[longtermmemmory]

I said it before I will say it again, the court is going to do a “gimme” on the individual right but regulate the heck out of ownership.

They will also mention the “fire in a crowded theater” like this author.

[neverdem]

How do you regulate without infringing? That’s violating a right the people already had, IMHO.

[bill1952]

>but regulate the heck out of ownership

Well that would make the issue even more unclear.

After all, what does “shall not be infringed” mean if it does not prohibit “regulating the heck out of ownership?”

Come on, define “infringement.”

[logic]

They will also mention the “fire in a crowded theater” like this author.

This argument has always ticked me off to an unbearable level. "Reasonable restrictions" of the second amendment is not anywhere close to a restriction of not being allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded theater!!!! An accurate comparison would be gun control is equal to being required to wear a muzzle to prevent you from yelling "fire" before entering a crowded theater...

[teeman8r]

i am so tired of the ‘fire in the crowded theatre’ bit...

free speech allows that... intelligent people, those that reason, will see there is no smoke, or flames and know the ‘yeller’ is an idiot...

then the yeller should suffer the consequences of his actions...

regulations are coming, the proliferation of shootings to get famous will see to that.

teeman

[uncbob]

I said it before I will say it again, the court is going to do a “gimme” on the individual right but regulate the heck out of ownership. They will also mention the “fire in a crowded theater” like this author.

I am tired of hearing the FIRE ARGUMENT

It is not a correct analogy

That is prohibition against the IMPROPER USE of a freedom same as robbing banks,committing murder etc with guns