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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Once again a poster assumes they know what I have said on the topic and where I stand without reading everything I posted on the topic. One Last Time: I am not saying we should ban these moronic "contests", what I am doing is warning you that this sort of action on the part of the people that hold them can and probably will come back to bite them in the arse. You guys can scream Freedom of Speech all you want, I am just reminding you that the 1st A does not include Freedom from the Consequences of you using your right irresponsibly and foolishly. The fact of the matter is the organizers of the "contest" meant to cause trouble by insulting those they hate and the result was violence, meaning a precedent has now been set and if they do not believe they are responsible in any part and something bad happens down the road they are going to get a rude awakening, count on it. Secondly, I am not afraid of anyone, Terrorists or Loudmouths bent on causing problems, and we have not lost any Freedoms, go whine to someone that buys that nonsense.
Enough said on this topic, it is plain to see that some here do not like anyone pointing out the fact that words can and do have consequences. Interesting that the same people that scream about personal responsibility prove that they themselves only demand it of others and refuse to take any upon themselves. Good old double standards, when all else fails fall back on them, eh.
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...
After the civil war, the Northern States were freaking out that the new southern state constitutions allowed freemen(blacks) to own firearms. Thus Reconstitution, with the federal governments appointments coming in and restricting 2nd amendment rights of freemen(blacks)
Once again a poster assumes they know what I have said on the topic and where I stand without reading everything I posted on the topic. One Last Time: I am not saying we should ban these moronic "contests", what I am doing is warning you that this sort of action on the part of the people that hold them can and probably will come back to bite them in the arse. You guys can scream Freedom of Speech all you want, I am just reminding you that the 1st A does not include Freedom from the Consequences of you using your right irresponsibly and foolishly. The fact of the matter is the organizers of the "contest" meant to cause trouble by insulting those they hate and the result was violence, meaning a precedent has now been set and if they do not believe they are responsible in any part and something bad happens down the road they are going to get a rude awakening, count on it. Secondly, I am not afraid of anyone, Terrorists or Loudmouths bent on causing problems, and we have not lost any Freedoms, go whine to someone that buys that nonsense.
Enough said on this topic, it is plain to see that some here do not like anyone pointing out the fact that words can and do have consequences. Interesting that the same people that scream about personal responsibility prove that they themselves only demand it of others and refuse to take any upon themselves. Good old double standards, when all else fails fall back on them, eh.
Well If they hold another event, and something bad happens, and the event organizers are taken to task....... All I can say is that the person sueing better hope I'm not on the jury.
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.
The whole collective arms interpretation argument is dead, and was never valid anyway. The purpose of the second amendment is an individual right to bear arms (what type of arms is to be determined).
Well If they hold another event, and something bad happens, and the event organizers are taken to task....... All I can say is that the person sueing better hope I'm not on the jury.
I doubt either side would want you any where near the jury or court room.
Every thinking person would think that it means the citizen can legally own a firearm. But it would apply to any weapon, be it a club, sword, knife, bow and arrow. I'm going to offend a few and say it doesn't apply to missiles and grenades since those are weapons of war and not personal defense. Automatic weapons should be allowed to those who pay a license as applicable by state regulations and pass background checks.
Every thinking person would think that it means the citizen can legally own a firearm. But it would apply to any weapon, be it a club, sword, knife, bow and arrow. I'm going to offend a few and say it doesn't apply to missiles and grenades since those are weapons of war and not personal defense. Automatic weapons should be allowed to those who pay a license as applicable by state regulations and pass background checks.
If my government wanted to oppress the people(look around at what is going down), how would we defend ourselves and the people, from a tyrant, with weapons far exceeding our capabilities? I'll tell you... You don't. You do what they say, or face the wrath of your oppressor.
Every thinking person would think that it means the citizen can legally own a firearm. But it would apply to any weapon, be it a club, sword, knife, bow and arrow. I'm going to offend a few and say it doesn't apply to missiles and grenades since those are weapons of war and not personal defense. Automatic weapons should be allowed to those who pay a license as applicable by state regulations and pass background checks.
Once again, the intent of the Second was to allow the citizens to fight a government trying to oppress them. I'll continue to argue this would mean it does apply to missiles and grenades.
Would I say having neighbors with grenades makes me comfortable? Of course not; however, there is a lot of speech out there that doesn't make me comfortable either. Being uncomfortable about freedoms is part of living in a free society.
Once again, the intent of the Second was to allow the citizens to fight a government trying to oppress them.
Correct...
Quote:
I'll continue to argue this would mean it does apply to missiles and grenades.
Would I say having neighbors with grenades makes me comfortable? Of course not; however, there is a lot of speech out there that doesn't make me comfortable either. Being uncomfortable about freedoms is part of living in a free society.
Are you suggesting that there are no limits to the second amendment? Because there are limits to our freedom of speech. You cannot shout fire in a crowded theater, or threaten the lives of others.
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.
Who thinks the 2nd Amendment, means a firearm?
