Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-25-2013, 08:52 AM
 
2,838 posts, read 3,490,663 times
Reputation: 1406

Advertisements

Gun owners will soon find themselves the more "well regulated".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-25-2013, 08:54 AM
 
Location: Del Rio, TN
39,810 posts, read 26,408,051 times
Reputation: 25705
Quote:
Originally Posted by punkfan39126 View Post
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances


So why am I not allowed threaten someone with violence, defame someone, scream fire in a crowded theatre? Heck, I can't even say certain words on the radio?


Why aren't the gun folks so upset over this?
Nothing has made it incapable for you to yell fire in a crowded theater, no one has cut out your tongue. You are punished for the act you do with it. These laws only punish those that commit criminal acts with that capability. Gun laws are aimed at the honest, law abiding person, not the actions of the criminal. IF we were to do the same with guns...we would eliminate all gun bans and background checks, and punish those that use them to commit criminal acts.


Lets make the things comparable. If you want to make the first comparable to the second, you have to make an honest comparison.

1) Anyone holding a public event would have to be licensed by the federal government (FFL equivalent).

2) We would have to make you go through a federal background check to participate in any kind of public assembly.

3) Political rallys would be limited to a maximum of 10 people. Dangereous "assault rallys" would be banned.

4) Signs would be limited to 10x10 inches in size.

5) There would be a three day waiting period before being allowed to participate in polictial speach.

6) The mentally insane, drug users, illegal aliens or those dishonorably discharged from the armed forces need not apply.

7) If you do want to have a rally with more than 10 people, everyone that attends has to pay a $200 fee, get finger printed, pass a federal background check and be approved by their local chief LEO. Oh, and wait 6 months for approval (NFA 1934).

Shall I go on? Ignorant people have been making this comparison for the last 40 years that I recall, never did make sense to anyone that thought about it.

Last edited by Toyman at Jewel Lake; 01-25-2013 at 09:07 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2013, 08:56 AM
 
571 posts, read 789,340 times
Reputation: 596
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMoreYouKnow View Post
We are all aware of that, we are also aware that there are already limits on the 2nd amendment and there are even laws against killing people with guns unless it's justified.

What's the point of this thread?
I'm just curious why all the gun nuts aren't upset about restrictions on the 1st amendment when they are ready to go to war over similar restrictions on the 2nd.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2013, 08:59 AM
 
Location: Del Rio, TN
39,810 posts, read 26,408,051 times
Reputation: 25705
Quote:
Originally Posted by punkfan39126 View Post
I'm just curious why all the gun nuts aren't upset about restrictions on the 1st amendment when they are ready to go to war over similar restrictions on the 2nd.
Answered above. When the government cuts your tongue out so you don't have the capability of exercising free speach, we can talk. Well, I guess not talk, but you can type me a response.

It's not legal to yell fire in a crowded theater.

It's not legal to shoot a bunch of people in a crowded theater either. No "gun nut" has proposed changing that.


But of course if the first was like some want to make the second...theaters wouldn't be crowded because only 10 people at a time could attend.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2013, 09:00 AM
 
2,838 posts, read 3,490,663 times
Reputation: 1406
Under the Constitution, there can only be legal rights. For example, unlike the Second Amendment, which does not grant any rights but only secures those under the law, the First Amendment to the Constitution is a direct grant of fundamental rights to civil liberties (i.e., religion, speech, the press, petition and assembly) afforded protection by law. The source of these rights is the Constitution, which under the Supremacy Clause, is the supreme law of the land. See U.S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2. In drafting the First Amendment, the framers of the Constitution intended to put these rights beyond state infringement. See Torcaso v. Watkins, 361 U.S. 488 (1961). Without the First Amendment (the "law"), these rights would be subject to abridgment and abrogation by the state. All rights are created by law. It is the law that defines our rights; it is the law that provides for their enforcement. To say that there is a right to anything, petitio principii, only to beg the question of their existence (and validity) under the law.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2013, 09:09 AM
 
Location: In your head, rent free
14,888 posts, read 10,007,732 times
Reputation: 7692
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendell Phillips View Post
Gun owners will soon find themselves the more "well regulated".
Gun owners are already well regulated. Most of us will simply ignore any additional unconstitutional regulations placed on us due to the actions of a few other people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2013, 09:11 AM
 
Location: In your head, rent free
14,888 posts, read 10,007,732 times
Reputation: 7692
Quote:
Originally Posted by punkfan39126 View Post
I'm just curious why all the gun nuts aren't upset about restrictions on the 1st amendment when they are ready to go to war over similar restrictions on the 2nd.
You're curious because you aren't smart enough to understand the differences in the different restrictions. Have you even read anything people have posted in this thread?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2013, 09:15 AM
 
Location: Tyler, TX
23,666 posts, read 23,987,722 times
Reputation: 14996
Quote:
Originally Posted by punkfan39126 View Post
Why are you so angry? I didn't recall attacking you personally. Calm down, this is an message board, I don't want to ruin your whole day.
Angry? I'm not angry. You effectively issued a challenge. This is fun for me, and you certainly didn't ruin my day - if anything, you improved it. I'm going to enjoy this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by punkfan39126 View Post
As for "criminal defamation", I can think of a case off the top of my head; Tyler Clementi Death: Dharun Ravi Guilty on 24 Counts - TIME.
Why did you cite that case? There were no charges of defamation. Did you even bother to read the list of charges against him? Here - since you must have missed it the first time:

Live coverage: Dharun Ravi found guilty on most counts in webcam spying trial verdict | NJ.com

Quote:
Originally Posted by punkfan39126 View Post
19 states have "criminal defamation" laws.
Cite them. The laws, not the states.

Quote:
Originally Posted by punkfan39126 View Post
Federal law supersedes all state law by the way, and state laws are required to adhere to The Constitution. Now, the feds can choose not to force states to adhere to federal law, as in these recent marijuana legalization stuff, but they have the right to.
What federal laws are you referring to?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2013, 09:17 AM
 
Location: Tyler, TX
23,666 posts, read 23,987,722 times
Reputation: 14996
Quote:
Originally Posted by punkfan39126 View Post
What about the whole no infringement thing?
What about it?

I'm not going to keep repeating myself. Go back and re-read the thread if you're having difficulty keeping up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:31 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top