[neverdem]

This fire-in-a-theater jazz is a favorite of the less historically literate among America’s false-compromisers, most of whom know neither that the phrase was a (defective) analogy and not a legal doctrine, nor that the case from which it comes was subsequently overturned with some prejudice.

What was that case? Does anyone know?

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

If a madman is firing into a crowded theater; is it better to have a weapon to defend yourself, or to just cry afterward?

[Brooklyn Attitude]

The difference between shouting fire in a crowded theater and assault weapons is that they only punish the person who shouted, not everyone else.

[TurboZamboni]

you can yell ‘fire’ wherever and whenever you want if you’re nuts or an a-hole.

never seen a law that could stop it, just ones that could punish it.

[andyk]

Hahaha, causing a panic in a crowded location is now equal to owning a firearm.

[joshua c]

Lets see Chuckie. Do you punish the person who yells fire or do we tape the mouths of everyone entering the theater.

Think about it.

[Sirius Lee]

FIne. If it's against the law to shout fire in a movie theater, then make it illegal to fire a gun in a movie theater. Analogy resolved.

I will actually promote this new gun law, Chucky. I'm sure that most people would support a law banning the shooting of guns in a crowded theater. What say you, Chuckster?

[dead]

That was a very educational (to me, anyway) little opinion piece. Some history I was not aware of.

He should have specifically named the case though.

[TLI]

“While the First Amendment protects freedom of speech, no one has a right to falsely shout ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater. . . . Likewise, the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms also comes with limits.” Thus, Schumer told the Senate hearing, we can ban “assault weapons” with little trouble."

Too bad chucky but NO YOU CAN NOT.

If the Founding Fathers meant for there to be laws restricting an American Citizen of their right to freely and without restraint posses arms they would have clearly written it into the text of the Amendment just like they did in these...

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law

Amendment III
but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment XII
no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny

And these...

AMENDMENT XIII
AMENDMENT XIV
AMENDMENT XV
AMENDMENT XVI
AMENDMENT XVIII
AMENDMENT XIX
AMENDMENT XXIII
AMENDMENT XXVI


The Second Amendment is absolutely clear here.

It is:

"shall not be infringed"

Not "according to the rules of the common law"
Not "but in a manner to be prescribed by law"
Not "but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation"
Not "without due process of law"
Not "Congress shall have power to enforce this"
Not "The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation"
Not "unless they shall by law"
Not "Congress may by law"
Not "and shall not prevent
Not "No law"


Yeah, the Founding Fathers had every single opportunity for YEARS to put such a stipulation in the Second Amendment.

What do we see there?

Do we see the stipulations that are in many of the other Amendments?

No.

The "Bill of Rights" took seven months to write. This was in addition to the eleven years for the Constitution. The Constitutional Convention was 116 days long. The Bill of Rights was not ratified until 1791.

There was plenty of time to create stipulations for the Second Amendment that would allow certain encroachments based upon existing or future law or laws. Such stipulations exist throughout the Constitution and it's Amendments, including the first ten.

The Second Amendment contains only one stipulation. "Shall not be infringed."

My conclusion is they damn well meant exactly not in the slightest scintilla. They were experts in what happens when such concessions are allowed. It is the absolute definition of "slippery slope."

Such concessions are the exact cause of being tangled in the 20,000 infringements spider web of laws, rules, ordinances and policies of today.

.br

[Atlas Sneezed]

Banning certain rifles is analogous to cutting out the tongues of theater-goes in advance.

The analogy to “shouting fire” is the criminal misuse of guns, which is already illegal.

[Alas Babylon!]

Chuck U, Shumer!

[Fido969]

Then REPRESENTATIVE Schumer was a great cheerleader for ATF after the Waco disaster.

[IronJack]

Fine. Let's cast gun control as a "fire in a crowded theater" argument. That argument was used to establish the doctrine of "clear and present danger," in which free speech could be restricted if it could be clearly proven that said speech presented an immediate danger to life, limb, or property. Applied to firearms, that means that Second Amendment rights can be restricted if they present a "clear and present danger" to life, limb, or property. The mere existence of a firearm is not a threat, and it can as easily be proven that they DEFEND life, limb, and property; their ABSENCE constitutes a threat.

So the libs have defeated their own argument. Which is not hard when you have no logical basis to begin with ...

[EdReform]

Gun facts - yelling fire in a crowded theater

You CAN Yell "Fire!" in a Crowded Theater

[mosesdapoet]

The purpose of all this hype on guns is to keep the right and conservatives focused on what the Demo-Coms describe as issues through their propaganda arm known as the MSM (mainline socialist media) not on the problems created by the “Libs” on their road of good intentions or the socialist/fascists/communists successors to comtrol over todays Democrat party;

Which is the cost ,waste, and corruption of this administration which had led to a 16 trillion dollar deficit.

Not one word addresses or offers a solution about the hundreds of gangland murders and shootings using illegaly obtained mostly handguns and revolvers .

Perpetuating the general populations ignorance and using code words like “assault rifles” they’re demonizing single shot per trigger pull semi automatic rifles, used for small game hunting or target practice. That are legal in every state but made to look like their military counterpart..

Military AR’s since Viet Nam and a DOD decision ARs are really medium caliber (22.3) machine guns designed to wound not necessarilly kill which is why they are automatic and fire as many rounds that are in its magazine once the trigger is kept in the pulled position.

They replace quick kill 30 caliber semi automatic (single shot) M-1, Springfield rifles and carbines used during WWII and Korea and approved in most states for use in big game hunting.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2977901/posts NY Post pix of shooter using handgun

Obama certainly can’t critique a system created by his ilk .Ignored in his 23 edicts is that when once caught, perps get set free with lenient sentencing from “liberal” judges or sob sister plea bargain prosecution (which Obama supports for when a Illinois state senator while introducing legislation to sentence any 15 year old as an adult,(opps they could be fatherless) Obama voted “absent” with others on that roll call vote. But that leniency is promoted by the MSM,The New York Times CNN, NBC and,ABC. There’s certainly no criticism of “no snitch” mentality partcularly in areas where these shootings are rampant.

It would be nice at these rallys if conservatives would point these facts out to Obamas adoring public. The following copy if printed on an index sized card makes an excellent palm card easy to print up and distribute.

Democrats and RINOS
GOD DENIERS AND CONGENITAL LIARS
ARE REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH INCITERS/
FOR FIRST YOUR MONEY THEN YOUR GUNS
AND BE DEFENSELESS WHEN CROOKS COME