Right to yell "FIRE" in crowded theater - Page 2
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24

Thread: Right to yell "FIRE" in crowded theater

  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by HK4U View Post
    And if someone dies you most likely will be arrested, tried, found guilty and perhaps sentenced to die. Thus loosing your rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
    Yup.

  2.   
  3. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    OHIO
    Posts
    2,109
    JJ and HK, you guys were able in just a few short words, say what I tried to in 100's, lol, thanks

  4. #13
    Your interpretation is flawed.

    You see, you only have the "right to free speech" on property under your control.
    For instance, if I make some remarks here about gays, minorities, or whomever, I can be banned from this forum even tho I have done nothing but "speak". By the same reasoning, if you are at a little leaque game and start screaming and insulting the umpire, he can have you removed from the ball park, even tho you did nothing but "speak". Have you ever read the rules posted at the mall? You can be asked to leave the property in some malls for using profanity, even tho you are only "speaking", your right doesn't extend to any property other than your own. If you don't believe me, go to your next town council meeting and start yelling and insulting the officials. You will be escorted outta there in a heartbeat, although you just "spoke" your opinion.
    Americans have this flawed belief that they can go anywhere and say anything under the Constitution. But, if you come to my house and start bashing USA carry, I can ask you to leave and you must, even tho you might be simply stating your opinions or beliefs.

    The First Ammendment simply means that the government cannot make a law that prohibits you from expressing your opinions in your own house. In England, it was against the law to slander the King. Example: If you and I were in my kitchen drinking a beer and I said the King was a punk, and you went and told him, then I could be arrested and imprisoned for my comment against the Crown. When the Patriots threw off the mantle of Britain, they wanted to make sure this was not the practise here.


    .
    In the beginning, the patriot is a scarce man -- brave, hated, and scorned. But when his cause succeeds, the timid join him. For then, it costs nothing to be a patriot. -- Mark Twain

  5. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    OHIO
    Posts
    2,109
    Quote Originally Posted by RugerP345 View Post
    Your interpretation is flawed.

    You see, you only have the "right to free speech" on property under your control.
    For instance, if I make some remarks here about gays, minorities, or whomever, I can be banned from this forum even tho I have done nothing but "speak". By the same reasoning, if you are at a little leaque game and start screaming and insulting the umpire, he can have you removed from the ball park, even tho you did nothing but "speak". Have you ever read the rules posted at the mall? You can be asked to leave the property in some malls for using profanity, even tho you are only "speaking", your right doesn't extend to any property other than your own. If you don't believe me, go to your next town council meeting and start yelling and insulting the officials. You will be escorted outta there in a heartbeat, although you just "spoke" your opinion.
    Americans have this flawed belief that they can go anywhere and say anything under the Constitution. But, if you come to my house and start bashing USA carry, I can ask you to leave and you must, even tho you might be simply stating your opinions or beliefs.

    The First Ammendment simply means that the government cannot make a law that prohibits you from expressing your opinions in your own house. In England, it was against the law to slander the King. Example: If you and I were in my kitchen drinking a beer and I said the King was a punk, and you went and told him, then I could be arrested and imprisoned for my comment against the Crown. When the Patriots threw off the mantle of Britain, they wanted to make sure this was not the practise here.


    .
    Your post refutes your own argument. You just proved that we have the right to speak whatever we want to with your own words. Nowhere in this discussion was it said that there are not consequences to saying those words (the opposite has been said). You said we could be removed from somewhere for speaking them where they are not welcome...... fine, I agree with you.... but we have to say them before they can kick us out (we have the freedom/right to speak them if we so choose)!

    You have the right to ask us to leave your home if we are there and you dont like what we have said, not what we might say. (although you do have the right to make anyone leave your property for ANY reason you want, whenever you want, different discussion, topic )

    The part about why it was included in the Constitution is partially correct, but there is more to it than what you wrote here.

  6. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by RugerP345 View Post
    Your interpretation is flawed.

    You see, you only have the "right to free speech" on property under your control.
    For instance, if I make some remarks here about gays, minorities, or whomever, I can be banned from this forum even tho I have done nothing but "speak". By the same reasoning, if you are at a little leaque game and start screaming and insulting the umpire, he can have you removed from the ball park, even tho you did nothing but "speak". Have you ever read the rules posted at the mall? You can be asked to leave the property in some malls for using profanity, even tho you are only "speaking", your right doesn't extend to any property other than your own. If you don't believe me, go to your next town council meeting and start yelling and insulting the officials. You will be escorted outta there in a heartbeat, although you just "spoke" your opinion.
    Americans have this flawed belief that they can go anywhere and say anything under the Constitution. But, if you come to my house and start bashing USA carry, I can ask you to leave and you must, even tho you might be simply stating your opinions or beliefs.

    The First Ammendment simply means that the government cannot make a law that prohibits you from expressing your opinions in your own house. In England, it was against the law to slander the King. Example: If you and I were in my kitchen drinking a beer and I said the King was a punk, and you went and told him, then I could be arrested and imprisoned for my comment against the Crown. When the Patriots threw off the mantle of Britain, they wanted to make sure this was not the practise here.


    .
    Not sure whose interpretation you are disagreeing with but I will chime in opposition to your argument...

    Exactly where in the constitution does it say ANY of your rights stop when you are on an others property? OR that ANY of your rights only apply when your in your own house/property? That's totally fatuous.

    How ludicrous it would be to construe that you have less of a right to defend your life at your next door neighbors house, then you do at your own...
    Or that you have no free speech at your neighbors house, but it is unlimited at your home...

    IF your neighbor or city hall for that matter does not like what you have to say, they can ask you to leave, if you refuse you can be arrested for trespassing...

    There is no flawed belief that the Constitution means exactly what it says...

    The regulation & implementation thereof by those with money & political power is where the fundamental flaw is...

    We have been snookered into believing that our rights are conditionally on loan from what ever politician happens to be in power at the moment...

    IT is merely a matter of time before WE THE PEOPLE en masse WTFU and take back the Republic and once again reaffirm that our rights are unconditional...

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  7. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by HK4U View Post
    And if someone dies you most likely will be arrested, tried, found guilty and perhaps sentenced to die. Thus loosing your rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
    Which is consistent with the 5th amendment...
    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    Bill of Rights...
    God Given...
    Non-Negotiable...

    Without our Liberties, we have NOTHING...

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  8. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Axeanda45 View Post
    Nowhere in this discussion was it said that there are not consequences to saying those words
    OK, so then it isn't "free".


    Thats like saying you are "free' to carry yor gun anywhere you want.
    but if you do you might go to jail.

    So you really aren't free to do it by the definition of the word free.
    In the beginning, the patriot is a scarce man -- brave, hated, and scorned. But when his cause succeeds, the timid join him. For then, it costs nothing to be a patriot. -- Mark Twain

  9. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by RugerP345 View Post
    OK, so then it isn't "free".


    Thats like saying you are "free' to carry yor gun anywhere you want.
    but if you do you might go to jail.

    So you really aren't free to do it by the definition of the word free.
    Ok, lets try this again, because you are missing the fundamental point...

    You CAN Yell "Fire!" in a Crowded Theater

    Even the First Amendment doesn't give us an unrestricted right to free speech, say those who would eliminate the Second. You can be sued for libel or slander if you defame someone in print or speech. You can't threaten people. And you can't yell "fire!" in a crowded theater.

    Ergo, "reasonable" gun control laws are not only necessary, but constitutional.

    As usual, such calculated weasel-wording will elicit nods from audiences conditioned to accept anything uttered by a talking head or printed under a screaming headline as the final authority. And, as usual, if one probes a bit beneath the surface, the misdirection and outright deception represented by this line of thinking isn't hard to ferret out.

    The first flawed premise is that the Bill of Rights "gives" anything at all. It does not; it merely articulates specified (but not all) unalienable rights that are inherent to the condition of being human, that predate the formation of government or the adoption of any constitution, and that may not properly be deprived from full enfranchisement save when they are abused to the injury of others.

    In other words, you can't be muzzled beforehand. You CAN yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Any time you feel like it. The government can impose no prior restraint on anything that you may say or write. To do so violates your unalienable rights under the Constitution; the only ones bound by prior restraints in such matters are the government.

    I would, however, advise that there actually be a fire. Because if there's not, it's proper for your reckless action to meet with a penalizing response. And if someone is threatened or injured, it's just to expect punishment for your actions and restitution for your victims.

    But you can still threaten your neighbors and coworkers, and shout from the rooftops whatever fabricated slur you want about anybody you choose, or publish libelous remarks impugning the good name of the most exalted among us. Any time at all. For instance, if I want to say that Rosie O'Donnell is a...wait, that's not a good example--it has to be untrue.

    The point being, you need to do the crime before you do the time. If you harass, intimidate or terrorize someone with menacing words or demeanor, or if what you say or write is false and done with malice or reckless disregard, you've got a world of hurt coming your way, and deservedly so.

    Like it or not, and those who would disregard it most certainly do not, the same holds true for the Second Amendment. You bet there are legitimate and just restraints that society can impose once you menace or harm someone, or otherwise prove yourself to be incompetent or untrustworthy. But until such time as you do, your right to keep and bear arms may not be infringed.

    And like it or not, just as we can't require a permit for you to speak your mind, or impose a waiting period before you can purchase a newspaper, or demand that you register your video purchases, just as we can't pass laws prohibiting concealed crucifixes, the same holds true for guns.

    But that's not the same, decry the gun haters. The only purpose of guns is to kill!

    Demonstrably not true, but so may words and ideas, unless you think the despots of the past and present have rounded up and dispatched their victims by themselves. And just as words can also provide deliverance, so too can guns. They do in this country on a daily basis, to the tune of up to 2.5 million times a year.

    This leads us to the final flawed premise; that any of the 20,000 "reasonable" infringements constructed in the minds of headline-seizing politicians, and enacted to date at the federal, state and local level, have made society safer, or have kept the predators among us from wreaking carnage at will.

    Is there anyone who seriously thinks law number 20,001 will be the one that finally works?
    David Codrea's "Intolerable Acts" is featured in the January 2001 issue of Guns & Ammo magazine.

    http://www.keepandbeararms.com/Infor...em.asp?ID=1657


    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  10. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Bohemian View Post
    How ludicrous it would be to construe that you have less of a right to defend your life at your next door neighbors house, then you do at your own...
    Two things..
    1) Doesn't the Castle Doctrine laws do exactly what you argue about in your statement. Don't I have more rights (more protection really) at my own door than my neighbors?? In Florida, there is almost no question if I shoot a person in my home (if they have committed a felony). I can not be prosecuted and I can not be civilly sued.. That is not so much true at my neighbors house.. Unless I am in my car at my neighbors house, then I am again in my own domain and I am protected again..

    Humm I wonder if I am in my car, inside his garage, hummm...???
    What if I'm in his car in my garage, hummm???

    2) All this talk, reminds me of a quote...
    "No man was ever endowed with a right without being at the same time saddled with a responsibility. "
    - Gerald W. Johnson

    Gulf Coast, Floriduh
    Sccy is the limit

  11. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by HootmonSccy View Post
    Two things..
    1) Doesn't the Castle Doctrine laws do exactly what you argue about in your statement. Don't I have more rights (more protection really) at my own door than my neighbors?? In Florida, there is almost no question if I shoot a person in my home (if they have committed a felony). I can not be prosecuted and I can not be civilly sued.. That is not so much true at my neighbors house.. Unless I am in my car at my neighbors house, then I am again in my own domain and I am protected again..

    Humm I wonder if I am in my car, inside his garage, hummm...???
    What if I'm in his car in my garage, hummm???

    2) All this talk, reminds me of a quote...
    "No man was ever endowed with a right without being at the same time saddled with a responsibility. "
    - Gerald W. Johnson
    In my view the Castle Doctrine like Concealed Carry Permits in states that allow either one, conditionally, all or in part...

    Serve to make the Constitution & the Second Amendment ambiguous...

    Point being they are both superfluous and a sham to back door firearm registration, which in the history of the world as ALWAYS led to CONFISCATION...
    And to further the lore "That Just Because You Have A Right, Does Not Mean The Government Can Not Constrain That Right" - Barack Hussein Obama Jr.

    To paraphrase Ted Nugent... The Second Amendment IS my Concealed Carry Permit & Castle Doctrine...

    Neither the Castle Doctrine or Concealed Carry Permits or any of the over 20,000 and counting firearms laws exist in any of the founding documents...

    WHY?

    Because no such criteria or limitations, regulations, etc., was ever intended or remotely implied by any of the founding fathers...

    You simply can not read anymore into "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

    I will kill somebody that tries to do me or mine or a stranger for that matter harm; just as dead in my house as in my neighbors or elsewhere...

    Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6...



    Bill of Rights...
    God Given...
    Non-Negotiable...

    Without our Liberties, we have NOTHING...

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast