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)
 
Old 04-25-2014, 08:42 PM
 
Location: Newport Beach, California
39,010 posts, read 27,402,975 times
Reputation: 15932

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Votre_Chef View Post
I didn't say anything about an unloaded gun. You just put your fingers in your ears and yelled "Second Amendment!"

Don't ever complain about the other side being unreasonable again. I just tried to reason with you, and you just ignored what I said and said something about an unloaded gun, which I didn't mention one way or the other.
Unfortunately, I was talking about UNLOADED GUN, and you refuse to listen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-25-2014, 08:44 PM
 
2,687 posts, read 2,177,829 times
Reputation: 1478
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981 View Post
Unfortunately, I was talking about UNLOADED GUN, and you refuse to listen.
And I was addressing the underlying premise. If the thread wasn't about the second and first amendments, why even bring them up in the first place?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2014, 08:44 PM
 
Location: Newport Beach, California
39,010 posts, read 27,402,975 times
Reputation: 15932
Quote:
Originally Posted by Votre_Chef View Post
I didn't say anything about an unloaded gun. You just put your fingers in your ears and yelled "Second Amendment!"

Don't ever complain about the other side being unreasonable again. I just tried to reason with you, and you just ignored what I said and said something about an unloaded gun, which I didn't mention one way or the other.
You might want to watch this again

Yes, it is unreasonable


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hK31i0QbMnA
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2014, 08:47 PM
 
Location: Newport Beach, California
39,010 posts, read 27,402,975 times
Reputation: 15932
Quote:
Originally Posted by arjay57 View Post
Gotcha.

LOL whatever makes you happy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2014, 09:04 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,866 posts, read 46,420,298 times
Reputation: 18520
Quote:
Originally Posted by Votre_Chef View Post
It's not a double standard. The first amendment says nothing about whether my speech endangers public safety or not, but if I yell "fire!" in a crowded theater, I will go to jail and my claim that the first amendment absolutely gives me the right to say what I want wherever and whenever I want won't help me.

Even if people choose to ignore it, there are plenty of ongoing arguments pertaining to freedom of speech and freedom of the press (journalists jailed for refusing to reveal their sources, hate speech that crosses the line towards inciting violence, etc).

First Amendment issues touch upon issues of public safety (mentioned above), national defense (Wikileaks, the publishing of the Pentagon Papers, etc.), and individual privacy (are the paparazzi legit, or are they essentially stalking celebrities and invading their privacy?And how much privacy can celebrities expect in public as they are public figures? etc). How much freedom of speech to minors have (what can kids say and do in school, etc.).

Second Amendment issues touch upon public safety. Some people may argue that having more firearms and easier access to firearms makes for a safer public, and they'll trot out their numbers to back that up. Others will say that having more restricted access to firearms makes for a safer public, and they'll trot out their numbers to back that up.

But the point is that someone putting their fingers in their ears and screaming "Second Amendment!" in an attempt to pretend like the argument doesn't even exist or is even a valid argument to have is the person being hypocritical and applying a double standard, because when it comes to the arguments surrounding the First Amendment, both sides are at least getting the opportunity to present their respective cases as to why such and such behavior is or isn't protected under the First Amendment. The people who claim to be staunchly defending the Second Amendment won't even recognize that a valid argument against their position might exist. Even the ACLU doesn't do that, they actually engage their opponent's arguments head on, unlike say, the NRA.



The 2nd amendment was a right, until the Civil war told the federal government what could happen anytime they stepped upon the constitution and states right and power.

Open carry of guns were then forbidden in many towns.

After prohibition, the federal government once again saw what free people with firepower as great as their was prohibiting their power to enforce laws, with the beginning of the FBI and the Police state.
All the sudden, no amendment, but a law that is unconstitutional, that says I cannot own the same weapons that the government have, without asking the very government for the privilege.

You see, we had just fought a costly and bloody battle against a government of tyranny and authoritarianism. The idea of giving up arms to the governments say so, was not in the equation at all. Far from it and the words saying WILL NOT BE INFRINGED, were specifically chosen to define the chains on the federal government. Meaning, you take and abuse my rights, you may, or may not get shot, cut deep, clubbed, or popped in the nose.


The supreme court is wrong. They have totally missed the intent of the times at which it was composed and the shall not be infringed part. To that, I kiss my BAR and my Thompson.
Come & Take It!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2014, 09:49 PM
 
Location: Ohio
13,933 posts, read 12,855,612 times
Reputation: 7399
Quote:
Originally Posted by arjay57 View Post
You're so scared of getting mugged or raped that you think you have to carry a pistol on your hip when you go to the mall or the Little League park?
You're so scared of a fire that you have to hang smoke detectors on your wall?

You're so scared of a fire that you have to keep a fire extinguisher on hand?

You're so scared of the electric going out and being late for work that you have to put a battery in your alarm clock?

You're so scared of a flat tire that you carry a jack, tire iron, a spare tire and a subscription to AAA with you?

You're so scared of a car crash that you buckle up your seat belt?

You're so scared of an emergency that you keep a first aid kit handy?

You're so scared of a break in that you pay for an alarm system in your house?

This is a fun game, pretending that nothing ever goes wrong, and I could play it all night but I actually have a life believe it or not. It has NOTHING to do with being "scared" or "paranoid" and everything to do with being prepared and accepting the reality that $#&* happens. There is no difference between being prepared for the scenerios I listed above and carrying a gun just in case the remote possibility of having to defend yourself becomes a reality. The only difference resides in your mind. If you want to pretend that beatings, rapes, muggings etc never happen, that's your fantasy. If you think the odds of it happening to you are so remote that you are comfortable not having a means to defend yourself at all times, that's your choice, but don't try and make someone else accept your choice. There are hundreds if not thousands of cases where carrying a gun saved someones life and had they not had it, they or others may not have been so lucky.

Quote:
Oddly, 99.99999% of us aren't that frightened.
As I said, there are currently 8 million carry permit holders throughout the United States and growing. That isn't even counting those who legally carry without a permit in states where a permit is not required. Admittedly, I'm not that great at math, but I'm pretty sure 8 million is more than .01% of the population as you assert. Why not figure what the actual percentage is instead of adding an extra "9" to your percentage every time you post it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2014, 09:51 PM
 
Location: Ohio
13,933 posts, read 12,855,612 times
Reputation: 7399
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981 View Post
It is only foolish in YOUR eyes. Just because it is "foolish", people have to give up on their 2rd amendment right? Are you kidding? Why don't you tell the foolish people who burn flag to give up on their 1st amendment right?
?
Excellent point.... Burning a flag is foolish and in reality it accomplishes nothing and could be dangerous, but people still have a right to do it under the first.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2014, 10:01 PM
 
Location: Ohio
13,933 posts, read 12,855,612 times
Reputation: 7399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Votre_Chef View Post
but if I yell "fire!" in a crowded theater, I will go to jail and my claim that the first amendment absolutely gives me the right to say what I want wherever and whenever I want won't help me.
.
Where do people get the idea that warning their fellow movie goers of an impending fire is illegal?

If there is a fire in the back row and I yell "fire" and everyone rushes out, even though I saved their lives will I later be charged with a crime? No...

Likewise, if I yell fire in a theater where there isn't one, will I be charged with yelling those words in sequence? Uhhhh.... no. I may be charged with inciting a panic with my words. I am free to yell those words, it's what happens next is what I am accountable for.

Also, you have to consider intent. When the founders wrote the first, did they intend for people to be able to go around and incite panic with their speech? Uhhh....no. They intended for a free exchange of thoughts and ideas without fear of repurcussion.

Tying that in with the second amendment, what did they intend when they wrote that? They intended for people to to be able to defend life and Liberty. So, is a law barring the carry of a gun unconstitutional? I would say so, and the Ninth Circuit court, which is one of the most liberal courts in the country, agrees with me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2014, 10:04 PM
 
Location: Ohio
13,933 posts, read 12,855,612 times
Reputation: 7399
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981 View Post
Really? So carrying an UNLOADED gun in public endangers the public? WOW Are you serious? Again, double standard.
.
Just out of curiosity, why would you want to carry an unloaded gun around in public?

I think that may actually put you in more danger of being in a situation you don't want to be in.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2014, 10:06 PM
 
2,687 posts, read 2,177,829 times
Reputation: 1478
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88 View Post
Where do people get the idea that warning their fellow movie goers of an impending fire is illegal?

If there is a fire in the back row and I yell "fire" and everyone rushes out, even though I saved their lives will I later be charged with a crime? No...

Likewise, if I yell fire in a theater where there isn't one, will I be charged with yelling those words in sequence? Uhhhh.... no. I may be charged with inciting a panic with my words. I am free to yell those words, it's what happens next is what I am accountable for.

Also, you have to consider intent. When the founders wrote the first, did they intend for people to be able to go around and incite panic with their speech? Uhhh....no. They intended for a free exchange of thoughts and ideas without fear of repurcussion.

Tying that in with the second amendment, what did they intend when they wrote that? They intended for people to to be able to defend life and Liberty. So, is a law barring the carry of a gun unconstitutional? I would say so, and the Ninth Circuit court, which is one of the most liberal courts in the country, agrees with me.
You do understand the context of the oft-cited example (used by Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. during the case against Eugene Debs during World War I), don't you? The person is yelling "fire" when there is no fire (in the example), just to cause a dangerous stampede. If there really was a fire than of course it's not illegal. The point is that even though the First Amendment does not specify as much, there are limitations to the First Amendment, one can't claim their First Amendment rights give them the right to endanger the public.
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