National School Walkout

[JimL]

It already does regulate guns. But the whole point of the fire thing is that free speech in the constitution is about political speech, not speech that can cause people harm. And by the way, the case that quote is from? It was overturned over 40 years ago.

Ninety-three years ago, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote what is perhaps the most well-known -- yet misquoted and misused -- phrase in Supreme Court history: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic."

Without fail, whenever a free speech controversy hits, someone will cite this phrase as proof of limits on the First Amendment. And whatever that controversy may be, "the law"--as some have curiously called it--can be interpreted to suggest that we should err on the side of censorship. Holmes' quote has become a crutch for every censor in America, yet the quote is wildly misunderstood.

...

But those who quote Holmes might want to actually read the case where the phrase originated before using it as their main defense. If they did, they'd realize it was never binding law, and the underlying case, U.S. v. Schenck, is not only one of the most odious free speech decisions in the Court's history, but was overturned over 40 years ago.

Today, despite the "crowded theater" quote's legal irrelevance, advocates of censorship have not stopped trotting it out as thefinal word on the lawful limits of the First Amendment. As Rottman wrote, for this reason, it's "worse than useless in defining the boundaries of constitutional speech. When used metaphorically, it can be deployed against any unpopular speech." Worse, its advocates are tacitly endorsing one of the broadest censorship decisions ever brought down by the Court. It is quite simply, as Ken White calls it, "the most famous and pervasive lazy cheat in American dialogue about free speech."
https://www.theatlantic.com/national...-quote/264449/

Are you going to argue that there are no, and can be no, limitations to the first amendment?

Have you not been reading this thread or watching the news?

FYI:
https://petitions.moveon.org/sign/re...nd-amendment-6
https://www.facebook.com/mmflint/pos...54778028796857
https://www.facebook.com/Repeal-the-...1249309570118/
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/o...amendment.html
https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...-arms-20160613
http://dailycaller.com/2018/04/02/dn...ond-amendment/

Repealing the 2nd amendment is not the same thing is not the same thing as taking away your right to own a gun.

You did not answer the question. If they made it illegal to criticize Trump, would you just go along with it willingly?

Of course not. Whats your point?

[Sparko]

Are you going to argue that there are no, and can be no, limitations to the first amendment?

You don't know what the first amendment even protects apparently.

Repealing the 2nd amendment is not the same thing is not the same thing as taking away your right to own a gun.

You inadvertently actually said something true. Because the 2nd amendment is not what gives us the right to own a gun. It only stops the government from interfering with that right. That is why if they try to repeal it, people will revolt.

Of course not. Whats your point?

right, you would not accept the fact that "the people voted away your right to free speech" and would consider that to be invalid - That is my point. If they try to take away our guns the same thing will happen. And as you liberals keep saying, there are a lot of "crazy conservatives" out there with guns.

[rogue06]

That's a fantasy scenario concocted to avoid having to consider the possibility that the majority of the population demands more gun control.

It is a "fantasy scenario" that concerned the Founding Fathers quite a bit considering how much they wrote about it. Moreover even the NRA has for as long as I can remember favored keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally deranged/unfit. The left's constant claims to the otherwise are little more than straw men.

[Roy]

It is a "fantasy scenario" that concerned the Founding Fathers quite a bit considering how much they wrote about it. Moreover even the NRA has for as long as I can remember favored keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally deranged/unfit. The left's constant claims to the otherwise are little more than straw men.

Here are some bricks.

[rogue06]

Here are some bricks.

That deals with just how far sweeping do we want to declare what mentally impaired is. Advocates have at various times included those who suffer from depression, have Asperger's Syndrome or are autistic. We need a tighter definition.

[JimL]

You don't know what the first amendment even protects apparently.

Actually it protects multiple things, but you brought up the protection of free speech therein as a comparison to the freedom to bear arms in the 2nd amendment.

You inadvertently actually said something true. Because the 2nd amendment is not what gives us the right to own a gun. It only stops the government from interfering with that right.

Thats correct, but not because the previously held right to bear arms was inherent.

That is why if they try to repeal it, people will revolt.

Well, maybe the minority nutcases out there will revolt, whatever it is that you mean by revolt, but no, the majority, the great majority in my opinion would not revolt.

right, you would not accept the fact that "the people voted away your right to free speech" and would consider that to be invalid - That is my point. If they try to take away our guns the same thing will happen.

Apples and oranges.

And as you liberals keep saying, there are a lot of "crazy conservatives" out there with guns.

Yes, but by a lot, we mean a small minority of conservatives, like Hillary's deplorables.

[seer]

That wasn't what you said. You said "And supply has nothing to do with the ease of purchase" - which is bollocks. Also, supply does not always follow demand.

Are you delusional? So gun manufacturers are making guns that there is no demand for?

Pistols? You said you "walked into a local gun store and purchased a Beretta 20 gauge shotgun". Not a pistol, a machine gun, a bazooka, a rifle or a cannon, but a shotgun. Comparing how easy it was to purchase a shotgun then with how easy it is to purchase a pistol now is a bait-and-switch, and your needing to do so scuttles your claim.

The shotgun was merely an example of the lax gun laws back in the day. I have been making the point about increased regulations or background checks in general, which of course makes it more difficult to purchase firearms.

To quote:

Utter nonsense Roy, there are far more regulations to today, many more hoops to jump through. Even your own link shows that the vast majority of online sales require background checks. There were no background checks in my day. Like I said, when I was 14 I walked into a local gun store and purchased a Beretta 20 gauge shotgun without an adult with me.

Any honest person would see that I was speaking of regulations and background checks in general, and the shotgun thing was merely an example of earlier lax gun laws. But like I said, any honest person would see the distinction.

[Roy]

When the government is overrun by a majority of tyrants, we are no longer consenting. The fact that we are not consenting is why there would be a new revolution.

That's a fantasy scenario concocted to avoid having to consider the possibility that the majority of the population demands more gun control.

Nobody is opposed to sensible gun control. Just to trying to take away our right to own guns in the first place, or having overbearing restrictions. We have gun control laws now and many times we are finding they were not enforced correctly, like in the Florida school shooting. If the government would actually enforce the laws we now have, many such shootings would not have happened.

None of which has any relevance to the difference between tyrannical government and majority consensus.

[Sparko]

Actually it protects multiple things, but you brought up the protection of free speech therein as a comparison to the freedom to bear arms in the 2nd amendment.

I mean you don't even know what speech it protects. Try again.

Thats correct, but not because the previously held right to bear arms was inherent.

What do you call it then? Who granted it to us?

Well, maybe the minority nutcases out there will revolt, whatever it is that you mean by revolt, but no, the majority, the great majority in my opinion would not revolt.

You underestimate the number of people with guns who will not give them up willingly.

Apples and oranges.

Exact same thing. You would not stand for your rights to be "voted" away. Neither will gun owners. same thing.

Yes, but by a lot, we mean a small minority of conservatives, like Hillary's deplorables.

over 300 million guns out there. Over 40% of homes have guns in them. And those are just the legal guns. That's nearly half the country, Jim. And there are even more who support owning guns but just don't happen to own any at the moment (I am in that number)

[Roy]

That deals with just how far sweeping do we want to declare what mentally impaired is.

No it doesn't. It deals with repealing a law that required mental health issues being reported for inclusion in background checks.

Advocates have at various times included those who suffer from depression, have Asperger's Syndrome or are autistic. We need a tighter definition.

Adam Lanza, a 20-year-old man with a variety of impairments, including and obsessive-compulsive disorder, shot and killed his mother at their home, then went to school where he killed the students, adults and himself.

So you don't think a condition an actual mass-shooter suffered from is relevant.

[JimL]

I mean you don't even know what speech it protects. Try again.


What do you call it then? Who granted it to us?


You underestimate the number of people with guns who will not give them up willingly.

Exact same thing. You would not stand for your rights to be "voted" away. Neither will gun owners. same thing.

over 300 million guns out there. Over 40% of homes have guns in them. And those are just the legal guns. That's nearly half the country, Jim. And there are even more who support owning guns but just don't happen to own any at the moment (I am in that number)

Yeah, we have more guns in this country than just about anywhere, but only a small fraction of those 40% of gun owners are gun nut cases in tin foil hats who are against sensible gun regulations because they think that the gubment is their enemy and so they need their assault weapons in order to protect themselves from the gubment. The great majority of gun owners and non gun owners are sensible people and are not with you.

[rogue06]

facepalm3.gif

[Sparko]

No it doesn't. It deals with repealing a law that required mental health issues being reported for inclusion in background checks.

Adam Lanza, a 20-year-old man with a variety of impairments, including and obsessive-compulsive disorder, shot and killed his mother at their home, then went to school where he killed the students, adults and himself.

So you don't think a condition an actual mass-shooter suffered from is relevant.

Do you think Asperger's or OCD makes people violent? Or could there have been some other reason? Heck they might have mentioned he was left-handed, so maybe we should restrict guns from left-handed people.

[Juvenal]

It is people like you that allow countries with governments like the USSR, Cuba and Hitler's Germany to exist.

Not in this thread, please.

[Juvenal]

First, I have taken the liberty of inserting clarifications in your post above. The bolded words are my own, for anyone reading. It just seemed easier than hacking it up line by line.

I don't have a problem with that as the o/p, but it does make it far more difficult for Pluto to respond, doesn't it?