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 05-07-2015, 04:43 PM
 
Location: Minneapolis
2,526 posts, read 3,035,464 times
Reputation: 4338

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez View Post
Was an injunction granted that prevented the publishers from printing the story when they wanted to print it? (BTW, the answer is yes)

If the injunction halted the printing, until the government eventually dropped the case, wouldn't you call that prior restraint?
Not when one considers that the information contained in the article was already publicly available. Again, The US was unsuccessful in convincing the courts that this was a violation of the "born secrets" clause of The Atomic Energy Act. It was certainly an attempt to suggest that an abstract appeal to "national security interests" could be used to trump The First Amendment. However, there was no specific law preventing the distribution of this specific information.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-07-2015, 05:47 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,866 posts, read 46,361,426 times
Reputation: 18520
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogead View Post
Nuclear devices, chemical weapons, biological weapons?

Are those defensive, or offensive weapons?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2015, 06:00 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,866 posts, read 46,361,426 times
Reputation: 18520
Quote:
Originally Posted by burdell View Post
In the US vs. Miller(1939) it was ruled by the SCOTUS that "the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"

1939 and the Progressive era of legislating from the bench, started.

Then fully auto machine guns should be legal, in todays militia, as well as holstered hand guns.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2015, 06:05 PM
 
3,557 posts, read 4,079,148 times
Reputation: 1632
It definitely means bear arms, back when the colonies still used British spelling...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2015, 06:33 PM
 
Location: Gone
25,231 posts, read 16,859,551 times
Reputation: 5932
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogead View Post
Are you arguing that there is a law somewhere in The US that prohibits the use of the word "fire"?

The relevant Supreme Court case regarding the "fire in a crowded theater" metaphor is Schenck v. The United States. The term was used by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. to support his contention that Charles Schenck should be imprisoned for distributing anti-war leaflets during WW I.

Theoretically, if you shout "fire" in a public setting, and there is no fire, and you know there is no fire, and your action results in personal injury or property damage--then, you might be held civilly or criminally liable for that action.

This represents neither prior restraint, nor a restriction on free speech.
So your argument comes down to if banned then it would represent restraint, I will grant that, but to charge someone for yelling fire in a theater when their is none knowing that someone could get hurt or killed you can be charged with a crime, even if no one actually gets hurt. Hence there is already laws against performing such an act which endangers or results in harm to others. That means that now that there is a president set in Garland they could be charged criminally if they hold another "contest" knowing that someone could be harmed or killed as a result of their actions. Follow that concept yet?
One more time I am not advocating any such action be taken, I am just playing Devils Advocate and pointing out how this can be viewed and dealt with in the future. My guess is they will not try it again, they accomplished what they set out to do and I would guess the people that ran that little mess in Garland are on more than one groups "List". both our people and the enemy, BAD place to be.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2015, 09:09 PM
 
793 posts, read 1,413,296 times
Reputation: 422
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life View Post
2nd amendment covers all "arms" not just firearms.
This. Including ships of war!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2015, 10:14 PM
 
31,863 posts, read 14,841,144 times
Reputation: 13515
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
Pistol? Shotgun? Rifle? Single shot? Semi-Auto? Full-Auto? Howitzer? RPG?


Or does it mean anything needed to defend yourself? Even if it is just your fists and feet??
A knife? Club? Bat? Hatchet? Shove? Pitchfork? Rolling Pin?


Who gets to define what I can use to defend my and my families well being?? From dangerous predator animals, other individuals with intent to harm or steal, or my overbearing tyrannical government, that comes after me because I will not abide by the oppressed freedoms, liberty and gold they wish to take from me.

My creator, gave me the ability to protect myself. Only government made of men, can take that ability away, so I can no longer effectively protect myself from that very government, much less the predators.
I don't think that's in the 10 commandments.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2015, 10:36 PM
 
Location: Florida
7,727 posts, read 6,288,066 times
Reputation: 15699
Support your right to keep and arm bears.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2015, 10:48 PM
 
48,505 posts, read 96,533,525 times
Reputation: 18301
I think the Supreme court has long settle arms question if one bother to read any opinions. often its government that concentrates on the type not the courts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2015, 12:26 AM
 
Location: Ohio
13,933 posts, read 12,844,802 times
Reputation: 7399
Since there is so much talk of yelling fire in a crowded movie theater, the following article may be of some interest.....

The Second Amendment and Yelling Fire in a Crowded Theatre - The Truth About Guns
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