4 Justices.... out to destroy your rights...

NigelTufnel said:
I don't know of a relevant parallel in recent times - a significant legal victory in the highest court recognizing an important legal right that was previously unrecognized.
Click to expand...
However, the reality is that just as they did in DC people will attempt to continue to suppress that right. It is a rather good parallel. It isn't time to sit back on your laurels until even the Democrats understand that rights actually do exist and now they are incorporated.
 
NigelTufnel said:
I take it that's a yes to the track trouble question.
Click to expand...

No, it was a reaffirmation of your douche bag status. As usual, you pretend to somehow discern the emotions of a person simply by reading their words on a message board.

You are a douche bag for saying people who support the Constitutional rights provided by the 2nd Amendment should 'chill out'.... as if they were running around like a bunch of drunken liberals at a 'protest' (aka... 'hey, lets trash people's property and pretend it is part of our protest, when in reality we are just douche bags who like to destroy things).
 
Damocles said:
I think that bar owners should have the right to choose to allow that kind of thing or not, I also think they should be able to choose whether to allow smoking or not.

Oddly enough before the smoking ban had passed in our state, if you had a serving license you had to have at least a "smoking area"... They weren't even allowed to choose not to allow smoking, now they aren't allowed to choose to allow it anywhere...
Click to expand...

nonsense... they allow them on the patios and decks... or outside in the rain in an alley all huddled together in the winter :)
 
Damocles said:
I think that bar owners should have the right to choose to allow that kind of thing or not, I also think they should be able to choose whether to allow smoking or not.

Oddly enough before the smoking ban had passed in our state, if you had a serving license you had to have at least a "smoking area"... They weren't even allowed to choose not to allow smoking, now they aren't allowed to choose to allow it anywhere...
Click to expand...

I agree. Whether smoking, what ingredients a chef chooses to use or a company decides to use in their product. Whether to use a helmet while riding a motorcycle. All of these are choices that should be up to the individual/owner. Use of property should be protected. Whether or not to patronize an establishment, a product, or avoid cancer/death one should be able to choose.

Rights are what they are, protect them or lose them.
 
Superfreak said:
No, it was a reaffirmation of your douche bag status. As usual, you pretend to somehow discern the emotions of a person simply by reading their words on a message board.

You are a douche bag for saying people who support the Constitutional rights provided by the 2nd Amendment should 'chill out'.... as if they were running around like a bunch of drunken liberals at a 'protest' (aka... 'hey, lets trash people's property and pretend it is part of our protest, when in reality we are just douche bags who like to destroy things).
Click to expand...


I gave you a specific action I had in mind regarding my "chill out" statement. Frankly, I have no problem with the Court's decision or people who own guns. There are certain types of gun owners that do stupid shit like pushing for bars to be required to allow people to carry on premises that I think are fucking bats and that ought to chill the fuck out.
 
It is no more of an absolute right than the right to free speech.

You cant hold a rally without a permit.
 
Jarod said:
It is no more of an absolute right than the right to free speech.

You cant hold a rally without a permit.
Click to expand...

You're quite correct. Here's how hizzhonor deals with free speech and permits:

http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlo...strict-balks-at-gun-rights-group-meeting#more

Politics / Clout City / News
Park District Balks at Gun-Rights Group Meeting
Posted by Mick Dumke on Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 10:00 AM

Gerald Vernon says he did everything he should have to obtain a permit to hold a meeting at the Tuley Park field house on the south side. He told the park supervisor he expected 150 to 200 people to attend, filled out the paperwork she gave him, paid a $100 fee, and walked away thinking he'd reserved a meeting room for the evening of June 30. The group that would be convening was Illinois Carry, an organization advocating for the right to bear concealed firearms.

But on Wednesday, a week before the scheduled date of the event, he got a call telling him his permit had been revoked.

Vernon says a Tuley Park official informed him he has to submit a new permit application that will be reviewed before he gets approval for the meeting. But when I contacted the park and asked about it, I was told the event had been canceled altogether.

Says Vernon: "This just sounds a whole lot like Daley's bullshit."

Vernon has reasons for sounding impertinent. Mayor Daley's view of guns, gun manufacturers, gun-rights advocates, and people who ask questions about his views of same are well established: he doesn't like them, he doesn't want to hear from them, and he blames them for causing the violence in the streets. Other top city officials, including the police chief and leading aldermen, follow his lead.

...
Click to expand...

If you are unfamiliar with The Chicago Reader, it's the most popular paper in Chicago and has been for years. It's free and it's very, very liberal. However, there is an interest there for free speech. Go figure.
 
NigelTufnel said:
I gave you a specific action I had in mind regarding my "chill out" statement. Frankly, I have no problem with the Court's decision or people who own guns. There are certain types of gun owners that do stupid shit like pushing for bars to be required to allow people to carry on premises that I think are fucking bats and that ought to chill the fuck out.
Click to expand...

Question for anyone: Suppose two guys are in a bar getting shit-faced and an argument breaks out. Guy #1 suggests settling it by having a duel. Both guys step outside.

Guy #1 tells guy #2 that on the count of three they are to draw and shoot. If guy #2 shoots and kills guy #1 would that be self-defense considering guy #2 believes guy #1 would shoot him if he didn't draw.
 
apple0154 said:
Question for anyone: Suppose two guys are in a bar getting shit-faced and an argument breaks out. Guy #1 suggests settling it by having a duel. Both guys step outside.

Guy #1 tells guy #2 that on the count of three they are to draw and shoot. If guy #2 shoots and kills guy #1 would that be self-defense considering guy #2 believes guy #1 would shoot him if he didn't draw.
Click to expand...

I would hope they both managed to get a shot off and kill each other. Chlorine in the gene pool.
 
Do you feel its cool to yell fire in a crowded theater, if there is no fire...?
 
apple0154 said:
Question for anyone: Suppose two guys are in a bar getting shit-faced and an argument breaks out. Guy #1 suggests settling it by having a duel. Both guys step outside.

Guy #1 tells guy #2 that on the count of three they are to draw and shoot. If guy #2 shoots and kills guy #1 would that be self-defense considering guy #2 believes guy #1 would shoot him if he didn't draw.
Click to expand...

what you do in that situation is go out back, take guy #1's gun and shoot guy #2 for being a complete moron. Darwin wins.
 
Jarod said:
Do you feel its cool to yell fire in a crowded theater, if there is no fire...?
Click to expand...

No one here is suggesting that all firearms sales should be unrestricted or that there can't/shouldn't be permits for carrying/owning them. You are trying to take an extreme position and paint it onto all those who support the 2nd Amendment.

YOU CANNOT HAVE AN OUTRIGHT BAN ON OWNERSHIP. PERIOD.

That does not mean a gun owner can do anything he/she wants to with the gun. It means YOU CANNOT HAVE AN OUTRIGHT BAN ON OWNERSHIP. PERIOD.
 
NigelTufnel said:
I think that's ridiculous. The NRA won a long long time ago. Hell, there was bipartisan agreement not too long ago to specifically exempt the NRA and only the NRA from campaign finance regulations. There is no real effort to further restrict gun ownership anywhere. In fact, the only laws passing these days relax restrictions on gun ownership and carrying.
Click to expand...

this is simply not true. there are a few 'liberal' states passing more gun control laws, such as 'one gun a month' and ballistic fingerprinting laws, none of which have EVER factually been proven to reduce crime.
 
Superfreak said:
No one here is suggesting that all firearms sales should be unrestricted or that there can't/shouldn't be permits for carrying/owning them. You are trying to take an extreme position and paint it onto all those who support the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...

why should a right be turned in to a privilege?
 
Jarod said:
Do you feel its cool to yell fire in a crowded theater, if there is no fire...?
Click to expand...
Ah Jarod. Sucha tired, old argument. I'll give you credit, since you included the following lack of fire. But still, not even close to a similar comparison.

You're supposedly a lawyer so you should be able to understand this.
Yelling "fire!" or "rape!" or anything else is an....can you guess? That's right Jarod, it's an ACT! Yelling something is a deliberate act! So likewise, a similar and just as illegal ACT would be if I entered a crowded theater, pulled out my pistol and started firing into the air. A deliberate act that can compromise others safety. Ownership of said firearms however, can not directly cause anymore harm than ownership of said vocal cords required to yell in public. Thus the standard is the same.
 
Caboose said:
Ah Jarod. Sucha tired, old argument. I'll give you credit, since you included the following lack of fire. But still, not even close to a similar comparison.

You're supposedly a lawyer so you should be able to understand this.
Yelling "fire!" or "rape!" or anything else is an....can you guess? That's right Jarod, it's an ACT! Yelling something is a deliberate act! So likewise, a similar and just as illegal ACT would be if I entered a crowded theater, pulled out my pistol and started firing into the air. A deliberate act that can compromise others safety. Ownership of said firearms however, can not directly cause anymore harm than ownership of said vocal cords required to yell in public. Thus the standard is the same.
Click to expand...

Exactly, it's not cool to fire into a crowded theater (unless it's a Tom Cruise movie) and it does not matter if the building is on fire or not.
 
Why is it every single time the issue of 2nd Amendment rights comes up, some donkey-shit spouting moron has to bring up the "shouting fire in a crowded theater" crap? are you people THAT completely without any geuine ability to THINK?

The entire premise that rights are not "absolute" because "You can't shout fire in a crowded theater" is typical liberal anti-liberty, keep-the-government-in-charge reasoning (and I use the term loosely.) The example given was NOT to claimrights are not absolute, but rather that one cannot hide behind their rights to escape responsibility for how they choose to act on their rights. If a person were to use their right to free speech irresponsibly, then they would be legally, possibly criminally responsible for any consequences resulting from their choices.

The thing is, no law can be passed limiting free speech IN ADVANCE of such actions. No government can tell you to keep silent JUST IN CASE you might decide to speak in a manner that could be harmful to those around you. Any laws addressing the consequences of improper use of free speech deal with harm actually caused in said endeavor. No one has ever been prosecuted for speech unless harm can be proven from said speech.

Yet the "fire in a crowded theater" is CONSTANTLY being brought up to defend gun laws limiting the peoples enumerated Constitutional right to keep and bear arms JUST IN CASE they might, someday, possibly, choose to misuse their right.

This is, of course, in addition to the incessant, and constantly proven wrong, assumption/claim/prediction that legal ownership of firearms increases firearm crimes.

Are you people truly this incapable of genuine coherent thought? Or are you just willing to lie in any manner possible to support your anti-freedom, fear based policies?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top