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

NigelTufnel said:
Relax. I wasn't speaking about you and posting an article. I was thinking more of the types that want to pass laws that require bar owners to allow people with guns in the bar and things like that.

Have a rough day at the track yesterday or something?
Click to expand...

Can you show me one law that "requires" this?? :good4u:
 
NigelTufnel said:
Relax. I wasn't speaking about you and posting an article. I was thinking more of the types that want to pass laws that require bar owners to allow people with guns in the bar and things like that.

Have a rough day at the track yesterday or something?
Click to expand...
Most of us would prefer it be left up to the bar owner. However there is no legitimate reason to prohibit such a thing. PA currently does not. They don't even prohibit carrying while drunk. And no incidents to speak of.
 
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...

I agree that we shouldn't allow law abiding citizens to carry firearms inside a bar; becasue everyone knows that a criminal would never do that and that criminals always consider societies laws, before they commit a criminal act.
 
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...

No it would not be self-defenxe.
You can't claim self-defense for your actions during the commission of a felony.

Both parties agreed to this felony act and either person could have refused.
Therefore, guy #2 stands to be charged probably with premeditated murder.
 
Good Luck said:
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.
Click to expand...

Funny, I would guess most Dems would oppose the ruling in which the quote appears. I do, it was a horrible ruling AND it was overturned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top