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.
I think you'd better re-apply the criteria set in that court decision. Here, we'll do it together....
(1) the person knows that his words will cause immediate harm
Does an event oganizer know that holding such an event will cause harm? Is it even reasonable to assume that holding the event will cause harm? The answer is obviously no, because there are controversial political and religious events held every day with no consequence
(2) the person uses his speech solely to cause harm
Is there any other reason one might hold an event such as the one in question, other than to cause harm? Of course. 0-2
(3) that the end result is predictable
Is it reasonable to predict that such an event will end in violence? No.
IMO, your analysis doesn't hold up to the Constitutional muster set forth in the Schenck decision. And even if it did, at what point do the participants themselves take responsibility for going to such an event and willingly putting themselves in harms way? Is it not reasonable to assume that by going to one of these events, you are accepting a certain amount of risk?
Quit trying to supress freedom of speech in this country to appease radical Islamic extremists.
(1) They know it now, now don't they
(2) It was meant to insult and cause a reaction, that is why the local Muslim Organizations decided to ignore the event.
(3) Once again, they darn well that it can now.
It is now, in my opinion you keep ignoring reality and if the morons hold another event and something bad happens I can assure you that they will not be holding any more since they will busy dealing with legal and civil issues of their own. So, in the end you admit there is a risk and yet ignore that the precedent has been set, not logical, Think about it again and get back to me
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.
Whatever is legal.. Full-Auto? Howitzer? RPG? I suspect these items are not legal.
Pistol? Shotgun? Rifle? Single shot? Semi-Auto are legal in most states.
Whatever is legal.. Full-Auto? Howitzer? RPG? I suspect these items are not legal.
Pistol? Shotgun? Rifle? Single shot? Semi-Auto are legal in most states.
Whatever is legal.. Full-Auto? Howitzer? RPG? I suspect these items are not legal.
Pistol? Shotgun? Rifle? Single shot? Semi-Auto are legal in most states.
It depends on State laws.
Federally, machine guns are registered under the National Firearms Act of '34, and to be legally transferable for civilian ownership it needs to have been registered before the registry closed in 1986.
$200 tax and a Form 4 to register.
For an RPG, it'd be an Explosive Destructive Device... assuming it was legally imported, again, $200 and a Form 4.
Let's say you could get somebody to sell you an Abrams, roll-away, just as a thought experiment.
The coaxial 7.62 and the commander's hatch gun would be illegal MG's and have to be scrapped, the main gun at greater than 1/2" bore and no sporting purpose is a Large Bore Destructive Device ($200 and a Form 4), and each shell is an Explosive DD (which means $200 and a Form 4 EACH).
Civilians could always get and own/possess the same weapons the military had, all the way up to the passing of the 1934 Firearms Act, which was a direct violation of the 2nd AMENDMENT.
Thankfully our Fore Father's and the courts over history DON'T agree with your OPINIONS on this issue.
You make several claims of ACT that are NOT facts at all.
Actually, pre-Heller, the courts opinions on the issue would fall very much in line with his opinion on the matter. We have racism and bigotry to thank for that. The courts saw it as more important to keep guns out of freed black peoples hands than to protect the Rights of all citizens, but I imagine the courts made those rulings knowing full well that the white people of the day would have no trouble exercising their Rights.
Historically, gun control has it's roots in racism...
That's some wonderous circular logic you're employing there, isn't it?
Reminds me of the Oral Arguments before the 2nd Circuit Court on the NSA spying deal. One of the governments lawyers argued that, since the public now knows the government is collecting their phone data, they have no reasonable expectation of privacy, and since they have no reasonable expectation of privacy, the government has every Right to do it.......
So what about before Snowden blew the whistle? Was it legal then? Accordeing to their own argument, no, it wouldn't have been. So in other words, it becomes legal once they get caught, but they have to get caught for it to be legal..... Catch-22 if ever there were one.
Quote:
(2) It was meant to insult and cause a reaction, that is why the local Muslim Organizations decided to ignore the event.
Now you're moving the goal posts. It wasn't meant to cause harm in the manner outlined in Schenck. For the event to fit this criteria:
(2) the person uses his speech solely to cause harm
You would have to conclude that the event organizers either A.) held the event for the express purpose of causing harm to it's participants, or B.) Held the event for the express purpose of causing bodily harm to Muslims. ( Bodily harm is the criteria, you can't censor speech because you find it offensive )
This event didn't meet either of those criteria. Let me give you another example: Remember Michael Brown's stepfather telling the crowd to "burn this b*tch down".....? If he said that knowing that his words would cause harm, and he said it for the express purpose of causing harm, and it was reasonable to predict his words would cause harm, then he could be charged.
Holding a free speech event, offensive though it may be, is protected under the 1st, because it doesn't meet any of the criteria outlined. People hold them everyday and no one is harmed, so no, this one event doesn't change anything.
Quote:
It is now, in my opinion you keep ignoring reality and if the morons hold another event and something bad happens I can assure you that they will not be holding any more since they will busy dealing with legal and civil issues of their own.
That's another issue. At what point do the people who willingly go these events have to take responsibility for knowingly putting themselves at risk? Anyone can hold any event, but you don't have to go.
Quote:
So, in the end you admit there is a risk and yet ignore that the precedent has been set, not logical, Think about it again and get back to me
Logic? By your own logic, the government should not publicly fund schools, as there have been a number of school shootings in the last decade, and they should now know that schools seem to be a magnet for these deranged psychopaths. Any victim of a school shooting should be allowed to sue the government, because by your standards, "they should know better"
Quit cowaring in fear of these ISLAMIC TERRORISTS!!!! If you want to give up your freedom because you're scared, so be it, but don't try to barter mine away in the process!
"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery" Thomas Jefferson
"those who would give up essential liberty to gain temporary safety deserve neither" Ben Franklin
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.
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.
