(10-26-2015 12:10 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 11:16 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 11:07 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 10:56 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 10:54 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  We do?

So you have to have a permit to post your opinion on this and other message boards? You have to submit to a background check prior to purchasing a computer? Exactly how are you regulated on the internet Fit?

The MODS won't let me tell you but boy let me tell you I am being regulated up the ying yang.

Doesn't matter what the moderators of a private message board do, how does the government regulate your internet usage? One would think that someone who claims to be an educator would understand that the First Amendment pertains to the government not private entities.

Tell that to someone that yells "fire" in a theater.

You're not allowed to shoot someone in s theater either... Do you have a point?

Actually, you pretty much made my point with that statement.

(10-26-2015 01:23 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 12:10 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 11:16 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 11:07 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 10:56 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  The MODS won't let me tell you but boy let me tell you I am being regulated up the ying yang.

Doesn't matter what the moderators of a private message board do, how does the government regulate your internet usage? One would think that someone who claims to be an educator would understand that the First Amendment pertains to the government not private entities.

Tell that to someone that yells "fire" in a theater.

You're not allowed to shoot someone in s theater either... Do you have a point?

Actually, you pretty much made my point with that statement.

Which was what? You've been running in circles so it's hard to know where in life cycle of leftist stupidy you are currently standing...

(10-26-2015 02:31 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 01:23 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 12:10 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 11:16 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 11:07 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  Doesn't matter what the moderators of a private message board do, how does the government regulate your internet usage? One would think that someone who claims to be an educator would understand that the First Amendment pertains to the government not private entities.

Tell that to someone that yells "fire" in a theater.

You're not allowed to shoot someone in s theater either... Do you have a point?

Actually, you pretty much made my point with that statement.

Which was what? You've been running in circles so it's hard to know where in life cycle of leftist stupidy you are currently standing...

The point was that Constitutional rights can be regulated.

Fire in a theatre isn't a very good example. It isn't a regulation on a constitutional right.

The 1st Amendment covers the expression of ideas, not the creation of noise.

(10-26-2015 02:38 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 02:31 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 01:23 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 12:10 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 11:16 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Tell that to someone that yells "fire" in a theater.

You're not allowed to shoot someone in s theater either... Do you have a point?

Actually, you pretty much made my point with that statement.

Which was what? You've been running in circles so it's hard to know where in life cycle of leftist stupidy you are currently standing...

The point was that Constitutional rights can be regulated.

And the courts are very loathed to regulate them. How many defeats on the second amendment will it take for you to get that.

(10-26-2015 02:40 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Fire in a theatre isn't a very good example. It isn't a regulation on a constitutional right.

The 1st Amendment covers the expression of ideas, not the creation of noise.

Yes. The point I was making was simply that just because something in the Constitution is listed as a right of the people doesn't mean that it can be used without restriction.

(10-26-2015 02:43 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 02:40 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Fire in a theatre isn't a very good example. It isn't a regulation on a constitutional right.

The 1st Amendment covers the expression of ideas, not the creation of noise.

Yes. The point I was making was simply that just because something in the Constitution is listed as a right of the people doesn't mean that it can be used without restriction.

That is a good and fair point.

(10-26-2015 02:38 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 02:31 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 01:23 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 12:10 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 11:16 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Tell that to someone that yells "fire" in a theater.

You're not allowed to shoot someone in s theater either... Do you have a point?

Actually, you pretty much made my point with that statement.

Which was what? You've been running in circles so it's hard to know where in life cycle of leftist stupidy you are currently standing...

The point was that Constitutional rights can be regulated.

Regulated yes, violated no. It's very clear and not up to interpretation. The courts hear a case, said the second amendment still applies and grants us a right that the government cannot impede. There are numerous laws regarding the regulation of firearms and to do no infringe upon the right to bear arms. You will not hear one bit of complaint until the regulations and laws attempt to infringe upon those rights, which as in the case of the second amendment, is exactly what the left wants.

(10-26-2015 02:53 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 02:38 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 02:31 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 01:23 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 12:10 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  You're not allowed to shoot someone in s theater either... Do you have a point?

Actually, you pretty much made my point with that statement.

Which was what? You've been running in circles so it's hard to know where in life cycle of leftist stupidy you are currently standing...

The point was that Constitutional rights can be regulated.

Regulated yes, violated no. It's very clear and not up to interpretation. The courts hear a case, said the second amendment still applies and grants us a right that the government cannot impede. There are numerous laws regarding the regulation of firearms and to do no infringe upon the right to bear arms. You will not hear one bit of complaint until the regulations and laws attempt to infringe upon those rights, which as in the case of the second amendment, is exactly what the left wants.

I think you are over exaggerating. I think only a very small segment of the far, far left actually want's a total ban on guns.

(10-26-2015 02:56 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 02:53 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 02:38 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 02:31 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 01:23 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Actually, you pretty much made my point with that statement.

Which was what? You've been running in circles so it's hard to know where in life cycle of leftist stupidy you are currently standing...

The point was that Constitutional rights can be regulated.

Regulated yes, violated no. It's very clear and not up to interpretation. The courts hear a case, said the second amendment still applies and grants us a right that the government cannot impede. There are numerous laws regarding the regulation of firearms and to do no infringe upon the right to bear arms. You will not hear one bit of complaint until the regulations and laws attempt to infringe upon those rights, which as in the case of the second amendment, is exactly what the left wants.

I think you are over exaggerating. I think only a very small segment of the far, far left actually want's a total ban on guns.

right they just gleefully cheer at the idea of banning bullets or limiting people to muskets..

(10-26-2015 02:56 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 02:53 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 02:38 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 02:31 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 01:23 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Actually, you pretty much made my point with that statement.

Which was what? You've been running in circles so it's hard to know where in life cycle of leftist stupidy you are currently standing...

The point was that Constitutional rights can be regulated.

Regulated yes, violated no. It's very clear and not up to interpretation. The courts hear a case, said the second amendment still applies and grants us a right that the government cannot impede. There are numerous laws regarding the regulation of firearms and to do no infringe upon the right to bear arms. You will not hear one bit of complaint until the regulations and laws attempt to infringe upon those rights, which as in the case of the second amendment, is exactly what the left wants.

I think you are over exaggerating. I think only a very small segment of the far, far left actually want's a total ban on guns.

Better confer with Max about just how many people are in that "us" group he's talking about.

(10-26-2015 10:56 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  The MODS won't let me tell you but boy let me tell you I am being regulated up the ying yang.

This isn't a public space, but a private space. You signed the AUP in order to use that space. If you'd like to start your own space, you can say whatever you want. Free Speech (as well as the use of guns) has ALWAYS been limited as to private vs public space. Despite the right to own a gun, firing it (except in certain circumstances) in most city limits is a crime.

(10-26-2015 02:56 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I think you are over exaggerating. I think only a very small segment of the far, far left actually want's a total ban on guns.

and I think equating 'total ban' to a violation of the right to own one is an over-simplification.

When it comes to voting, many on the left seem to feel that if someone has to lift a finger to vote, that it is a violation of their rights.... and MOST on the left AREN'T in favor of regulations that 96% of the country already comply with, and the other 4% (if they aren't felons) would benefit from regardless of whether or not they want to vote.

The President of the US supported a law (Heller) that made it a requirement that a legally owned gun in a home be disassembled and unusable for its primary purpose of home protection. While that isn't a total ban as you describe, it certainly renders the assumed (by almost all of us) primary purpose behind the 2nd amendment (self defense) moot. That isn't some fringe member of the party, but the leader of it.