2nd Amendment Scoreboard


https://imgur.com/a/Md1Mo





--
"In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place."

"Truth Sounds Like Hate To Those Who Hate The Truth"

On 3/10/2018 6:34 AM, Dove Tail wrote:
2nd Amendment Scoreboard


https://imgur.com/a/Md1Mo





And if the libtards are successful, who will defend the rest of your rights?

On Sat, 10 Mar 2018 11:34:57 +0000 (UTC), "Dove Tail"
wrote:

2nd Amendment Scoreboard


https://imgur.com/a/Md1Mo

I suppose the 1st amendment score card would be all of the deaths,
injuries and property damage caused by "protesters" (AKA rioters)

On 3/10/2018 at 7:32:39 AM, wrote:


On Sat, 10 Mar 2018 11:34:57 +0000 (UTC), "Dove Tail"
wrote:

2nd Amendment Scoreboard


https://imgur.com/a/Md1Mo

I suppose the 1st amendment score card would be all of the deaths,
injuries and property damage caused by "protesters" (AKA rioters)


You work on that while I focus on the 2nd amendment. Maybe you can
draw or find a cartoon to illustrate your point?



--
"In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place."

"Truth Sounds Like Hate To Those Who Hate The Truth"

On Sat, 10 Mar 2018 15:39:02 +0000 (UTC), "Dove Tail"
wrote:

On 3/10/2018 at 7:32:39 AM, wrote:


On Sat, 10 Mar 2018 11:34:57 +0000 (UTC), "Dove Tail"
wrote:

2nd Amendment Scoreboard


https://imgur.com/a/Md1Mo

I suppose the 1st amendment score card would be all of the deaths,
injuries and property damage caused by "protesters" (AKA rioters)


You work on that while I focus on the 2nd amendment. Maybe you can
draw or find a cartoon to illustrate your point?

You should not have any problem finding pictures of burned out cities
from the last 50 years of "protests".

On 3/10/2018 at 8:02:32 AM, wrote:


On Sat, 10 Mar 2018 15:39:02 +0000 (UTC), "Dove Tail"
wrote:

On 3/10/2018 at 7:32:39 AM, wrote:


On Sat, 10 Mar 2018 11:34:57 +0000 (UTC), "Dove Tail"
wrote:

2nd Amendment Scoreboard


https://imgur.com/a/Md1Mo

I suppose the 1st amendment score card would be all of the deaths,
injuries and property damage caused by "protesters" (AKA rioters)


You work on that while I focus on the 2nd amendment. Maybe you can
draw or find a cartoon to illustrate your point?

You should not have any problem finding pictures of burned out cities
from the last 50 years of "protests".



As I said, you get to work on that while I focus on the 2nd amendment.




--
"In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place."

"Truth Sounds Like Hate To Those Who Hate The Truth"

On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 7:07:57 AM UTC-6, Dev Null wrote:
On 3/10/2018 6:34 AM, Dove Tail wrote:
2nd Amendment Scoreboard

https://imgur.com/a/Md1Mo

And if the libtards are successful, who will defend the rest of your rights?


Dove Anus is one of the "Useful Idiots" lead around by its nose ring by the Commiecrat elite. Dove Anus is willing to give up its Second Amendment rights but wants the Second Amendment rights of everyone else taken away at gunpoint. "Liberalism is a mental disorder." - Dr.Michael Savage. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Observant Monster

On Sat, 10 Mar 2018 16:21:04 +0000 (UTC), "Dove Tail"
wrote:

On 3/10/2018 at 8:02:32 AM, wrote:


On Sat, 10 Mar 2018 15:39:02 +0000 (UTC), "Dove Tail"
wrote:

On 3/10/2018 at 7:32:39 AM, wrote:


On Sat, 10 Mar 2018 11:34:57 +0000 (UTC), "Dove Tail"
wrote:

2nd Amendment Scoreboard


https://imgur.com/a/Md1Mo

I suppose the 1st amendment score card would be all of the deaths,
injuries and property damage caused by "protesters" (AKA rioters)


You work on that while I focus on the 2nd amendment. Maybe you can
draw or find a cartoon to illustrate your point?

You should not have any problem finding pictures of burned out cities
from the last 50 years of "protests".



As I said, you get to work on that while I focus on the 2nd amendment.

The point is they did not rank the rights, they all have the same
importance, no matter what the collateral damage might be.
In the 70s the court even gutted the principle of crying fire in a
crowded theater. Even the most devisive and violence inciting speech
is protected. I suppose you still think the 1st amendment is
important.

On 3/10/2018 at 12:45:16 PM, wrote:


2nd Amendment Scoreboard


https://imgur.com/a/Md1Mo

I suppose the 1st amendment score card would be all of the
deaths, injuries and property damage caused by "protesters"
(AKA rioters)

You work on that while I focus on the 2nd amendment. Maybe you
can draw or find a cartoon to illustrate your point?

You should not have any problem finding pictures of burned out
cities from the last 50 years of "protests".



As I said, you get to work on that while I focus on the 2nd
amendment.

The point is they did not rank the rights, they all have the same
importance, no matter what the collateral damage might be.
In the 70s the court even gutted the principle of crying fire in a
crowded theater. Even the most devisive and violence inciting speech
is protected. I suppose you still think the 1st amendment is
important.


"Who" didn't rank the rights?




--
"In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place."

"Truth Sounds Like Hate To Those Who Hate The Truth"

On Sat, 10 Mar 2018 21:20:52 -0000 (UTC), "Dove Tail"
wrote:

On 3/10/2018 at 12:45:16 PM, wrote:


2nd Amendment Scoreboard


https://imgur.com/a/Md1Mo

I suppose the 1st amendment score card would be all of the
deaths, injuries and property damage caused by "protesters"
(AKA rioters)

You work on that while I focus on the 2nd amendment. Maybe you
can draw or find a cartoon to illustrate your point?

You should not have any problem finding pictures of burned out
cities from the last 50 years of "protests".



As I said, you get to work on that while I focus on the 2nd
amendment.

The point is they did not rank the rights, they all have the same
importance, no matter what the collateral damage might be.
In the 70s the court even gutted the principle of crying fire in a
crowded theater. Even the most devisive and violence inciting speech
is protected. I suppose you still think the 1st amendment is
important.


"Who" didn't rank the rights?

The framers of the constitution, unless you think due process is less
important than the right to bear arms and the right not to have cruel
and unusual punishments inflicted on you.

On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 3:45:02 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Mar 2018 16:21:04 +0000 (UTC), "Dove Tail"
wrote:

On 3/10/2018 at 8:02:32 AM, wrote:


On Sat, 10 Mar 2018 15:39:02 +0000 (UTC), "Dove Tail"
wrote:

On 3/10/2018 at 7:32:39 AM, wrote:


On Sat, 10 Mar 2018 11:34:57 +0000 (UTC), "Dove Tail"
wrote:

2nd Amendment Scoreboard


https://imgur.com/a/Md1Mo

I suppose the 1st amendment score card would be all of the deaths,
injuries and property damage caused by "protesters" (AKA rioters)


You work on that while I focus on the 2nd amendment. Maybe you can
draw or find a cartoon to illustrate your point?

You should not have any problem finding pictures of burned out cities
from the last 50 years of "protests".



As I said, you get to work on that while I focus on the 2nd amendment.

The point is they did not rank the rights, they all have the same
importance, no matter what the collateral damage might be.
In the 70s the court even gutted the principle of crying fire in a
crowded theater. Even the most devisive and violence inciting speech
is protected. I suppose you still think the 1st amendment is
important.

Last time I checked, yelling fire in a crowded theater is still illegal and nothing changed that. I'd like to see some people bring some hate crime cases to the SC, because there are freedom of speech issues with many of those laws. I'd say if anything, free speech is more restricted today than it was 50 or 100 years ago.

On 3/10/2018 at 1:26:44 PM, wrote:


On Sat, 10 Mar 2018 21:20:52 -0000 (UTC), "Dove Tail"
wrote:

On 3/10/2018 at 12:45:16 PM, wrote:


2nd Amendment Scoreboard


https://imgur.com/a/Md1Mo

I suppose the 1st amendment score card would be all of the
deaths, injuries and property damage caused by "protesters"
(AKA rioters)

You work on that while I focus on the 2nd amendment. Maybe
you can draw or find a cartoon to illustrate your point?

You should not have any problem finding pictures of burned out
cities from the last 50 years of "protests".



As I said, you get to work on that while I focus on the 2nd
amendment.

The point is they did not rank the rights, they all have the same
importance, no matter what the collateral damage might be.
In the 70s the court even gutted the principle of crying fire in a
crowded theater. Even the most devisive and violence inciting
speech is protected. I suppose you still think the 1st amendment is
important.


"Who" didn't rank the rights?

The framers of the constitution, unless you think due process is less
important than the right to bear arms and the right not to have cruel
and unusual punishments inflicted on you.

I simply don't see how your diversion relates to the piece of satire I
posted about the second amendment?

If you want to discuss a different topic, feel free to open a new
thread and present your argument in full.



--
"In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place."

"Truth Sounds Like Hate To Those Who Hate The Truth"

On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 4:26:28 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Mar 2018 21:20:52 -0000 (UTC), "Dove Tail"
wrote:

On 3/10/2018 at 12:45:16 PM, wrote:


2nd Amendment Scoreboard


https://imgur.com/a/Md1Mo

I suppose the 1st amendment score card would be all of the
deaths, injuries and property damage caused by "protesters"
(AKA rioters)

You work on that while I focus on the 2nd amendment. Maybe you
can draw or find a cartoon to illustrate your point?

You should not have any problem finding pictures of burned out
cities from the last 50 years of "protests".



As I said, you get to work on that while I focus on the 2nd
amendment.

The point is they did not rank the rights, they all have the same
importance, no matter what the collateral damage might be.
In the 70s the court even gutted the principle of crying fire in a
crowded theater. Even the most devisive and violence inciting speech
is protected. I suppose you still think the 1st amendment is
important.


"Who" didn't rank the rights?

The framers of the constitution, unless you think due process is less
important than the right to bear arms and the right not to have cruel
and unusual punishments inflicted on you.

Which is why I think a reasonable background check law to make sure you're not a criminal, that you don't have mental issues and that you are not a troubled person like Cruz, before you're allowed to buy a gun is what's needed. It's clearly constitutional, at least so far.

And then we need a companion law so that police can easily take the guns away from people they come in contact with that have guns but could not pass the background check now. That would have included the VA shooter that just cost another 3 lives. Right now everyone says, "wow, look at those red flags, but there is no existing law in most states to allow police to act on them. But sadly FL just instead passed a nothing burger instead.

On Sat, 10 Mar 2018 14:00:12 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

The point is they did not rank the rights, they all have the same
importance, no matter what the collateral damage might be.
In the 70s the court even gutted the principle of crying fire in a
crowded theater. Even the most devisive and violence inciting speech
is protected. I suppose you still think the 1st amendment is
important.

Last time I checked, yelling fire in a crowded theater is still illegal and nothing changed that. I'd like to see some people bring some hate crime cases to the SC, because there are freedom of speech issues with many of those laws. I'd say if anything, free speech is more restricted today than it was 50 or 100 years ago.

Perhaps you should do a little research on the Oliver Wendall Holmes
decision of 1919 where that came from and then look at what became
protected speech in the 70s.
Hint: OWH considered protesting the draft in time of war "a clear and
present danger" and used the analogy of the "fire in a theater"
example.
As we all know that became protected speech in the 70s.
Essentially SCHENCK v. U.S. , 249 U.S. 47 (1919) was overturned and
Oliver's flowery rhetoric (never actually in the law) went with it.
That was reinforced when the SCOTUS supported the nazi's right to
march in Skokie around the same time.
You can be mad at the Warren and Burger courts but that does not make
the decisions moot.

On Sat, 10 Mar 2018 14:09:50 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 4:26:28 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Mar 2018 21:20:52 -0000 (UTC), "Dove Tail"
wrote:

On 3/10/2018 at 12:45:16 PM, wrote:


2nd Amendment Scoreboard


https://imgur.com/a/Md1Mo

I suppose the 1st amendment score card would be all of the
deaths, injuries and property damage caused by "protesters"
(AKA rioters)

You work on that while I focus on the 2nd amendment. Maybe you
can draw or find a cartoon to illustrate your point?

You should not have any problem finding pictures of burned out
cities from the last 50 years of "protests".



As I said, you get to work on that while I focus on the 2nd
amendment.

The point is they did not rank the rights, they all have the same
importance, no matter what the collateral damage might be.
In the 70s the court even gutted the principle of crying fire in a
crowded theater. Even the most devisive and violence inciting speech
is protected. I suppose you still think the 1st amendment is
important.


"Who" didn't rank the rights?

The framers of the constitution, unless you think due process is less
important than the right to bear arms and the right not to have cruel
and unusual punishments inflicted on you.

Which is why I think a reasonable background check law to make sure you're not a criminal, that you don't have mental issues and that you are not a troubled person like Cruz, before you're allowed to buy a gun is what's needed. It's clearly constitutional, at least so far.

And then we need a companion law so that police can easily take the guns away from people they come in contact with that have guns but could not pass the background check now. That would have included the VA shooter that just cost another 3 lives. Right now everyone says, "wow, look at those red flags, but there is no existing law in most states to allow police to act on them. But sadly FL just instead passed a nothing burger instead.

Yeah, if we could just trim a little off of that constitution, the
government could really get something done. Now you want to eliminate
due process and maybe allow illegal searches.
That pesky Burger court just got in your way again.

On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 7:38:56 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Mar 2018 14:09:50 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 4:26:28 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Mar 2018 21:20:52 -0000 (UTC), "Dove Tail"
wrote:

On 3/10/2018 at 12:45:16 PM, wrote:


2nd Amendment Scoreboard


https://imgur.com/a/Md1Mo

I suppose the 1st amendment score card would be all of the
deaths, injuries and property damage caused by "protesters"
(AKA rioters)

You work on that while I focus on the 2nd amendment. Maybe you
can draw or find a cartoon to illustrate your point?

You should not have any problem finding pictures of burned out
cities from the last 50 years of "protests".



As I said, you get to work on that while I focus on the 2nd
amendment.

The point is they did not rank the rights, they all have the same
importance, no matter what the collateral damage might be.
In the 70s the court even gutted the principle of crying fire in a
crowded theater. Even the most devisive and violence inciting speech
is protected. I suppose you still think the 1st amendment is
important.


"Who" didn't rank the rights?

The framers of the constitution, unless you think due process is less
important than the right to bear arms and the right not to have cruel
and unusual punishments inflicted on you.

Which is why I think a reasonable background check law to make sure you're not a criminal, that you don't have mental issues and that you are not a troubled person like Cruz, before you're allowed to buy a gun is what's needed. It's clearly constitutional, at least so far.

And then we need a companion law so that police can easily take the guns away from people they come in contact with that have guns but could not pass the background check now. That would have included the VA shooter that just cost another 3 lives. Right now everyone says, "wow, look at those red flags, but there is no existing law in most states to allow police to act on them. But sadly FL just instead passed a nothing burger instead.

Yeah, if we could just trim a little off of that constitution, the
government could really get something done. Now you want to eliminate
due process and maybe allow illegal searches.
That pesky Burger court just got in your way again.

Doesn't require trimming anything off the constitution. Our permit laws have been in place 40 years in NJ and survived all court challenges. Several states have laws in place to allow the police to remove guns from troubled people, like Cruz. But sadly many states and many people can't see the light.

On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 7:32:44 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Mar 2018 14:00:12 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

The point is they did not rank the rights, they all have the same
importance, no matter what the collateral damage might be.
In the 70s the court even gutted the principle of crying fire in a
crowded theater. Even the most devisive and violence inciting speech
is protected. I suppose you still think the 1st amendment is
important.

Last time I checked, yelling fire in a crowded theater is still illegal and nothing changed that. I'd like to see some people bring some hate crime cases to the SC, because there are freedom of speech issues with many of those laws. I'd say if anything, free speech is more restricted today than it was 50 or 100 years ago.

Perhaps you should do a little research on the Oliver Wendall Holmes
decision of 1919 where that came from and then look at what became
protected speech in the 70s.
Hint: OWH considered protesting the draft in time of war "a clear and
present danger" and used the analogy of the "fire in a theater"
example.
As we all know that became protected speech in the 70s.
Essentially SCHENCK v. U.S. , 249 U.S. 47 (1919) was overturned and
Oliver's flowery rhetoric (never actually in the law) went with it.

Total BS. Protesting the draft does not present a real and immediate threat to the public. Falsely yelling fire in a theater does.




That was reinforced when the SCOTUS supported the nazi's right to
march in Skokie around the same time.

Again, apples and oranges.



You can be mad at the Warren and Burger courts but that does not make
the decisions moot.

No, you just need to understand that falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater is not protected speech, for obvious reasons. If you feel otherwise, show us the actual decisions.

On 3/10/18 7:05 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 7:32:44 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Mar 2018 14:00:12 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

The point is they did not rank the rights, they all have the same
importance, no matter what the collateral damage might be.
In the 70s the court even gutted the principle of crying fire in a
crowded theater. Even the most devisive and violence inciting speech
is protected. I suppose you still think the 1st amendment is
important.

Last time I checked, yelling fire in a crowded theater is still illegal and nothing changed that. I'd like to see some people bring some hate crime cases to the SC, because there are freedom of speech issues with many of those laws. I'd say if anything, free speech is more restricted today than it was 50 or 100 years ago.

Perhaps you should do a little research on the Oliver Wendall Holmes
decision of 1919 where that came from and then look at what became
protected speech in the 70s.
Hint: OWH considered protesting the draft in time of war "a clear and
present danger" and used the analogy of the "fire in a theater"
example.
As we all know that became protected speech in the 70s.
Essentially SCHENCK v. U.S. , 249 U.S. 47 (1919) was overturned and
Oliver's flowery rhetoric (never actually in the law) went with it.

Total BS. Protesting the draft does not present a real and immediate threat to the public. Falsely yelling fire in a theater does.




That was reinforced when the SCOTUS supported the nazi's right to
march in Skokie around the same time.

Again, apples and oranges.



You can be mad at the Warren and Burger courts but that does not make
the decisions moot.

No, you just need to understand that falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater is not protected speech, for obvious reasons. If you feel otherwise, show us the actual decisions.


http://civil-liberties.yoexpert.com/civil-liberties-general/is-it-legal-to-shout-%22fire%22-in-a-crowded-theater-19421.html

On Sat, 10 Mar 2018 16:59:21 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 7:38:56 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Mar 2018 14:09:50 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 4:26:28 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Mar 2018 21:20:52 -0000 (UTC), "Dove Tail"
wrote:

On 3/10/2018 at 12:45:16 PM, wrote:


2nd Amendment Scoreboard


https://imgur.com/a/Md1Mo

I suppose the 1st amendment score card would be all of the
deaths, injuries and property damage caused by "protesters"
(AKA rioters)

You work on that while I focus on the 2nd amendment. Maybe you
can draw or find a cartoon to illustrate your point?

You should not have any problem finding pictures of burned out
cities from the last 50 years of "protests".



As I said, you get to work on that while I focus on the 2nd
amendment.

The point is they did not rank the rights, they all have the same
importance, no matter what the collateral damage might be.
In the 70s the court even gutted the principle of crying fire in a
crowded theater. Even the most devisive and violence inciting speech
is protected. I suppose you still think the 1st amendment is
important.


"Who" didn't rank the rights?

The framers of the constitution, unless you think due process is less
important than the right to bear arms and the right not to have cruel
and unusual punishments inflicted on you.

Which is why I think a reasonable background check law to make sure you're not a criminal, that you don't have mental issues and that you are not a troubled person like Cruz, before you're allowed to buy a gun is what's needed. It's clearly constitutional, at least so far.

And then we need a companion law so that police can easily take the guns away from people they come in contact with that have guns but could not pass the background check now. That would have included the VA shooter that just cost another 3 lives. Right now everyone says, "wow, look at those red flags, but there is no existing law in most states to allow police to act on them. But sadly FL just instead passed a nothing burger instead.

Yeah, if we could just trim a little off of that constitution, the
government could really get something done. Now you want to eliminate
due process and maybe allow illegal searches.
That pesky Burger court just got in your way again.

Doesn't require trimming anything off the constitution. Our permit laws have been in place 40 years in NJ and survived all court challenges. Several states have laws in place to allow the police to remove guns from troubled people, like Cruz. But sadly many states and many people can't see the light.

Did any of these cases make it to a federal appeals court? Cite
please?

On Sat, 10 Mar 2018 17:05:05 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 7:32:44 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Mar 2018 14:00:12 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

The point is they did not rank the rights, they all have the same
importance, no matter what the collateral damage might be.
In the 70s the court even gutted the principle of crying fire in a
crowded theater. Even the most devisive and violence inciting speech
is protected. I suppose you still think the 1st amendment is
important.

Last time I checked, yelling fire in a crowded theater is still illegal and nothing changed that. I'd like to see some people bring some hate crime cases to the SC, because there are freedom of speech issues with many of those laws. I'd say if anything, free speech is more restricted today than it was 50 or 100 years ago.

Perhaps you should do a little research on the Oliver Wendall Holmes
decision of 1919 where that came from and then look at what became
protected speech in the 70s.
Hint: OWH considered protesting the draft in time of war "a clear and
present danger" and used the analogy of the "fire in a theater"
example.
As we all know that became protected speech in the 70s.
Essentially SCHENCK v. U.S. , 249 U.S. 47 (1919) was overturned and
Oliver's flowery rhetoric (never actually in the law) went with it.

Total BS. Protesting the draft does not present a real and immediate threat to the public. Falsely yelling fire in a theater does.

I did not write Schenck, OW Holmes did and he is the one who made that
phrase up. It is not a law, just an illiteration in a century old
overturned decision.

That was reinforced when the SCOTUS supported the nazi's right to
march in Skokie around the same time.

Again, apples and oranges.

You don't think that is dangerous speech? Weren't you one of those who
were bitching about Charlottesville?


You can be mad at the Warren and Burger courts but that does not make
the decisions moot.

No, you just need to understand that falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater is not protected speech, for obvious reasons. If you feel otherwise, show us the actual decisions.

There will never be a case to cite since it is not illegal. People
yell things that cause panic all the time and get away with it.
Again, if you think it is illegal, cite the case in the last 50 years
where a prosecution was successful.

On 03/10/2018 07:49 PM, wrote:
I did not write Schenck, OW Holmes did and he is the one who made that
phrase up. It is not a law, just an illiteration in a century old
overturned decision

Holmes had a way with words -- "Three generations of imbeciles is
enough." That was before the government took it upon itself to breed
imbeciles.

On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 9:49:01 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Mar 2018 17:05:05 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 7:32:44 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Mar 2018 14:00:12 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

The point is they did not rank the rights, they all have the same
importance, no matter what the collateral damage might be.
In the 70s the court even gutted the principle of crying fire in a
crowded theater. Even the most devisive and violence inciting speech
is protected. I suppose you still think the 1st amendment is
important.

Last time I checked, yelling fire in a crowded theater is still illegal and nothing changed that. I'd like to see some people bring some hate crime cases to the SC, because there are freedom of speech issues with many of those laws. I'd say if anything, free speech is more restricted today than it was 50 or 100 years ago.

Perhaps you should do a little research on the Oliver Wendall Holmes
decision of 1919 where that came from and then look at what became
protected speech in the 70s.
Hint: OWH considered protesting the draft in time of war "a clear and
present danger" and used the analogy of the "fire in a theater"
example.
As we all know that became protected speech in the 70s.
Essentially SCHENCK v. U.S. , 249 U.S. 47 (1919) was overturned and
Oliver's flowery rhetoric (never actually in the law) went with it.

Total BS. Protesting the draft does not present a real and immediate threat to the public. Falsely yelling fire in a theater does.

I did not write Schenck, OW Holmes did and he is the one who made that
phrase up. It is not a law, just an illiteration in a century old
overturned decision.

But you're badly misinterpreting the history of it and applying false
logic. Holmes used that example in the case
they were hearing which involved speaking out against the US draft.
He compared it to falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater. The fact
that later courts found that acts like speaking out against the draft
don't rise to the level of yelling fire, does not make yelling fire
protected speech. Falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater presents
a real, immediate threat to the public, with a stampede with people
being hurt and/or dying being an obvious direct consequence of the
action. It's miles away from protesting the draft.


That was reinforced when the SCOTUS supported the nazi's right to
march in Skokie around the same time.

Again, apples and oranges.

You don't think that is dangerous speech? Weren't you one of those who
were bitching about Charlottesville?


I was condemning Trump in that case. First for his failure to come
forth and speak out against the Nazis, KKK, etc. and then days later
when he said there were very fine people marching together with that ilk.
I never said those white supremacists didn't have a right to march, to
be there. Again, this is miles away from actually yelling fire in a
crowded theater. Those sickos in VA, are entitled to their beliefs,
to hold their rally. So too are people on the other side. Both are
expressing real opinions and political positions. In the case of yelling
fire in a crowded theater, it's sole purpose is a lie to create panic.







You can be mad at the Warren and Burger courts but that does not make
the decisions moot.

No, you just need to understand that falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater is not protected speech, for obvious reasons. If you feel otherwise, show us the actual decisions.

There will never be a case to cite since it is not illegal.

You don't need an actual case and AFAIK there are none because no one
as of yet has been stupid enough to try to do it and then claim it's
free speech. In subsequent SC decisions they made it
very clear that actions like that are in fact not protected speech.
All they did was rule that certain examples, eg holding a KKK rally
are protected. You're trying to conflate that with the court
having said that yelling fire is protected, when in fact, they said
no such thing.



People
yell things that cause panic all the time and get away with it.

Show us some examples. I've yet to see any instances in all the
news I've watched. Closest thing would be calling in a bomb
threat, I suppose you're going to tell us that's protected speech
too?

And in fact, it's gone much more the other way in recent years with
all the new hate crime laws. I've seen many cases here where, for
example, some white supremacist leaflets were tossed around
neighborhoods or posted on light poles. All resulted in immediate
major investigations, but IDK how they turned out. One could argue
that just the fact that you're going to be investigated, possibly
charged with one of the new hate crime laws, is already suppression
of free speech.


Again, if you think it is illegal, cite the case in the last 50 years
where a prosecution was successful.

Cite for us any instances where someone has actually done it.



Here, from the US govt Federal Courts Website, look at number one on
the list:



http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federa...rces/what-does

Freedom of speech does not include the right:

To incite actions that would harm others (e.g., €œ[S]hout[ing] €˜fire in a crowded theater.€�).
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
To make or distribute obscene materials.
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
United States v. OBrien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).
To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).

On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 07:55:56 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:





Again, if you think it is illegal, cite the case in the last 50 years
where a prosecution was successful.

Cite for us any instances where someone has actually done it.



Here, from the US govt Federal Courts Website, look at number one on
the list:



http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federa...rces/what-does

Freedom of speech does not include the right:

To incite actions that would harm others (e.g., €œ[S]hout[ing] €˜fire in a crowded theater.€�).
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).

As I said that case was overturned and the rhetoric is not codified in
any law. Bomb threats are specifically illegal by statute


To make or distribute obscene materials.
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).

If that was True Stormy Daniels would just be a hooker

To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
United States v. OBrien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).

Kegan said this would not stand if brought today. There was the issue
at the time that a draft card remained property of the US government.
You can burn a flag if it is your property (Eichman)

To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).

Still not a crime and it happens all the time

Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).

Still not a crime

Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).

Not a crime

On 3/10/2018 3:34 AM, Dove Tail wrote:
2nd Amendment Scoreboard


https://imgur.com/a/Md1Mo






Funny that these gun rights people ignore the part about the militia's
purpose being to "suppress insurrection". The constitution says nothing
about overthrowing tyrants.

On Sunday, March 11, 2018 at 12:34:25 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 07:55:56 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:





Again, if you think it is illegal, cite the case in the last 50 years
where a prosecution was successful.

Cite for us any instances where someone has actually done it.



Here, from the US govt Federal Courts Website, look at number one on
the list:



http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federa...rces/what-does

Freedom of speech does not include the right:

To incite actions that would harm others (e.g., €œ[S]hout[ing] €˜fire in a crowded theater.€�).
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).

As I said that case was overturned and the rhetoric is not codified in
any law. Bomb threats are specifically illegal by statute


To make or distribute obscene materials.
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).

If that was True Stormy Daniels would just be a hooker

To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
United States v. OBrien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).

Kegan said this would not stand if brought today. There was the issue
at the time that a draft card remained property of the US government.
You can burn a flag if it is your property (Eichman)

To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).

Still not a crime and it happens all the time

Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).

Still not a crime

Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event..
Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).

Not a crime

So, you disagree with the US Federal Courts, take it up with them.
You claim it no longer applies, yet the Federal Courts specifically
list the Schenck decision as affirming that fire in a crowded
theater is not protected.
I don't know what better source there is, than the federal court
system specifically telling you that falsely yelling fire in a
crowded theater IS NOT PROTECTED SPEECH. And there are plenty of
laws on the books that make falsely creating a panic a crime.

Here is an example of the statutes that apply:

awriter - ORC - 2917.31 Inducing panic. - Ohio Revised Code
codes.ohio.gov ۼ ... ۼ Chapter 2917: OFFENSES AGAINST THE PUBLIC PEACE
(1) Initiating or circulating a report or warning of an alleged or impending fire, explosion, crime, or other catastrophe, knowing that such report or warning is false;.


Bingo. There is an example of the law.

On 3/11/2018 at 9:43:24 AM, Bob F wrote:


On 3/10/2018 3:34 AM, Dove Tail wrote:
2nd Amendment Scoreboard


https://imgur.com/a/Md1Mo






Funny that these gun rights people ignore the part about the
militia's purpose being to "suppress insurrection". The constitution
says nothing about overthrowing tyrants.


The cartoon was satirical.

For me, the take-away is; the rationales and justifications for the
civilian ownership of semi-automatic weapons and weapons with easily
replaceable ammunition magazines, those rationales pale in comparison
to the health, welfare and freedom of assembly of the residents of the
nation.

As it is, the nation has become a very dangerous place for people to
assemble at schools, churches, concerts, etc. It is almost as if the
nation is being held hostage by NRA empowered terrorists.





--
"In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place."

"Truth Sounds Like Hate To Those Who Hate The Truth"

On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 09:43:24 -0700, Bob F wrote:

Funny that these gun rights people ignore the part about the militia's
purpose being to "suppress insurrection". The constitution says nothing
about overthrowing tyrants.

When James Madison compiled the 2nd Amendment, it was from laws in
each Colony. They expected their laws to be part of the forming of
the United States.

If you prefer not to arm yourself, protect your family and neighbors
from tyrants at the front door don't buy a ****ing gun. In fact take
locks off your doors or better yet, take the doors off and let us know
how that works out.

More tools for me. Molon labe!
--
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.-- James Madison

On 3/11/2018 12:59 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 09:43:24 -0700, Bob F wrote:

Funny that these gun rights people ignore the part about the militia's
purpose being to "suppress insurrection". The constitution says nothing
about overthrowing tyrants.

When James Madison compiled the 2nd Amendment, it was from laws in
each Colony. They expected their laws to be part of the forming of
the United States.

If you prefer not to arm yourself, protect your family and neighbors
from tyrants at the front door don't buy a ****ing gun. In fact take
locks off your doors or better yet, take the doors off and let us know
how that works out.

More tools for me. Molon labe!


The fact is, if you own a gun, the chances are higher that it will be
used in the death of you, someone in your family, or someone you know
than be used to shoot a criminal. I have survived my whole life without
a firearm, and I've never even known anyone who has ever used a gun for
self defense outside the military or police work. I did know one couple
where their gun was pulled out in anger, resulting in the police being
called to deal with the situation. Thanks, but no thanks. I don't need
one in my house.

On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 16:09:42 -0700, Bob F wrote:

On 3/11/2018 12:59 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 09:43:24 -0700, Bob F wrote:

Funny that these gun rights people ignore the part about the militia's
purpose being to "suppress insurrection". The constitution says nothing
about overthrowing tyrants.

When James Madison compiled the 2nd Amendment, it was from laws in
each Colony. They expected their laws to be part of the forming of
the United States.

If you prefer not to arm yourself, protect your family and neighbors
from tyrants at the front door don't buy a ****ing gun. In fact take
locks off your doors or better yet, take the doors off and let us know
how that works out.

More tools for me. Molon labe!


The fact is, if you own a gun, the chances are higher that it will be
used in the death of you, someone in your family, or someone you know
than be used to shoot a criminal. I have survived my whole life without
a firearm, and I've never even known anyone who has ever used a gun for
self defense outside the military or police work. I did know one couple
where their gun was pulled out in anger, resulting in the police being
called to deal with the situation. Thanks, but no thanks. I don't need
one in my house.

Bob,

I respect your decision not to have/own a gun.That is your choice. I
don't respect anyone trying to dictate what my decision should be or
is. Life has consequences. I live or die by the decisions I make and
take responsibility for them.
--
"Naïve pacifism is the barnacle on the boat of vigilance" -- Greg Gutfeld

In article ,
says...


The guy in Hawaii scared the **** out of the whole state and nothing
happened to him.

Well, duh. He did not do it DELIBERATELY. And I'll guarantee you
if he did, they'd charge him with a crime.



He did have a history of confusing real and drill events.

He did get fired from his job. Nothing was said about him doing it
deliberty. Seems that he was left in his job longer than he should have
been.