Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by foodstamp
In my opinion, it is not a violation at all. If people are stupid enough to listen to stupid advice, it is on the dummies that went and did it.
I remember some hubbub a few years back about a radio host suggesting people should go to some church confessional booth and fornicate
It's way different than yelling fire when there isn't a fire, in that case, the words caused immediate consequences, that would never have happened
had you not done it.
If you tell someone to do something stupid, and they are stupid enough to listen, chances are they would have done something stupid eventually without
being told to do it. Make sense?
edit on Fri, 10 Aug 2012 11:55:30 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)
You make complete sense and I agree with you completely. I'm trying to find somebody who does not agree with our opinion. Not that your comment
wasn't appreciated because it was.
I guess what I'm getting at is this. And forgive me if it comes across as silly or agressive... Or anything offensive for that matter. Because I have
a few drinks in me at the moment.
When people try to put limitations or "exceptions" into the bill of rights, troubles evolve...
I just watched a video on ATS today (wish I could remember what thread) where a guy was open carrying in a state and had been stopped walking down the
street for the 6th time (in his words, which I believe to be true).
Now, his argument is that he is obeying the law (disregarding the fact that it's odd he's open carrying) therefore he does not have to provide his
ID to the police officers. On paper (Let's say he's right for arguments sake, which, I believe he is) he is correct. However, the police officers
argument is that they have been called to the scene by a concerned citizen and therefore have the duty to investigate the alleged crime (in this case,
a guy walking down the street with a gun).
Now, the police officers figure they have the right and responsibility to ask for ID in order to check and make sure the man is not a felon with a gun
(A felony). The citizen, well, he knows he's not a felon and is in compliance with the law.
Now that right there is where the problem lies. The supreme court has decided that certain law abiding citizen (people who have commited crimes but
are no longer a ward of the state) can no longer possess guns and to do so is a felony. So now, it's a police officers DUTY to violate the rights of
the said gun carrying person in order to figure if he is in fact breaking a law.
I believe this is a PERFECT example where putting certain restrctions (which were not called for in the bill of rights) as now tarnished a otherwise
perfect document (Bill of rights) thus allowing police and government to now infringe on EVERYONES right to keep and bear arms.
And putting exceptions and restrictions on the freedom of speech is what's poisoned the very foundation of all our rights today!
And damnit! I wanna tell someone that!