Originally posted by Res Ipsa
Originally posted by benrl
I love how she dodges the question and goes for an emotional retort rather than address the real issue asked.
Emotions don't override the rule of law, the comparison of banned books and the first amendment to guns is spot on, you can't pick and chose what gets
protected by the constitution randomly.
This is not a genuine assessment of what was said is it? Our country is really screwed if you and those that gave you stars really think this.
For one, nobody is "randomly" picking what guns to exclude from 2nd amendment protection. Secondly banned books aren't "randomly" chosen either.
Sorry but kiddie porn is not protected. You yelling fire in a crowded theater is not protected. You owning a Abrams tank is not protected. Who
cares if Fienstein is a flake and couldn't think quick on her feet, she is a politician and an annoying one at that. If you and your star buddies
have no interest in being intellectually honest or are unable to, then I resubmit.......we are screwed.
Do I even have to state that I am no liberal. I'm not anti-gun either. I am anti ignorance but in this case I really don't think ignorance is
applicable. The information is in the video. I guess I am also anti partisan tardation. then.
I just love the sanctimonious tone of those that, obviously, don't have knowledge of the history of this agenda or the true reason behind laws
prohibiting certain activities.
First off . . . you are right. These weapons aren't chosen at random, but it has nothing to do with their lethality or functionality. It is simply
based on perception and used as a foot in the door to ban all firearms. A fact further bolstered by the immense popularity and number of these arms
in circulation, yet almost nonexistent use in gun-related violence.
Violence Policy Center study 1988
[H]andgun restriction is simply not viewed as a priority. Assault weapons ... are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the
public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a
machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.
Second, child pornography is not "an exclusion to the 1st amendment". Child pornography is an infringement on the rights of children. Children who
are exploited by adults, whom they are powerless to stop from exploiting them . . . also called "child abuse". Children who cannot, as minors, give
consent to this exploitation. It's the reason that pornography is protected by the 1st, as adults can give their consent. Mags/videos that display
child pornography are glorifying an illegal act and are therefore illegal, in the same way that "snuff" films are illegal.
Third, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is not illegal. I ask you to try it out sometime at a theater and see if you are charged. If you are
charged . . . . let us know what you were charged with. You may be charged with inciting a riot, if people panic . . . but, if no one does . . . no
laws were broken. Yelling "fire" in a crowd creates panic and can get people injured. Yelling "fire" in a crowd, where there is no sign "fire" is
illegal in the same sense that calling in a bomb scare is illegal or threatening someone with murder publicly, it only becomes a crime if someone is
injured or the authorities respond. . . . It's an infringement on the rights of those that you are "hoaxing". The false perception of this analogy
comes from a backward interpretation of Shenk v US in 1919 and the analogy always, conveniently, leaves out "falsely". Basically, if you yell "fire"
in a crowd and it is false, it is dangerous, and the 1st can not be invoked to protect you from damages caused by your actions.
Shouting Fire wiki
So really . . . who is diplaying the ignorance?
ETA - Owning any type of firearm, even and AR-15 doesn't harm or infringe on the rights of anybody. It is the act of murder that infringes on their
rights, which is illegal. Threating someone with a firearms also infringes on their rights and is illegal, but it is not the type of arm that makes
You are right though . . . very few people in this country and a few in this thread lack the ability to think or the aptitude to know what they are
edit on 3/17/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)
edit on 3/17/13 by solomons path because: (no reason