If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Daily Dolt)   Have you ever found yourself thinking, "You know, that Antonin Scalia is just a tad too liberal for my tastes"? Apparently the director of the Gun Owners of America has   (thedailydolt.com) divider line 272
    More: Asinine, Gun Owners of America, Scalia, second amendment, executive directors  
•       •       •

2608 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Jan 2013 at 10:11 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



272 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-14 09:05:42 AM  
Ok, I want a rocket-launcher, a Tank, and a couple of nukes.
 
2013-01-14 09:14:50 AM  
These people are out of their goddamn minds. Where's the middle of this debate? Where are the reasonable gun owners?
 
2013-01-14 09:35:43 AM  

ambassador_ahab: Ok, I want a rocket-launcher, a Tank, and a couple of nukes.


I want my own armed drone.
 
2013-01-14 09:35:54 AM  

Vodka Zombie: These people are out of their goddamn minds. Where's the middle of this debate? Where are the reasonable gun owners?


Died a long time ago, at the hands of both the NRA/gun lobby, and the Brady campaign.  They both poisoned the well so badly, no progress can ever be made.
 
2013-01-14 09:40:09 AM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Vodka Zombie: These people are out of their goddamn minds. Where's the middle of this debate? Where are the reasonable gun owners?

Died a long time ago, at the hands of both the NRA/gun lobby, and the Brady campaign.  They both poisoned the well so badly, no progress can ever be made.


Good. "Progress" on this issue almost invariably seems to mean "more restrictions".

I mean, if someone walked up to you and said "Gimme $10", and you said "No.", and they subsequently ask for $5, and you still refuse, should you be castigated for "not compromising"? That's pretty much the situation gun owners are in here.
 
2013-01-14 09:51:26 AM  
Calling Scalia liberal is like calling Mel Gibson a Zionist.
 
2013-01-14 09:53:50 AM  

dittybopper: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Vodka Zombie: These people are out of their goddamn minds. Where's the middle of this debate? Where are the reasonable gun owners?

Died a long time ago, at the hands of both the NRA/gun lobby, and the Brady campaign.  They both poisoned the well so badly, no progress can ever be made.

Good. "Progress" on this issue almost invariably seems to mean "more restrictions".

I mean, if someone walked up to you and said "Gimme $10", and you said "No.", and they subsequently ask for $5, and you still refuse, should you be castigated for "not compromising"? That's pretty much the situation gun owners are in here.


You're kidding, right??  Or do you really believe that gun owners are the real and true victims here?
 
2013-01-14 10:10:57 AM  

dittybopper: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Vodka Zombie: These people are out of their goddamn minds. Where's the middle of this debate? Where are the reasonable gun owners?

Died a long time ago, at the hands of both the NRA/gun lobby, and the Brady campaign.  They both poisoned the well so badly, no progress can ever be made.

Good. "Progress" on this issue almost invariably seems to mean "more restrictions".

I mean, if someone walked up to you and said "Gimme $10", and you said "No.", and they subsequently ask for $5, and you still refuse, should you be castigated for "not compromising"? That's pretty much the situation gun owners are in here.


climb down off your cross.
 
2013-01-14 10:14:25 AM  
I like it how "I disagree with Scalia" is just changed into "He's a liberal".

Rational.
 
2013-01-14 10:15:31 AM  
Its also a good example of how judicial position and political affiliation are very different things. This is not to say Scalia is not a political conservative, as he most definitely is. But when we discuss his jurisprudential conservatism it means a rather different thing.
 
2013-01-14 10:17:45 AM  

Diogenes: I want my own armed drone.


You'd need armed drones to fight effectively against an unjust government. It's unpatriotic for us not to have Predators with Hellfire missiles.
 
2013-01-14 10:17:47 AM  

Vodka Zombie: These people are out of their goddamn minds. Where's the middle of this debate? Where are the reasonable gun owners?


You rang?
 
2013-01-14 10:18:06 AM  

Vodka Zombie: These people are out of their goddamn minds. Where's the middle of this debate? Where are the reasonable gun owners?


Same with any issue. Most people aren't that concerned.
 
2013-01-14 10:18:12 AM  
He didn't call scalia a liberal. He said his ruling was too narrow. But that's generally how scalia rolls. He rules as narrow as possible... And that's good. It keeps judicial activism down. The thing is to keep bringing them cases that will get the scope you want.
 
2013-01-14 10:18:53 AM  

TimonC346: I like it how "I disagree with Scalia" is just changed into "He's a liberal".

Rational.


See, e.g., Justice Roberts and Obamacare.
 
2013-01-14 10:21:01 AM  

Mrbogey: He didn't call scalia a liberal. He said his ruling was too narrow. But that's generally how scalia rolls. He rules as narrow as possible... And that's good. It keeps judicial activism down. The thing is to keep bringing them cases that will get the scope you want.


Oh Scalia is narrow, all right. Look at his opinion on gay rights. Or rather, the lack thereof.
 
2013-01-14 10:22:23 AM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Diogenes: I want my own armed drone.

You'd need armed drones to fight effectively against an unjust government. It's unpatriotic for us not to have Predators with Hellfire missiles.


Are our brave and vigilant patriots only willing to fight tyranny at the national level? Will there be armed insurrection someday when the school board of Bumpkinopolis, AR votes to end the Bible-based squirrel-tanning program at the local high school? Seems like maybe they're not being vigilant enough.
 
2013-01-14 10:23:19 AM  

dittybopper: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Vodka Zombie: These people are out of their goddamn minds. Where's the middle of this debate? Where are the reasonable gun owners?

Died a long time ago, at the hands of both the NRA/gun lobby, and the Brady campaign.  They both poisoned the well so badly, no progress can ever be made.

Good. "Progress" on this issue almost invariably seems to mean "more restrictions".

I mean, if someone walked up to you and said "Gimme $10", and you said "No.", and they subsequently ask for $5, and you still refuse, should you be castigated for "not compromising"? That's pretty much the situation gun owners are in here.


Like I said: Where the fark are the reasonable gun owners who don't make stupid analogies like this?
 
2013-01-14 10:24:41 AM  
The right to bear arms means nothing if I can't buy ICBMs, depleted uranium ammunition for my M240B, and auto-targeting Mk19s to mount on my M1A1 Abrams.
 
2013-01-14 10:24:55 AM  

Vodka Zombie: These people are out of their goddamn minds. Where's the middle of this debate? Where are the reasonable gun owners?


They're all over but no one wants to talk to them.
 
2013-01-14 10:25:55 AM  

ambassador_ahab: Ok, I want a rocket-launcher, a Tank, and a couple of nukes.


I'd settle for a phased plasma rifle in the 40-watt range.
 
2013-01-14 10:27:11 AM  

Vodka Zombie: dittybopper: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Vodka Zombie: These people are out of their goddamn minds. Where's the middle of this debate? Where are the reasonable gun owners?

Died a long time ago, at the hands of both the NRA/gun lobby, and the Brady campaign.  They both poisoned the well so badly, no progress can ever be made.

Good. "Progress" on this issue almost invariably seems to mean "more restrictions".

I mean, if someone walked up to you and said "Gimme $10", and you said "No.", and they subsequently ask for $5, and you still refuse, should you be castigated for "not compromising"? That's pretty much the situation gun owners are in here.

Like I said: Where the fark are the reasonable gun owners who don't make stupid analogies like this?


Sitting right here in front of you, responding to your post. Is there something you'd like to ask me?
 
2013-01-14 10:30:07 AM  
upload.wikimedia.org

Gun Owners of America

Making the NRA look sane since 1977.TM
 
2013-01-14 10:30:35 AM  
Another link to get the antis all in a tizzy with their righteous indignation? Sweet.
 
2013-01-14 10:32:28 AM  

Diogenes: ambassador_ahab: Ok, I want a rocket-launcher, a Tank, and a couple of nukes.

I want my own armed drone.


I want my own drone tank outfitted with nuclear rockets. And lasers.


Vodka Zombie: These people are out of their goddamn minds. Where's the middle of this debate? Where are the reasonable gun owners?


Not saying it necessarily applies here, but beware the false compromise.
=Smidge=
 
2013-01-14 10:32:30 AM  

andrewagill: ambassador_ahab: Ok, I want a rocket-launcher, a Tank, and a couple of nukes.

I'd settle for a phased plasma rifle in the 40-watt range.


Just what you see, buddy.
 
2013-01-14 10:33:16 AM  
The Second Amendment is there to constrain the government.

The entire Bill of Rights is there to constrain the government, you stupid bastard.
 
2013-01-14 10:34:34 AM  
Here's an idea that i'm sure no one will like. Americans should be allowed to have guns... certain Americans, who adhere to a certain set of rules. There should be mandatory background checks. Perhaps a therapist should need to certify that the person could be entrusted with a gun. There should be severe, mandatory penalties for anyone found using a gun for an illegal purpose, or who lie on the firearms application, or who are in possession of a gun when s/he is not supposed to be (not licensed or a felon). Cut down magazine sizes to 10 rounds (like they already have in Jersey). Allow people who meet the above criteria to have all the guns they want. Basically, tighten up the rules to make sure that the 'right' people get the guns.
 
2013-01-14 10:35:58 AM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: dittybopper: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Vodka Zombie: These people are out of their goddamn minds. Where's the middle of this debate? Where are the reasonable gun owners?

Died a long time ago, at the hands of both the NRA/gun lobby, and the Brady campaign.  They both poisoned the well so badly, no progress can ever be made.

Good. "Progress" on this issue almost invariably seems to mean "more restrictions".

I mean, if someone walked up to you and said "Gimme $10", and you said "No.", and they subsequently ask for $5, and you still refuse, should you be castigated for "not compromising"? That's pretty much the situation gun owners are in here.

You're kidding, right??  Or do you really believe that gun owners are the real and true victims here?


At the heart of this debate, legal, lawful gun owners just want to be left alone.

That's it.

That's all they are asking.

You have a *VERY* short-sighted view on this: I doubt you are looking past last year's tragedies, or even those of the last 4 years. I've been involved in this arena as an adult for, what, going on 30 years now. I've been called every vile name in the book by people like you who want to do something, *ANYTHING*, to capitalize on shed blood. You don't care about it until some major news story happens, then all of a sudden you think this is *IMPORTANT*, and then you go back to being apathetic until some other tragedy galvanizes you and your ilk.

Don't you see how that is pretty much the recipe for a one-way ratchet?

Over the years, I've been called a criminal by a popular TV host, because I own a gun. I have been called a drunken liar by my governor, because I like to hunt. Until relatively recently (last 10 years or so), gun ownership, and hunting, was largely portrayed in the media as the realm of mouth-breathing morons.

Yet all I want to do is to be left to my own devices. I don't want to be punished for the criminal misuse of firearms, because I, and the tens of millions of others like me, don't criminally misuse them.

Does that explain it a little?

Passing more gun control in the wake of a tragedy won't prevent future tragedies. The UK tried that. *TWICE*. And they still had their once-a-decade mass shooting, pretty much right on schedule. We've tried it in numerous states, including the state where the latest tragedy happened, Connecticut. We tried it at the federal level in the US for 10 years. It didn't really do anything.

So yeah, you're coming at me asking me to give something up, in the spirit of "compromise". In furtherance of that spirit, why don't we do some *REAL* bargaining? How about national reciprocity for CCW holders? How about a federal law that caps the costs of any state permit you need (that *MUST* be issued if you are eligible) to own a gun to the actual administrative cost? How about a strengthened FOPA travel exception that prevents people from being prosecuted for violating local laws when it was unavoidable*. How about a law that makes records of gun ownership (like those in NYS) not available to the public except in aggregate (ie., you can find out how many people in a certain geographical area have permits, but not down to the individual level).

Those are just for starters.

I'm willing to discuss different measures so long as the discussion isn't one-sided, which is apparently what you want to do with your appeal to emotion.

So, what do you say to that?

*People have been prosecuted for violating handgun laws in areas like NY and NJ when their airline flight was diverted or delayed in those states, and their properly checked handgun (or other gun) was given to them with their other luggage.
 
2013-01-14 10:38:55 AM  
You have the right to free speech.  You don't have the right to yell "FIRE" in a crowded public place.
You have the right to bear arms.  You don't have the right to own a rocket launcher.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
 
2013-01-14 10:39:44 AM  

Kazan: dittybopper: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Vodka Zombie: These people are out of their goddamn minds. Where's the middle of this debate? Where are the reasonable gun owners?

Died a long time ago, at the hands of both the NRA/gun lobby, and the Brady campaign.  They both poisoned the well so badly, no progress can ever be made.

Good. "Progress" on this issue almost invariably seems to mean "more restrictions".

I mean, if someone walked up to you and said "Gimme $10", and you said "No.", and they subsequently ask for $5, and you still refuse, should you be castigated for "not compromising"? That's pretty much the situation gun owners are in here.

climb down off your cross.


That's funny: Gun owners are being crucified because of the actions of the criminally insane. Very apt description you came up with. I'll have to remember it, giving you full credit for the original idea.
 
2013-01-14 10:40:49 AM  

imontheinternet: You don't have the right to yell "FIRE" in a crowded public place.


Note: you totally do.
 
2013-01-14 10:42:09 AM  

dittybopper: Grand_Moff_Joseph: dittybopper: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Vodka Zombie: These people are out of their goddamn minds. Where's the middle of this debate? Where are the reasonable gun owners?

Died a long time ago, at the hands of both the NRA/gun lobby, and the Brady campaign.  They both poisoned the well so badly, no progress can ever be made.

Good. "Progress" on this issue almost invariably seems to mean "more restrictions".

I mean, if someone walked up to you and said "Gimme $10", and you said "No.", and they subsequently ask for $5, and you still refuse, should you be castigated for "not compromising"? That's pretty much the situation gun owners are in here.

You're kidding, right??  Or do you really believe that gun owners are the real and true victims here?

At the heart of this debate, legal, lawful gun owners just want to be left alone.

That's it.

That's all they are asking.

You have a *VERY* short-sighted view on this: I doubt you are looking past last year's tragedies, or even those of the last 4 years. I've been involved in this arena as an adult for, what, going on 30 years now. I've been called every vile name in the book by people like you who want to do something, *ANYTHING*, to capitalize on shed blood. You don't care about it until some major news story happens, then all of a sudden you think this is *IMPORTANT*, and then you go back to being apathetic until some other tragedy galvanizes you and your ilk.

Don't you see how that is pretty much the recipe for a one-way ratchet?

Over the years, I've been called a criminal by a popular TV host, because I own a gun. I have been called a drunken liar by my governor, because I like to hunt. Until relatively recently (last 10 years or so), gun ownership, and hunting, was largely portrayed in the media as the realm of mouth-breathing morons.

Yet all I want to do is to be left to my own devices. I don't want to be punished for the criminal misuse of firearms, because I, and the tens of millions of othe ...


This is beautiful.
 
2013-01-14 10:44:47 AM  

Vodka Zombie: dittybopper: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Vodka Zombie: These people are out of their goddamn minds. Where's the middle of this debate? Where are the reasonable gun owners?

Died a long time ago, at the hands of both the NRA/gun lobby, and the Brady campaign.  They both poisoned the well so badly, no progress can ever be made.

Good. "Progress" on this issue almost invariably seems to mean "more restrictions".

I mean, if someone walked up to you and said "Gimme $10", and you said "No.", and they subsequently ask for $5, and you still refuse, should you be castigated for "not compromising"? That's pretty much the situation gun owners are in here.

Like I said: Where the fark are the reasonable gun owners who don't make stupid analogies like this?


You dont want reasonable gun owners. You want gun owners who agree with you. His analogy was spot on. You dont want compromise. You want capitulation.
 
2013-01-14 10:45:14 AM  

dittybopper: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Vodka Zombie: These people are out of their goddamn minds. Where's the middle of this debate? Where are the reasonable gun owners?

Died a long time ago, at the hands of both the NRA/gun lobby, and the Brady campaign.  They both poisoned the well so badly, no progress can ever be made.

Good. "Progress" on this issue almost invariably seems to mean "more restrictions".

I mean, if someone walked up to you and said "Gimme $10", and you said "No.", and they subsequently ask for $5, and you still refuse, should you be castigated for "not compromising"? That's pretty much the situation gun owners are in here.


That's funny because I kinda feel like, it more like we just had a horrific schoolbus accident outside a school caused by a speeder, and we said, "hey, ya know maybe we should drop the speed limit from 55 to 25  to prevent another accident" and the Gun Lobby's response had been "Speed LIMITS?!  Fark you, the Constitution guarantess me the right to go as fast as I want, wherever I want, obviously the right solution is to transport all kids to school in Formula 1 race cars so they can outrun any speeder"
 
2013-01-14 10:46:06 AM  

imontheinternet: You have the right to free speech.  You don't have the right to yell "FIRE" in a crowded public place.
You have the right to bear arms.  You don't have the right to own a rocket launcher.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.


1. You absolutely have the right to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded public place, if there is actually a fire. In fact, you have a moral duty to do so.

2. Even if there isn't a fire, though, you have the ability to yell it if you so desire because we don't issue gags as a requirement for entrance to crowded theaters (though I can see how that idea would gain a lot of support). In other words, you aren't forbidden from exercising your right, but you are held accountable if you *MISUSE* it to cause harm to others. That's precisely the same limitation that should be on the right to keep and bear arms.

3. We aren't talking about rocket launchers, we are talking about semiautomatic rifles and handguns in calibers generally weaker than most hunting rifles.
 
2013-01-14 10:47:00 AM  

dittybopper: That's funny: Gun owners are being crucified because of the actions of the criminally insane. Very apt description you came up with. I'll have to remember it, giving you full credit for the original idea.


Punch it up a little bit. Why not say "gun owners are like 6-year olds being murdered in the middle of math class"?
 
2013-01-14 10:48:40 AM  

Teiritzamna: imontheinternet: You don't have the right to yell "FIRE" in a crowded public place.

Note: you totally do.


Come again?
 
2013-01-14 10:49:43 AM  

Teiritzamna: imontheinternet: You don't have the right to yell "FIRE" in a crowded public place.

Note: you totally do.


I can't tell if you're serious, but the Court's held for a century that freedom of speech is limited by time, place, and manner, which is the same view any rational person holds on the subject.  When your right to speech starts endangering lots of people for no reason other than your personal amusement, their right to be free from your speech trumps your right to endanger them.  The question is where that line is, not whether it exists at all.
 
2013-01-14 10:50:39 AM  

Jackson Herring: Punch it up a little bit. Why not say "gun owners are like 6-year olds being murdered in the middle of math class"?


You want to dig up the dead kids and lay them in front of the NRA headquarters and yell "YOU DID THIS"

Admit it.
 
2013-01-14 10:50:53 AM  

Koalaesq: Here's an idea that i'm sure no one will like. Americans should be allowed to have guns... certain Americans, who adhere to a certain set of rules. There should be mandatory background checks. Perhaps a therapist should need to certify that the person could be entrusted with a gun. There should be severe, mandatory penalties for anyone found using a gun for an illegal purpose, or who lie on the firearms application, or who are in possession of a gun when s/he is not supposed to be (not licensed or a felon). Cut down magazine sizes to 10 rounds (like they already have in Jersey). Allow people who meet the above criteria to have all the guns they want. Basically, tighten up the rules to make sure that the 'right' people get the guns.


Or here's a simple one:  I ask people all the time why they need high-cap magazines  and the answer is "because they are fun to shoot".  Great, I can live with that, they ARE fun to shoot, so let's just pass a law saying you can OWN any weapon you want up to an including full-auto weapons; but you have to store them at a licensed gun range or shooting facility.  Any Takers?  And if your countr arguement is "b-b-but the almost mythical  home intruder scenario" I'll simply ask you  why, if tasers and other non-lethal incapacitating weapons are good enough for cops, why they shouldn't be more than enough to serve in the home defense/self defense role CCW handguns do now?
 
2013-01-14 10:51:29 AM  

dittybopper: Even if there isn't a fire, though, you have the ability to yell it if you so desire because we don't issue gags as a requirement for entrance to crowded theaters (though I can see how that idea would gain a lot of support). In other words, you aren't forbidden from exercising your right, but you are held accountable if you *MISUSE* it to cause harm to others.


I see what you are trying to say, but it's just not accurate.  It is a correct proposition that you do NOT have the "right" to yell "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire.  For doing so, you can be criminally prosecuted (and sued civilly).  The fact you can be criminally prosecuted means that it is not a "right" at all.  In fact, this is one of the best examples of where the right to free speech ends.
 
2013-01-14 10:52:15 AM  

dittybopper: 2. Even if there isn't a fire, though, you have the ability to yell it if you so desire because we don't issue gags as a requirement for entrance to crowded theaters (though I can see how that idea would gain a lot of support). In other words, you aren't forbidden from exercising your right, but you are held accountable if you *MISUSE* it to cause harm to others. That's precisely the same limitation that should be on the right to keep and bear arms.


I presume you're up in arms about the many states that refuse to submit comprehensive mental health and criminal information to the national database?
 
2013-01-14 10:54:00 AM  

Magorn: Or here's a simple one: I ask people all the time why they need high-cap magazines and the answer is "because they are fun to shoot". Great, I can live with that, they ARE fun to shoot, so let's just pass a law saying you can OWN any weapon you want up to an including full-auto weapons; but you have to store them at a licensed gun range or shooting facility. Any Takers? And if your countr arguement is "b-b-but the almost mythical home intruder scenario" I'll simply ask you why, if tasers and other non-lethal incapacitating weapons are good enough for cops, why they shouldn't be more than enough to serve in the home defense/self defense role CCW handguns do now?


That's in violation of the "keep" part in "keep and bear arms"
 
2013-01-14 10:54:04 AM  

Trivia Jockey: Teiritzamna: imontheinternet: You don't have the right to yell "FIRE" in a crowded public place.

Note: you totally do.

Come again?


1) the quote from Schenck v. United States is: The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. The important bits are bolded.

2) Even under the modern Brandenburg test (which supplants the tests discussed in the actual law parts of Schenck) to lack the protection of the 1st amendment you must shout fire falsely in a crowded theater with the intent to cause harm.

All i am trying to say is - this particular free speech window is very narrow. That and bad, overused misquotes are bad and overused.
 
2013-01-14 10:55:01 AM  

Frank N Stein: That's in violation of the "keep" part in "keep and bear arms"


Only if the 2nd Amendment applies to all guns, without limitation.  A concept with which the Supreme Court disagrees, by the way.
 
2013-01-14 10:55:27 AM  

Magorn: dittybopper: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Vodka Zombie: These people are out of their goddamn minds. Where's the middle of this debate? Where are the reasonable gun owners?

Died a long time ago, at the hands of both the NRA/gun lobby, and the Brady campaign.  They both poisoned the well so badly, no progress can ever be made.

Good. "Progress" on this issue almost invariably seems to mean "more restrictions".

I mean, if someone walked up to you and said "Gimme $10", and you said "No.", and they subsequently ask for $5, and you still refuse, should you be castigated for "not compromising"? That's pretty much the situation gun owners are in here.

That's funny because I kinda feel like, it more like we just had a horrific schoolbus accident outside a school caused by a speeder, and we said, "hey, ya know maybe we should drop the speed limit from 55 to 25  to prevent another accident" and the Gun Lobby's response had been "Speed LIMITS?!  Fark you, the Constitution guarantess me the right to go as fast as I want, wherever I want, obviously the right solution is to transport all kids to school in Formula 1 race cars so they can outrun any speeder"


For an analogy to hold the situation must be analogous. It's illegal to shoot kids. It's illegal to steal guns. Its illegal to kill someone and take their guns. For your analogy to fit the speed limit must already be 25 with the speeder breaking the law.

So how do you intend to stop people from speeding?
 
2013-01-14 10:55:36 AM  

imontheinternet: I can't tell if you're serious, but the Court's held for a century that freedom of speech is limited by time, place, and manner, which is the same view any rational person holds on the subject. When your right to speech starts endangering lots of people for no reason other than your personal amusement, their right to be free from your speech trumps your right to endanger them. The question is where that line is, not whether it exists at all.


See above.

Also you are conflating TMP restrictions with Brandenburg restrictions. They are, in fact, rather different.
 
2013-01-14 10:56:20 AM  

Teiritzamna: 1) the quote from Schenck v. United States is: The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. The important bits are bolded.


Oh.  I didn't realize you were talking about the situation where there is a fire (because there not being a fire is usually implied when discussing this context).
 
2013-01-14 10:58:18 AM  

Magorn: u  why, if tasers and other non-lethal incapacitating weapons are good enough for cops, why they shouldn't be more than enough to serve in the home defense/self defense role CCW handguns do now?


I both agree and disagree with you. Your idea about placing high-bullet capacity weapons at a range isn't necessarily a bad idea, but I like having a gun for home protection. If someone enters my house illegally, I'm shooting. I am not messing around with a taser or baseball bat. I'm about as far from a gun nut as you can get (see above), but I believe you should be allowed to use lethal force if someone's entering your home illegally.
 
Displayed 50 of 272 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report