Presidential Study on Gun Control

Everyone becoming as stupid as they are.

Where are these, "free speech zones"? Where is there a place where you are, in a fashion which is analogous to gun control, prevented from speaking?

Not really. Apostle's example upthread is right. They don't duct tape your mouth shut when you enter a theatre to prevent you from yelling, "fire". You're expected to know enough not to, and, failing that, face the consequences if you do anyway.

It's not a case of how you look at it at all.

You're comparing a civil suit to State and/or Federal law.

Not that I have a problem with denying mental defects from legally buying firearms.

Is that done by the government? Is there a law that says, "party x must be sequestered from party z", or is that something which is done by organizers of the rally to stifle opposing viewpoints? If it's the latter, it doesn't really compare, in this instance.

If you actually read my posts (and understood them) you'd wouldn't lump in with those groups. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you are just being an asshole and not a liar, since I plainly said that a)gun grabbing doesn't work b)if I were political candidate I would not propose or support ANY gun restriction legislation. I also don't lump anyone who wants to do something about illegal immigration as hating brown people.

You also said there were "reasonable restrictions."


I'm going to assume you're just a liar, and not an asshat.

I didn't know that.

Doesn't that strike you as the same kind of violation of a basic right as the gun abolitionists wish to force upon gun owners?

There might be reasonable restrictions out there, but there's no point in discussing them or bringing them up and don't think candidates should waste time or political capital on them. Oh yeah, Fuck you.

At this point, given the number of laws that have been passed over the years attempting to regulate and limit our 2nd Amendment rights, plus the fact that some of them are virtually useless given the fact that enforcement of the laws have been overlooked, I'd say currently there are no reasonable laws that can be created to limit our 2nd Amendment rights. In fact, I think all of them are worthless, since criminals don't respect the law to begin with and will use a gun no matter what the law says. The only people who are impacted by these laws are those who have a Constitutional right to keep and bare arms.

I'd say he's both.

Like anyone would believe him.

Mike go back to the islands....

Boy, the small dick crew is out in force today...

I've already been called a liar and an asshat for daring to even suggest such a thing might be possible. I think I'll skip the invitation for more abuse, thank you very much. You first.

I'm not sure I really have a problem with "free speech zones."

The right to speak shouldn't really entitle you to unrestricted access to whomever you want to berate, or any particular location.

So there are no consequences if you abuse your Second Amendment rights? Good to know.

Love you too, Albert.

You know the next time somebody starts a whiny ass thread about group think in TBBS I'll call up this thread.

The problem is that the "free speech zones" are located blocks away from what your protesting and you're inside a fenced off area protesting.

In other words you have to cage yourself to yell about things and no one can hear you.

Politicians shouldn't have the power to move protesters so far away that they the politicians can not hear or see people that don't like them.

You were arguing that only free speech has consequences and that only gun rights have restrictions, no?

There are in fact restrictions and consequences for both.

What's being proposed by gun abolitionists is a far cry from what is on the books with free speech. Even your "free speech zones" (a misnomer, at best) aren't an equivalent. They aren't a standard, statute or law. As far as "free speech zones" are concerned, they're an inconvenience for voices of dissent, not prohibitions.

The same cannot be said for what the anti-gun lobby is angling.

What you call an inconvenience, I call a huge infringement on freedom of speech. Like I said, it depends on how you look at it. I exercise my right to freedom of speech more and I value it more than my right to own a gun.

That said, yes some elements of the anti-gun lobby advocate for unreasonable policies.

Yet, under the Constitution, both of those rights hold equal weight. It doesn't matter what each of us view and more or less important, under the Constitution, they are simply our rights. Anti-gun lobby is actively pursuing to eliminate and deny all of us our rights.

The people in this thread seem to give more weight to their 2nd Amendment right.

Fixed for accuracy.

Fixed yet again.

The second amendment doesn't do that. Statutes and laws created after do that. Those statutes and laws must meet constitutional standards, ie: not unilaterally prevent citizens from having guns. That's why the DC law failed as it did.