Is hate protected by the 1st?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guns Guns Guns
  • Start date Start date
G

Guns Guns Guns

Guest
The Texas division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans has filed a lawsuit in federal court arguing that the Department of Motor Vehicles infringed on its free speech rights by refusing to issue a specialty license plate featuring a Confederate flag, the Los Angeles Times reports.


The Columbia, Tenn.-based group, with 30,000 members, released a statement last week announcing the suit, which was filed in U.S. District Court in Austin.



http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/12/1...confederate-flag-license-plate/#ixzz1gH56iGBP


NaziConfederates.jpg
 
Unless the speech in question directly promotes violence, yes it is protected. You can look up the definition of "inciting a riot", but other than something like that, freedom of speech protects plenty of odious speech.
 
WinterBorn said:
Unless the speech in question directly promotes violence, yes it is protected. You can look up the definition of "inciting a riot", but other than something like that, freedom of speech protects plenty of odious speech.
Click to expand...

So the Swastika and the Confederate battle flag are both protected "speech".
 
\(())/ said:
So the Swastika and the Confederate battle flag are both protected "speech".
Click to expand...
Yup, otherwise history courses would be in a lot of trouble.

Really though, they can get together and swill beer and talk about how they hate the world all they like. When they start collecting automatic weapons and high explosive is when the police/feds get called in. Until then they're just another fringe political group.
 
Disillusioned said:
Yup, otherwise history courses would be in a lot of trouble.

Really though, they can get together and swill beer and talk about how they hate the world all they like. When they start collecting automatic weapons and high explosive is when the police/feds get called in. Until then they're just another fringe political group.
Click to expand...

What's wrong with collecting automatic weapons?
 
Surpressors are an instant 20 years, federal law. It's because they are used only for one reason, killing people. You can make the case that automatic weapons might be used for hunting but silencers are only used for the commission of crimes.
 
Disillusioned said:
Surpressors are an instant 20 years, federal law. It's because they are used only for one reason, killing people. You can make the case that automatic weapons might be used for hunting but silencers are only used for the commission of crimes.
Click to expand...

No.....they're safety equipment. They aren't like movies at all. At best you'll reduce gun report to about 105 decibles. A lawnmower I quieter.
 
For those that have never been to the range, and had to wear ear protection, a supressor would be kind of nice to have access to.
 
As for the Confederate Flag, I find treason unappealing, myself, but don't really see any way to stop retards and traitors from flying it...
 
Disillusioned said:
Surpressors are an instant 20 years, federal law. It's because they are used only for one reason, killing people. You can make the case that automatic weapons might be used for hunting but silencers are only used for the commission of crimes.
Click to expand...

If you believe that they suppress the sound of a centerfire pistol down to less than the sound of an air rifle, I could see how you would believe that getting caught having one would mean an instant 20 years in jail.

But the fact is that you are wrong. Not all states allow them, but then some states have draconian laws. There is a $200 tax stamp that you have to buy, but there is no federal law prohibiting silencers in the US.

And, as Capt said, they are mainly used as a safety measure. But I do know 2 guys who use them when hunting vermin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top