persons rights

 

[skookerasbil]

Ban Assault type rifles, semi-automatic rifles that accept detachable magazines. For current owners, make it illegal to carry one off one's property or sell it.

Ban large capacity magazines.

Put a gag on Trump.

Give Republicans a back bone

Pass the Democrat bills that passed the House. These look at mental aspects.

Putting a gag on Trump is a good idea; the rest is not.

‘Banning’ assault weapons won’t work – it was tried once before and it was a failure.

We need to consider other solutions that don’t involve the regulation of firearms.

The assault weapons ban was a failure? Not so fast there my friend. We do know that it did no harm.
Did mass shootings spike 200% since assault weapons ban?
Did the federal ban on assault weapons matter?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...assault-weapons-ban-gun-violence-experts-say/

Another asshat who you know has never spent 2 seconds at a range on the shotgun line. Fucking meathead......

Those really familiar with firearms know what I am talking about.........a crappy sawed off Maverick 88 with 00 in any confined area. Doy......progressives talking guns is like the Jamaica guy telling the Canadian guy about powder skiing.

 

[skookerasbil]

so you cant show me any laws ,,,
as I figured,,,

I did not show state laws, but I did show that the right of free speech can (and is) regulated.

The charge of Inciting to Riot is a regulation of free speech.

from: Criminal Threats
"Even though the Constitution guarantees the right of free speech, that right is not an absolute one. The law has long recognized specific limitations when it comes to speech, such as prohibitions against slander and libel."

show me a law that restricts speech,,,

nowhere in the first does it say you cant be held responsible for your speech,,it only says the government cant restrict it


try reading it sometime,,,

"Even though the Constitution guarantees the right to possess a firearm, that right is not an absolute one. The law has long recognized specific limitations when it comes to possessing a firearm, such as prohibitions against convicted felons and the mentally ill possessing firearms."

See how that works?

Yes....and in the same ruling Scalia said this...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Then, Scalia wrote this...protecting all of those rifles you anti-gunners want to ban....and by name, he stated the AR-15 is a protected rifle.....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

The government will round up the 5 million AR-15’s and the problem solved.

Right after the government finishes rounding up all of the meth, PCP, heroin, cocaine, etc etc .....

Best post of the year!!

 

[progressive hunter]

see given time you can pull your head out of your ass,,you are being punished for the results of the speech and not the speech itself

Inciting a riot is a criminal act. Yes, you are punished for the speech itself.

so if i stand in an empty parking lot yelling for riots I will get arrested???

its not the speech its the results,,,

If there is a situation where they well may be a riot, and you are encouraging people to riot, you can be arrested and charged. It is not the riot that gets you arrested. It is the "Inciting" that gets you arrested.

The definition of "incite" is as follows:
"Definition of incite
transitive verb

: to move to action : stir up : spur on : urge on"

exactly,,,its not the speech but the results of it

just like if you lied about someone, they cant sue you for the lie but they can sue you because of the results of it
and again with yelling fire in a theater, if they just give you a stupid look and go on and watch the movie nothing happens, but if they get up and run around like morons do then you can get in trouble

No. The law does not state there has to be a riot, just the clear and present danger of one. If you were arrested for rioting, the word "inciting" would not be part of the law. As you say, words have meaning.

do yu think this person should be arrested??

Protesters gather outside McConnell's Kentucky home, one calls for his stabbing 'in the heart'

 

[WinterBorn]

I showed you a law that holds you criminally liable for it. Law does not silence speech. But it can punish speech in certain situations. Like inciting a riot.

see given time you can pull your head out of your ass,,you are being punished for the results of the speech and not the speech itself

Inciting a riot is a criminal act. Yes, you are punished for the speech itself.

so if i stand in an empty parking lot yelling for riots I will get arrested???

its not the speech its the results,,,

If there is a situation where they well may be a riot, and you are encouraging people to riot, you can be arrested and charged. It is not the riot that gets you arrested. It is the "Inciting" that gets you arrested.

The definition of "incite" is as follows:
"Definition of incite
transitive verb

: to move to action : stir up : spur on : urge on"

I know you wont understand it, but it has to do with your rights end where others begin

I understand that the law clearly states you can be prosecuted for encouraging or urging people to riot. The violent acts in a riot would be separate charges. And the law does not state that the riot has to occur, just that there be a clear & present danger of a riot.

 

[WinterBorn]

Inciting a riot is a criminal act. Yes, you are punished for the speech itself.

so if i stand in an empty parking lot yelling for riots I will get arrested???

its not the speech its the results,,,

If there is a situation where they well may be a riot, and you are encouraging people to riot, you can be arrested and charged. It is not the riot that gets you arrested. It is the "Inciting" that gets you arrested.

The definition of "incite" is as follows:
"Definition of incite
transitive verb

: to move to action : stir up : spur on : urge on"

exactly,,,its not the speech but the results of it

just like if you lied about someone, they cant sue you for the lie but they can sue you because of the results of it
and again with yelling fire in a theater, if they just give you a stupid look and go on and watch the movie nothing happens, but if they get up and run around like morons do then you can get in trouble

No. The law does not state there has to be a riot, just the clear and present danger of one. If you were arrested for rioting, the word "inciting" would not be part of the law. As you say, words have meaning.

I know you wont understand it, but it has to do with your rights end where others begin



and calling for a riot means you intend on violating another persons rights

Inciting to riot is a crime. Rioting and the violence is a separate crime(s).

 

[progressive hunter]

see given time you can pull your head out of your ass,,you are being punished for the results of the speech and not the speech itself

Inciting a riot is a criminal act. Yes, you are punished for the speech itself.

so if i stand in an empty parking lot yelling for riots I will get arrested???

its not the speech its the results,,,

If there is a situation where they well may be a riot, and you are encouraging people to riot, you can be arrested and charged. It is not the riot that gets you arrested. It is the "Inciting" that gets you arrested.

The definition of "incite" is as follows:
"Definition of incite
transitive verb

: to move to action : stir up : spur on : urge on"

I know you wont understand it, but it has to do with your rights end where others begin

I understand that the law clearly states you can be prosecuted for encouraging or urging people to riot. The violent acts in a riot would be separate charges. And the law does not state that the riot has to occur, just that there be a clear & present danger of a riot.

I didnt think you would understand,,,

 

[WinterBorn]

Inciting a riot is a criminal act. Yes, you are punished for the speech itself.

so if i stand in an empty parking lot yelling for riots I will get arrested???

its not the speech its the results,,,

If there is a situation where they well may be a riot, and you are encouraging people to riot, you can be arrested and charged. It is not the riot that gets you arrested. It is the "Inciting" that gets you arrested.

The definition of "incite" is as follows:
"Definition of incite
transitive verb

: to move to action : stir up : spur on : urge on"

I know you wont understand it, but it has to do with your rights end where others begin

I understand that the law clearly states you can be prosecuted for encouraging or urging people to riot. The violent acts in a riot would be separate charges. And the law does not state that the riot has to occur, just that there be a clear & present danger of a riot.

I didnt think you would understand,,,

I understand the words of the law and the definition of "incite". That you refuse to admit it does not change the facts.

 

[progressive hunter]

so if i stand in an empty parking lot yelling for riots I will get arrested???

its not the speech its the results,,,

If there is a situation where they well may be a riot, and you are encouraging people to riot, you can be arrested and charged. It is not the riot that gets you arrested. It is the "Inciting" that gets you arrested.

The definition of "incite" is as follows:
"Definition of incite
transitive verb

: to move to action : stir up : spur on : urge on"

I know you wont understand it, but it has to do with your rights end where others begin

I understand that the law clearly states you can be prosecuted for encouraging or urging people to riot. The violent acts in a riot would be separate charges. And the law does not state that the riot has to occur, just that there be a clear & present danger of a riot.

I didnt think you would understand,,,

I understand the words of the law and the definition of "incite". That you refuse to admit it does not change the facts.

incite means you intend to violate another persons rights,,,

your rights end where mine begin,,,

 

[WinterBorn]

If there is a situation where they well may be a riot, and you are encouraging people to riot, you can be arrested and charged. It is not the riot that gets you arrested. It is the "Inciting" that gets you arrested.

The definition of "incite" is as follows:
"Definition of incite
transitive verb

: to move to action : stir up : spur on : urge on"

I know you wont understand it, but it has to do with your rights end where others begin

I understand that the law clearly states you can be prosecuted for encouraging or urging people to riot. The violent acts in a riot would be separate charges. And the law does not state that the riot has to occur, just that there be a clear & present danger of a riot.

I didnt think you would understand,,,

I understand the words of the law and the definition of "incite". That you refuse to admit it does not change the facts.

incite means you intend to violate another persons rights,,,

your rights end where mine begin,,,

The law states: "(a) A person who with intent to riot does an act or engages in conduct which urges, counsels, or advises others to riot, at a time and place and under circumstances which produce a clear and present danger of a riot, commits the offense of inciting to riot."

It is the urging, counselling, or advising that is against the law.

 

[progressive hunter]

I know you wont understand it, but it has to do with your rights end where others begin

I understand that the law clearly states you can be prosecuted for encouraging or urging people to riot. The violent acts in a riot would be separate charges. And the law does not state that the riot has to occur, just that there be a clear & present danger of a riot.

I didnt think you would understand,,,

I understand the words of the law and the definition of "incite". That you refuse to admit it does not change the facts.

incite means you intend to violate another persons rights,,,

your rights end where mine begin,,,

The law states: "(a) A person who with intent to riot does an act or engages in conduct which urges, counsels, or advises others to riot, at a time and place and under circumstances which produce a clear and present danger of a riot, commits the offense of inciting to riot."

It is the urging, counselling, or advising that is against the law.

exactly its not the speech but the intended results

 

[WinterBorn]

I understand that the law clearly states you can be prosecuted for encouraging or urging people to riot. The violent acts in a riot would be separate charges. And the law does not state that the riot has to occur, just that there be a clear & present danger of a riot.

I didnt think you would understand,,,

I understand the words of the law and the definition of "incite". That you refuse to admit it does not change the facts.

incite means you intend to violate another persons rights,,,

your rights end where mine begin,,,

The law states: "(a) A person who with intent to riot does an act or engages in conduct which urges, counsels, or advises others to riot, at a time and place and under circumstances which produce a clear and present danger of a riot, commits the offense of inciting to riot."

It is the urging, counselling, or advising that is against the law.

exactly its not the speech but the intended results

No, it is not. The law does not say that you are guilty if the speech results in a riot.

If you urge, counsel or advise, you are not rioting. Yet you are guilty of inciting to riot.

 

[progressive hunter]

I didnt think you would understand,,,

I understand the words of the law and the definition of "incite". That you refuse to admit it does not change the facts.

incite means you intend to violate another persons rights,,,

your rights end where mine begin,,,

The law states: "(a) A person who with intent to riot does an act or engages in conduct which urges, counsels, or advises others to riot, at a time and place and under circumstances which produce a clear and present danger of a riot, commits the offense of inciting to riot."

It is the urging, counselling, or advising that is against the law.

exactly its not the speech but the intended results

No, it is not. The law does not say that you are guilty if the speech results in a riot.

If you urge, counsel or advise, you are not rioting. Yet you are guilty of inciting to riot.

do you know what the word intended means???


you have to read all the words on the page not just the ones that you choose to

 

[Weatherman2020]

I am not looking for "We needs armed good guys!" or "Ban all privately owned guns!".

I am looking for actual, workable things that can be done to prevent the kinds of tragedies we have seen in the last week.

For conservatives, the time for Thoughts & Prayers is over. If you won't come up with solutions, someone else will. If the population is afraid, they will surrender their freedoms for a sense of safety. You have to do something.

For liberals, the knee-jerk reaction of banning guns is not a viable answer. Fuck party lines. This is about a balance of safety and individual freedom (especially the freedom to defend ourselves).


So what are the answer(s)?

I note or I missed it that no one talks about the death penalty being reinstated.

 

[danielpalos]

Well regulated militia are expressly declared Necessary not Optional to the security of a free State.