Gun control debate (merged)

#11,976
#11,976
luthervol said:
It didn't really help in the least.
x-rated movie houses are not public displays. Who is to say that a public display of porn at McDonald's harms children? I know.
If someone takes a terrorisitic threat seriously, isn't that sort of their problem? Not every terroristic threat is an actual threat. Some may view a visible weapon as a greater threat than some random social media post.
Polygamy between adults harms no one yet is a federal crime and illegal in all 50 states.
Publishing classified information was given as a legal restriction on the press. (Could potentially bring harm?) Moving the goal post are we?

You asked for examples, I gave you examples.
I hope this helps you more than your post helped me.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately for you, you gave examples where a constitutional right was limited because the exercise of that right limited the constitutional rights of others. Except
for consenting adult polygamy which should not be illegal. (Another example where the judicial system is infringing on the rights of citizens).

Freedom is precious. It must be protected.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0nelilreb, hog88 and davethevol
#11,978
#11,978
luthervol said:
What?
My employer legally limits all types of speech that harm no one.
How does a terroristic threat hurt anyone?
How does me screaming vulgarities in a public park hurt anyone?
Click to expand...

You have a choice with your employer. Private property owners set the rules on their property.
They infringe on a persons freedom and well being.
It doesn’t and isn’t illegal unless you are disturbing the peace.
 
#11,979
#11,979
luthervol said:
And 240 years later we can conclude that it was an over reaction to an exaggerated fear that has resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives.
Click to expand...
" We " disagree with you. Funny, I thought the British tried to rule the colonies through tyranny from across the big pond? Could have swore I read that somewhere.
Thus 2a. A balance against future tyranny.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#11,980
#11,980
hog88 said:
You have a choice with your employer. Private property owners set the rules on their property.
They infringe on a persons freedom and well being.
It doesn’t and isn’t illegal unless you are disturbing the peace.
Click to expand...
Amazing Luther can’t grasp these simple legal concepts
 
#11,981
#11,981
luthervol said:
My speech is legally limited by my employer.....which I accept as a condition of employment.
And the obvious terroristic threat limitation.
And the obvious public vulgarity.
Click to expand...
Your employer firing you for something you said is a consequence of free speech. It is not a limitation. You are free to go on a racist rant at work. Your employer is free to fire you or not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol, InVOLuntary, hog88 and 1 other person
#11,982
#11,982
McDad said:
Unfortunately for you, you gave examples where a constitutional right was limited because the exercise of that right limited the constitutional rights of others. Except
for consenting adult polygamy which should not be illegal. (Another example where the judicial system is infringing on the rights of citizens).

Freedom is precious. It must be protected.
Click to expand...
You can keep saying that but you know you are splitting hairs at best.
Who is actually hurt by a threat made on social media? Who determines what rises to the level of a threat? Is making someone rightfully or wrongly feel threatened criminal?
Who says porn displayed at McDonald's hurts children. Who decides what is porn (prohibited because of possible perceived harm) and what is not (freely allowed)?
Who decides what is classified information (which a free press is prohibited from reporting) and what is not? Who decides when there is a perceived possibility of harm by reporting information?
 
#11,985
#11,985
hog88 said:
You have a choice with your employer. Private property owners set the rules on their property.
They infringe on a persons freedom and well being.
It doesn’t and isn’t illegal unless you are disturbing the peace.
Click to expand...
How in the world does an on-line terroristic threat infringe on a person's freedom and well being?
Scream vulgarities on a street corner and then go to the next street corner and scream Bible versus. See if they are treated equally.
One is viewed as legal, the other is not. The potential harm to other in both instances is debatable. Some would even find the Bible versus more offensive.
 
#11,986
#11,986
NurseGoodVol said:
" We " disagree with you. Funny, I thought the British tried to rule the colonies through tyranny from across the big pond? Could have swore I read that somewhere.
Thus 2a. A balance against future tyranny.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone is shocked that you disagree with us and "we" disagree with you.
Who is this "we"? The people? Or in other words, society?
 
#11,987
#11,987
luthervol said:
How in the world does an on-line terroristic threat infringe on a person's freedom and well being?
Scream vulgarities on a street corner and then go to the next street corner and scream Bible versus. See if they are treated equally.
One is viewed as legal, the other is not. The potential harm to other in both instances is debatable. Some would even find the Bible versus more offensive.
Click to expand...
If you think quoting a Bible verse is equivalent to an actual threat of hurting someone, that’s crazy. There’s no harm to listening to a bible verse and you simply can ignore it.
 
#11,988
#11,988
luthervol said:
How in the world does an on-line terroristic threat infringe on a person's freedom and well being?
Scream vulgarities on a street corner and then go to the next street corner and scream Bible versus. See if they are treated equally.
One is viewed as legal, the other is not. The potential harm to other in both instances is debatable. Some would even find the Bible versus more offensive.
Click to expand...

When people have to change or alter their daily routine due to your threats, you are harming them. You make a threat and close a school you have harmed several people.

I can go to any street corner and yell vulgarities and the worse that will happen is a cop tells me to move on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#11,989
#11,989
DancingOutlaw said:
Your employer firing you for something you said is a consequence of free speech. It is not a limitation. You are free to go on a racist rant at work. Your employer is free to fire you or not.
Click to expand...
That's asinine. You are free to scream vulgarities in the park. The police are free to arrest you.
You are free to make terroistic threats on social media, the government is free to arrest you.
Severe negative consequences seem to be the thing used to "limit" freedoms, or encourage appropriate behaviors.
 
#11,990
#11,990
hog88 said:
When people have to change or alter their daily routine due to your threats, you are harming them. You make a threat and close a school you have harmed several people.

I can go to any street corner and yell vulgarities and the worse that will happen is a cop tells me to move on.
Click to expand...
And if people view an armed person in a restaurant as threatening to the point that they change their behavior (even get up and leave) the person carrying the weapon is harming them? Got it.
 
#11,991
#11,991
luthervol said:
And if people view an armed person in a restaurant as threatening to the point that they change their behavior (even get up and leave) the person carrying the weapon is harming them? Got it.
Click to expand...

No the armed person is not threatening them so the armed person is not harming them. If they view the armed person as a threat it’s on them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad, Pepe_Silvia and Rickyvol77
#11,992
#11,992
luthervol said:
And if people view an armed person in a restaurant as threatening to the point that they change their behavior (even get up and leave) the person carrying the weapon is harming them? Got it.
Click to expand...
You could say the same thing about a racist leaving at the sight of a black person and they would be irrational and stupid as well. Are you that afraid of firearms that the mere sight of them send you running?
 
#11,993
#11,993
hog88 said:
No the armed person is not threatening them so the armed person is not harming them. If they view the armed person as a threat it’s on them.
Click to expand...
So who is it that determines if a person has a legitimate right to feel threatened?
 
#11,995
#11,995
McDad said:
Unfortunately for you, you gave examples where a constitutional right was limited because the exercise of that right limited the constitutional rights of others. Except
for consenting adult polygamy which should not be illegal. (Another example where the judicial system is infringing on the rights of citizens).

Freedom is precious. It must be protected.
Click to expand...

Luthers tap dancing routine around the words “shall not be Infringed upon ” is impressive, in no way honest , but impressive none the less .
 
#11,996
#11,996
0nelilreb said:
Luthers tap dancing routine around the words “shall not be Infringed upon ” is impressive, in no way honest , but impressive none the less .
Click to expand...
In no way honest? Really?
Someone earlier said something to the effect of: decreasing production increases demand which raises prices and that results in a limitation to some potential buyers which by definition would be an infringement.
I said the same results from safety regulations which are perfectly legal. So it is perfectly legal to infringe?
 
#12,000
#12,000
luthervol said:
Which is nothing more than a product of the society of that time.
You guys act as if it's some divine product provided by the gods.
Click to expand...
I think it was written by men who percieved that the heart of man can be dark. That power can corrupt and can get out of hand. Do we not still see this in powerful unchecked men today in unarmed populaces?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top