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 04-07-2009, 07:29 PM
 
1,489 posts, read 2,027,437 times
Reputation: 331

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
Or at least that would be the logic if the NRA was an organization founded to protect the 1st Amendment, after all the 1st Amendment states:

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.
Go ahead, ding-dong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-07-2009, 07:30 PM
 
11,944 posts, read 14,736,785 times
Reputation: 2772
the restrictions on 1st amendment rights already exist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2009, 07:31 PM
 
31,387 posts, read 36,927,707 times
Reputation: 15038
Quote:
Originally Posted by ViewFromThePeak View Post
Yelling fire in a crowded building will 100% get many people hurt or killed.
I couldn't agree more.

Quote:
Owning a gun has a minuscule chance of such an outcome.
30,000 dead is hardly minuscule.

Quote:
Yelling fire in a crowded building yields zero utility.
But, but... its my right!

Quote:
Owning a gun, especially a high powered assault rifle (like I enjoy and will continue to enjoy regardless of what some empty suit in the WH does) is a great deterrent to an overzealous government in the event they became too oppressive,
What dope are you smoking? Your assault rifle is no more a deterrent to a SWAT team as any local gang banger with the same weapon. If you really believe that your "assault weapon" is a deterrent to a SAW or an M1 Abrams I got a couple of Sunni insurgents that you need to talk to.

But all of that bravado BS is besides the point.

Under the past assault gun ban, what weapons were you deprived from having?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2009, 07:41 PM
 
11,944 posts, read 14,736,785 times
Reputation: 2772
restrictions on 2nd amendment right already exist. Shall we enforce them?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2009, 08:15 PM
 
Location: somewhere in the woods
16,880 posts, read 15,146,396 times
Reputation: 5239
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
Not at all, what I do want is a logical discussion about firearms. The NRA and its minions seem to be under the impression that the 2nd Amendment should have no limitations. As a life long gun owner, the holder of a concealed weapons permit for more than 20 years and as a former military weapons specialist I find this logic to be wanting.

A logical discussion?

Fine, as written by the founding fathers, the 2nd Amendment covers all the implements of war that the individual soldier carries and uses.

meaning all assault rifle, grenades, bayonets, hi cap mags, pistols and light machingguns are legal to own by each and every citizen of the USA. all without any sort of law made against the same.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2009, 08:18 PM
 
Location: DFW
40,932 posts, read 48,901,953 times
Reputation: 54916
I Should Have The Right To Shout Fire In A Crowded Theater.

Technically you already have this right. You also have the right to get your butt kicked if you try it in most areas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2009, 08:22 PM
 
11,944 posts, read 14,736,785 times
Reputation: 2772
rakin and the right to be held libel for damages that would bankrupt you covering the medical bills for the hell you raised. The law does work after the fact, but pre emptive law enforcement... that sounds like pre emptive war, doesn't it???
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2009, 08:26 PM
 
Location: Raleigh, NC
9,059 posts, read 12,938,314 times
Reputation: 1401
Quote:
Originally Posted by harborlady View Post
rakin and the right to be held libel for damages that would bankrupt you covering the medical bills for the hell you raised. The law does work after the fact, but pre emptive law enforcement... that sounds like pre emptive war, doesn't it???
Actually, if you punched someone out cold for yelling fire in a crowded theatre, nothing will likely happen to you. Any criminal or civil case would be laughed out of court as you were protecting lives by neutralizing a threat.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2009, 08:31 PM
 
Location: DFW
40,932 posts, read 48,901,953 times
Reputation: 54916
Quote:
Originally Posted by harborlady View Post
rakin and the right to be held libel for damages that would bankrupt you covering the medical bills for the hell you raised. The law does work after the fact, but pre emptive law enforcement... that sounds like pre emptive war, doesn't it???
Not only would it be me punching the guy out but 2/3 of the rest of the people in the theater would get a kick in also. I'd bet there wouldn't be any witnesses stepping forward to defend the fool.

I'd be the 1st to tell the cop the guy fell down on his way out of the place due to his stupidly yelling fire.

As I said, he does have the right to yell fire in a theater. You'd hope he has the sense not to do it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2009, 08:38 PM
 
11,944 posts, read 14,736,785 times
Reputation: 2772
Quote:
Originally Posted by ViewFromThePeak View Post
Actually, if you punched someone out cold for yelling fire in a crowded theatre, nothing will likely happen to you. Any criminal or civil case would be laughed out of court as you were protecting lives by neutralizing a threat.
That's the problem with some of the laws in misc municipalities or states. I for one have a problem with any law telling me I'm not allowed to shoot someone breaking into my house. I think those laws need a smack upside the head. Any fool bold enough to break and enter shouldn't be given favor suing the owner because he tripped and broke his leg.
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

All times are GMT -6.

© 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