Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 01/17/2013 1:09:21 AM PST by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Kaslin

Maybe it’s a natural result of X-Box providing the only interactive male role-model in a fatherless society?


2 posted on 01/17/2013 2:40:06 AM PST by TArcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin
It would be an interesting object lesson for Republicans to sponsor legislation which severely curtailed Hollywood, TV and the video game industry. Just pretend that the First Amendment does not exist, and then legislate what can and cannot be spoken of, or shown to the public.

And when the media goes berserk, we can ask why the Second Amendment doesn't deserve the same respect they demand for the First.

3 posted on 01/17/2013 3:24:43 AM PST by ClearCase_guy (Nothing will change until after the war.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

Funny I just realized that VDH is actually a strange squish-bug like parasite in the Conservative movement in the vein of the ever ‘smart’ but worthless ‘in actual defense of American Conservative culture’ Chas. Krauthammer. We need better thinkers and writers, no more of the Straussian faux-cons!


4 posted on 01/17/2013 4:17:34 AM PST by iopscusa (El Vaquero. (SC Lowcountry Cowboy))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin
Many liberals believe there is no need to own semi-automatic assault rifles, magazines that hold more than 10 bullets, or even semi-automatic handguns. They argue that hunters and sportsmen don't need such rapid-firing guns to kill their game -- and that slower-firing revolvers and pump- or bolt-action rifles are sufficient for home protection.

Well, we aren't talking about The Bill of Needs now are we?

5 posted on 01/17/2013 4:22:45 AM PST by Graybeard58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin
Liberals counter that just as free speech is curtailed (you cannot yell "Fire!" in a crowded auditorium).

This argument is frequently used, but is not really accurate.

I could indeed yell "Fire" in a crowded theater to my little heart's content, provided I was not somehow restrained, or until someone forced me to stop. I would certainly, and would expect to, be held accountable for the resulting pandemonium and any damages.

The only way I could be prevented from doing so would be to physically restrict my ability to do so, perhaps by gluing my lips shut.

But, what if there actually were a fire?

It is this prior restraint that the Statists want to enact upon lawful gun owners. They want to make sure that everyone cannot yell "fire", instead of holding folks accountable if they do so inappropriately.

7 posted on 01/17/2013 5:48:25 AM PST by aragorn (We do indeed live in interesting times. FUBO.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

Actually, you can, (and must), yell “FIRE!” in a crowded theater,

if there is a fire in the theater.


8 posted on 01/17/2013 5:56:57 AM PST by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin; All

The best first amendment argument is that the MSM is shouting Fire! in crowded schools by giving such elated, 24/7 coverage of the mass shootings in their lust for more gun control.

The first amendment infringement that would save the most live would be to curtail the mass media’s explotation of these mass murders.

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2013/01/stop-school-shootings-hold-media.html


16 posted on 01/17/2013 8:58:00 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson