Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: After Omaha - We need to set limits on Constitutional Rights

  1. #1
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    Stop these killers motivation, limit free speech.

    What do the Virginia Tech Killings and the recent Omaha Mall murders have in common? The killers used the media and their unfettered First Amendment rights to "become famous."

    This sort of unregulated use of the First Amendment must stop immediately!

    We need reasonable regulation of the First Amendment to report only news that will make us safer. By publishing the names of the murderers they get publicity and attention. This is a motivation for mass killing. This makes our life more dangerous.

    Weshould not want to take away First Amendment Rights. We should support the First Amendment. We just think that Government Regulators should approve your news stories before you publish them. The Government Regulators will make sure that the stories will make us more, not less, safe.

    These Government regulationswould befor our own safety after all. Who could be against being more safe?

    You are either for the reasonable limitation of free speech or you are for mass murderers.


    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Indianapolis, ,
    Posts
    133

    Post imported post

    Thundar wrote:

    These Government regulationswould befor our own safety after all. Who could be against being more safe?

    You are either for the reasonable limitation of free speech or you are for mass murderers.

    What if there were some sort of licensing program in place so that you could exersize your First Amendment right legally, but only with the permission of your local Sheriff?

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    Elect another GOP-approved president, and soon this may not be too far from the truth...

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    , Arizona, USA
    Posts
    30

    Post imported post

    are you SERIOUS!!:what:you're kidding right?!:shock:mess with the 1st amendment?

    letting the government or a local "sheriff" decide what someone can say.

    Rep or Dem, the 1st should/must remain free from any political pressure.

    yes, we name murderers - but we also call them what they are.

    [ You are either for the reasonable limitation of free speech or you are for mass murderers. ] WHA????

    this kind of either/or is just plain nuts. reasonable to whom? by whom? for instance - i think noone shouldbe allowed to use cell phones in movies - or restaurants - or while driving - or while within 20 ft of me - and don't even get me started on wind chimes.....

    in a free speech society you open your mouth, say what you want and get ready for the reply/consequences - pro or con. sotra like these forums

    if you make sense some people agree with you - some don't.

    if youmake knuckle-heaed statements- be prepared to be called on them. [ would you put "knuckle-head on the approved word list? ]

    [These Government regulationswould befor our own safety after all. Who could be against being more safe? ]


    oh great - our governemnt in charge of another safety program. just what we need.

    [ Government Regulators should approve your news stories before you publish them. The Government Regulators will make sure that the stories will make us more, not less, safe. ]


    oh goody - government censorship over what we see and read. again - no matter which party is in office do you really want them in control of this?

    [ What if there were some sort of licensing program in place so that you could exersize your First Amendment right legally, but only with the permission of your local Sheriff? ]

    allllllrighty then-some politically appointed bubba-with-a-badgeissuing "speech" licenses. i'd sure like to see that application form. T/F or multiple choice. what grade school level is the minimum? is it open book? does spelling count? pulllease!!


    ---------------------

    actually - in all seriousness - what would really help in these types of situations is the freedom of law abiding citizens to bear arms ( cc if you must ). 1 or 2 citizens could have greatly reduced the carnage by engaging the shooter until the leos arrived. even if they were only shooting into the ceiling it would have let the gunman know he wasn't the only one armed.

    there are many other senarios where an armed citizen could actively or passively assist but i don't feel like expounding on them at this point.

    i only hope that the original post was in jest.

    papasmee



  5. #5
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    papasmee wrote:
    are you SERIOUS!!:what:you're kidding right?!:shock:mess with the 1st amendment?

    letting the government or a local "sheriff" decide what someone can say.

    ....
    i only hope that the original post was in jest.

    papasmee

    Yes the post was, of course, tongue in cheek.

    The parallels between abridgement of 1A and 2A for "safety" was intentional to highlight the absurdity of "government regulated" rights.

    The final quote was a parody of Virginia Governor Kaine's quote that you are either for closing the "gun show loophole" or you are for felons having guns.

    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Richland, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    14

    Post imported post

    We have already started down that path. "Hate speech" laws are the beginning of "reasonable" restrictions on First Amendment rights.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    , Arizona, USA
    Posts
    30

    Post imported post

    whew - had me going there for a moment

    however - seriously - there is a difference between legitimately "non-allowable" hate speech and just regular "dumb-a$$, ignorant" speech.

    no-one should be able to say: "let's go hang that ---- [ fill in race, religion, sexual whatever]. or God hates ----- [ fill in the blank]. just like you can't yell "fire" where there is none.

    calling someone a fat-a$$ should be okay - if they are. a jerk is a jerk. calling a skinny person a fat-a$$ just shows your lack of visual acuity. [ of course toothpick-a$$ just doesn't have the same impact ]

    but you don't call someone a n-----, or a k--- or a w-- or a s--- or a whatever. there are plenty of ways of verbally measuring/describing/skewering someone without resorting to this.

    besides - it's just not right. technically we are all the same - until, by your actions, you prove yourself a dumb-a$$ or worse [ a f--- idiot, etc.].

    on the other hand - separate penalties for hate crimes just seems weird.killing someone is murder; physical violence is just thatand throwing in socio-/politico-/physio-/ideolog etc add-ons only muddies the crime.

    burning a cross or painting a swastika is vandalism AND proves that the perpetrators are marginally human cowards.


    so, there you have it, my rant for the day



    and Thundar, you flippin' ----- [ fill in your OWN blank ] no more scaring the old folks. it's not good for us y'know?



    papasmee




  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Safety is a good tool for tyrants; no one can be against safety. The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. LAB/NRA/GOP *******

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member Tess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,764

    Post imported post

    Thundar wrote:
    Stop these killers motivation, limit free speech.

    What do the Virginia Tech Killings and the recent Omaha Mall murders have in common? The killers used the media and their unfettered First Amendment rights to "become famous."

    This sort of unregulated use of the First Amendment must stop immediately!

    We need reasonable regulation of the First Amendment to report only news that will make us safer. By publishing the names of the murderers they get publicity and attention. This is a motivation for mass killing. This makes our life more dangerous.

    Weshould not want to take away First Amendment Rights. We should support the First Amendment. We just think that Government Regulators should approve your news stories before you publish them. The Government Regulators will make sure that the stories will make us more, not less, safe.

    These Government regulationswould befor our own safety after all. Who could be against being more safe?

    You are either for the reasonable limitation of free speech or you are for mass murderers.
    May I post this on my blog? With credit, of course.

    Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression; in order that every man present his views without penalty there must be spirit of tolerance in the entire population. -Albert Einstein

  10. #10
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    Tess wrote:
    Thundar wrote:
    Stop these killers motivation, limit free speech.

    What do the Virginia Tech Killings and the recent Omaha Mall murders have in common? The killers used the media and their unfettered First Amendment rights to "become famous."

    This sort of unregulated use of the First Amendment must stop immediately!

    We need reasonable regulation of the First Amendment to report only news that will make us safer. By publishing the names of the murderers they get publicity and attention. This is a motivation for mass killing. This makes our life more dangerous.

    Weshould not want to take away First Amendment Rights. We should support the First Amendment. We just think that Government Regulators should approve your news stories before you publish them. The Government Regulators will make sure that the stories will make us more, not less, safe.

    These Government regulationswould befor our own safety after all. Who could be against being more safe?

    You are either for the reasonable limitation of free speech or you are for mass murderers.
    May I post this on my blog? With credit, of course.
    Please do.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    269

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    Elect another GOP-approved president, and soon this may not be too far from the truth...
    Ignoring, of course, the fact that the lefties (in the form of the Democratic leadership)are the ones pushing for most of the limitations on speech (that evil nasty 'hate' speech).

  12. #12
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska, USA
    Posts
    358

    Post imported post

    Thundar wrote:
    Stop these killers motivation, limit free speech.

    What do the Virginia Tech Killings and the recent Omaha Mall murders have in common? The killers used the media and their unfettered First Amendment rights to "become famous."

    This sort of unregulated use of the First Amendment must stop immediately!

    We need reasonable regulation of the First Amendment to report only news that will make us safer. By publishing the names of the murderers they get publicity and attention. This is a motivation for mass killing. This makes our life more dangerous.

    Weshould not want to take away First Amendment Rights. We should support the First Amendment. We just think that Government Regulators should approve your news stories before you publish them. The Government Regulators will make sure that the stories will make us more, not less, safe.

    These Government regulationswould befor our own safety after all. Who could be against being more safe?

    You are either for the reasonable limitation of free speech or you are for mass murderers.

    WOW this sounds alot like communist CHINA

    W T F

  13. #13
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    Skippy wrote:
    Thundar wrote:

    These Government regulationswould befor our own safety after all. Who could be against being more safe?

    You are either for the reasonable limitation of free speech or you are for mass murderers.

    What if there were some sort of licensing program in place so that you could exersize your First Amendment right legally, but only with the permission of your local Sheriff?
    Great Idea! We need to ensure speech competency and fingerprint people before we issue a permit to speak.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Nice parody.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    federal way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    58

    Post imported post

    I started to read and my blood started to boil! Rage subsiding.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    Heartless_Conservative wrote:
    imperialism2024 wrote:
    Elect another GOP-approved president, and soon this may not be too far from the truth...
    Ignoring, of course, the fact that the lefties (in the form of the Democratic leadership)are the ones pushing for most of the limitations on speech (that evil nasty 'hate' speech).
    So if I call my friend in the UK and we get on a discussion about the cool new RPGs out on the market, I'm not going to have any trouble boarding my next plane?

    I would have given a slam to the Demos, but I figure that very few people on here would consider voting for one. Maybe that's why I tend to be mild in my Democrat-bashing on here. It would just be preaching to the choir...

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    460

    Post imported post

    Maybe you're onto something here. After all, who needs more than 'one newspaper per month' (I find most of it not worth reading anyways)? Size should be limited to twenty-two pages or less of lead-free typeset. Automatic repeats of commercial advertising must be banned. Also, allsubscriptions should be registered so that the government knows whom has been appropriately indoctrinated....

  18. #18
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Ocean Shores, WA
    Posts
    593

    Post imported post

    papasmee wrote:
    whew - had me going there for a moment

    however - seriously - there is a difference between legitimately "non-allowable" hate speech and just regular "dumb-a$$, ignorant" speech.

    no-one should be able to say: "let's go hang that ---- [ fill in race, religion, sexual whatever]. or God hates ----- [ fill in the blank]. just like you can't yell "fire" where there is none.

    calling someone a fat-a$$ should be okay - if they are. a jerk is a jerk. calling a skinny person a fat-a$$ just shows your lack of visual acuity. [ of course toothpick-a$$ just doesn't have the same impact]

    but you don't call someone a n-----, or a k--- or a w-- or a s--- or a whatever. there are plenty of ways of verbally measuring/describing/skewering someone without resorting to this.

    besides - it's just not right. technically we are all the same - until, by your actions, you prove yourself a dumb-a$$ or worse [ a f--- idiot, etc.].

    on the other hand - separate penalties for hate crimes just seems weird.killing someone is murder; physical violence is just thatand throwing in socio-/politico-/physio-/ideolog etc add-ons only muddies the crime.

    burning a cross or painting a swastika is vandalism AND proves that the perpetrators are marginally human cowards.


    so, there you have it, my rant for the day



    and Thundar, you flippin' ----- [ fill in your OWN blank] no more scaring the old folks. it's not good for us y'know?



    papasmee


    I disagree with this. Once you have limits of any kind on speech, it is no longer free. I will stand and defend your right to call me whatever you want. You can say that my kind (whatever that may be) is evil, bad and should be wiped from the face of the earth. You could encourage people to string me up from the highest tree and I will defend your right to say that.
    However, if you come near me with a rope in your hands I would use whatever means necessary to defend myself and others.

    The second amendment is there to defend all the others. Read the 3rd and 8th chapters of the book of Esther to see what happens when the oppressed have the means to defend themselves.

    LoveMyCountry

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Tacoma, WA, ,
    Posts
    886

    Post imported post

    Oh, and no more that 10 words in a sentance. (You'll just have to go and puncuate that now, 'K?)

    5-Day cooling off period on "new ideas." No matter how many ideas you've already had in the past.

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    G20-IWB24/7 wrote:
    SNIP Oh, and no more that 10 words in a sentance. (You'll just have to go and puncuate that now, 'K?)
    A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a.

    (sigh)


    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Tacoma, WA, ,
    Posts
    886

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    G20-IWB24/7 wrote:
    SNIP Oh, and no more that 10 words in a sentance. (You'll just have to go and puncuate that now, 'K?)
    A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a.

    (sigh)

    I was going to say that you needed to count again, because that's 11, (if "well" and "regulated" counted as seperate words), but then I remembered it's OK to have that 11th in the chamber! er, vocal chords, er....uh, whatever!

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    G20-IWB24/7 wrote:
    Citizen wrote:
    G20-IWB24/7 wrote:
    SNIP Oh, and no more that 10 words in a sentance. (You'll just have to go and puncuate that now, 'K?)
    A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a.

    (sigh)

    I was going to say that you needed to count again, because that's 11, (if "well" and "regulated" counted as seperate words), but then I remembered it's OK to have that 11th in the chamber! er, vocal chords, er....uh, whatever!
    You also shouldn't be allowed to use "a", "an", "the", and other excessive short words. "Saturday Night Words" are dangerous to all.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    222

    Post imported post

    G20-IWB24/7 wrote:
    Oh, and no more that 10 words in a sentance. (You'll just have to go and puncuate that now, 'K?)

    5-Day cooling off period on "new ideas." No matter how many ideas you've already had in the past.
    ....and impose 2 weeks of silence for using the words "dude" or "dog" exhorbitantly.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •