After Omaha - We need to set limits on Constitutional Rights

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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?

imported post

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

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

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.

....

Click to expand...

i only hope that the original post was in jest.

papasmee

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

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

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

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 KMA$$

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.

Click to expand...

May I post this on my blog? With credit, of course.

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.

Click to expand...

May I post this on my blog? With credit, of course.

Click to expand...

Please do.

imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:

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

Click to expand...

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).

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.

Click to expand...

WOW this sounds alot like communist CHINA

W T F

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

Great Idea! We need to ensure speech competency and fingerprint people before we issue a permit to speak.

imported post

Nice parody.

imported post

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

imported post

Heartless_Conservative wrote:

imperialism2024 wrote:

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

Click to expand...

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).

Click to expand...

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...

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....

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

Click to expand...

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

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.

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?)

Click to expand...

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a.

(sigh)