Our rights end where they (especially negatively) impact another person. Where do you get the idea that I suggest that it is okay to choke someone?
Yelling ‘FIRE’ when the intent is to clear a theater (or other building) when there is a bona fide threat (even if it is not a fire) is completely legitimate. ‘FIRE’ is quick and easy to say and is readily understood. Police and other safety experts instruct people to yell ‘fire’ if they are attacked. People don’t respond to ‘help’. They do respond to ‘fire’
Quit with the straw man arguments. They are weak and will get you nowhere.
I brought up yelling fire to answer 'your' off topic 2nd amendment reference to me ONLY to illustrate that there are indeed forms of speech that have been recognized as illegal since the first day of the Constitution’s ratification.
You know this is a fact. It is not straw man, it IS illustrative. And YOU did go off topic yourself.
You are raising a straw man by arguing that I said anything about YOU suggesting anything about choking. I said your description (the first one not the second one) of the right to yell'Fire' ni a crowded theatre was akin to the whole right to choke someone scenario (i.e. It is a right but you can be prosecuted. That being bogus in the same way as your first argument.)
You have a hard time grasping comparisons but you use them freely. That seems rather strange to me.
--------------------------
From the article: If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash—for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything —without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you. emphasis mine
'Anything' to me is pretty broad. Hence I brought up nuclear, the ultimate in destructive devices, to say that they are NOT protected for individual ownership and bearance by the 2nd Amendment. Thus there is a limit somewhere. And Thus the writers loose writing, especially since he seems to thoroughly be on the “without limits” end of the whole spectrum, seems to push the edge of kookville to me. No strawman, no off topic.
William Tel is the one who brought fighter planes and 2000 bombs up. I simply argued in retort that NO though short of the nuclear bomb, they are still outside of the 2nd amendment term “arms”. He of course disagreed because he emphatically believe that even the nuclear bombs are allowed.
How about jet fighter planes and 2000 pound bombs? It's not unreasonable to expect that our Founders could not anticipate every technological development.
But our Founders did foresee the need to amend the Constitution from time to time.
YOU don't get to change the clear meaning of the Constitution just because the Founders didn't anticipate a new development.
Tench Coxe wrote at the time of "the unlimited power of the sword". Our Founders envisioned no limits on the people's right to be armed. You may certainly make the argument that they should have. You may make the argument that they would if they knew of today's developments.
...
11 posted on 09/11/2007 10:40:44 AM PDT by William Tell
Of course tpaine, as always, had to pile on in there and after a little mulling decided that yes indeed having those nuclear devices is a protected right of the people.
--------------------------------
YOU in the meantime have said almost NOTHING on the topic of the thread so far but simply excoriated me again and again over topic adherence and strawman arguments which you perceived.
Funny thing is, from what little you HAVE said I think you and I would agree pretty well on THE TOPIC OF THE THREAD, just not on the balance of the article which initiated the thread.