Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 52

Thread: 'Hell no' right back at you, Seattle Times

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    'Hell no' right back at you, Seattle Times

    LAS VEGAS — This morning’s Seattle Times editorial “Toning down our loaded debate about guns” argues that firearms owners who had nothing to do with the despicable shooting in Tucson should yield on a proposal to ban extended capacity ammunition magazines.
    The Times editorial, supporting legislation introduced Tuesday (H.R 308), essentially demonizes these citizens — tens of thousands of whom reside in the Evergreen State, including a fair number who are here in Las Vegas at the annual SHOT Show — as “hell no” obstructionists. Well, since the Times is okay with using street vernacular, you’re damned right they are, and what’s more, they ought to be.


    http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-i...-seattle-times

    Or try this:

    http://tinyurl.com/4nzajly

  2. #2
    Regular Member Sparky508's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Graham, , USA
    Posts
    343
    "McCarthy compares her proposal to limits on free speech — for example, one cannot yell fire in a crowded theater. It is too dangerous. So are high-capacity clips."

    So with this logic in place, there should be a duct-tape dispenser of some sort at the entrance to the movie theater, so as to prevent this from happening? I suspect that would constitute reasonable speach control legislation?

    Im pretty sure that I CAN yell fire in a theater, but like so many other REASONABLE people out there, I have refrained from it.

    Thanks Dave.

  3. #3
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky508 View Post

    Im pretty sure that I CAN yell fire in a theater, but like so many other REASONABLE people out there, I have refrained from it.

    Thanks Dave.
    Actually, you can't. If you do, and anyone is injured or killed, you will be held accountable. Charges might vary from locale to locale but they could be anything from disorderly conduct to inciting to riot. In the case of a death, remember that you were the one that set the wheels in motion that caused it. That might bring an involuntary manslaughter charge. It's good that you are a reasonable person and have refrained.

    It is not a form of protected free speech.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Las Vegas, ,
    Posts
    120
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    Actually, you can't. If you do, and anyone is injured or killed, you will be held accountable. Charges might vary from locale to locale but they could be anything from disorderly conduct to inciting to riot. In the case of a death, remember that you were the one that set the wheels in motion that caused it. That might bring an involuntary manslaughter charge. It's good that you are a reasonable person and have refrained.

    It is not a form of protected free speech.
    I think you might be missing the point. He is physically capable of yelling, so he CAN do it. Making it illegal does not stop the action from occurring. That is how these people actually think: if we make it illegal, then nobody can do it. They honestly believe that legislation can prevent actions.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Lakewood, WA
    Posts
    1,001
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    Actually, you can't. If you do, and anyone is injured or killed, you will be held accountable. Charges might vary from locale to locale but they could be anything from disorderly conduct to inciting to riot. In the case of a death, remember that you were the one that set the wheels in motion that caused it. That might bring an involuntary manslaughter charge. It's good that you are a reasonable person and have refrained.

    It is not a form of protected free speech.
    I think what he was trying to say is he's perfectly capable of doing so. He, as a reasonable person, chooses not to because of the consequences.

    I can yell the N word at a group of black people, but I choose not to, as to not start a confrontation, and because I have no reason to do something disrespectful as that.
    Quote Originally Posted by SayWhat View Post

    Shooters before hooters.

  6. #6
    Regular Member kwiebe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, United States
    Posts
    206
    Unbelievable times we're living in. Even though I know the answer, how did we get so many people in this society completely devoid of critical thinking skills?

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    Actually, you can't. If you do, and anyone is injured or killed, you will be held accountable. Charges might vary from locale to locale but they could be anything from disorderly conduct to inciting to riot. In the case of a death, remember that you were the one that set the wheels in motion that caused it. That might bring an involuntary manslaughter charge. It's good that you are a reasonable person and have refrained.

    It is not a form of protected free speech.
    It is most certainly okay to yell fire in a theater. The problem is that nobody seems to get the idea/quote right. You may not yell fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire and doing so is likely to cause imminent harm. One may freely yell fire in an empty theater, or yell it if there is an actual fire. Moreover, one who is on stage acting in a play can yell "fire" in a crowded theater as part of the play without running afoul of the law. The entire idea is that the mere act of yelling fire is not what's banned nor protected, but the proximate harm that can or is caused.

    McCarthy screws that up, as well. Much like an earlier person of the same name chased "communists", she pursues firearms owners without aim or reason. If a person would like to buy and use a high capacity magazine in a number of scenarios, that is just fine... so long as they don't load that magazine and start pointing a gun at people! So yeah, I'm fine with that being the metric, but the funny thing is: it doesn't require changing any law on our books.
    Last edited by Tawnos; 01-20-2011 at 11:45 AM.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  8. #8
    Regular Member Mainsail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Silverdale, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,532
    Is there anywhere to read this without the annoying pop-up ads?

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863
    Quote Originally Posted by Mainsail View Post
    Is there anywhere to read this without the annoying pop-up ads?
    Sorry, no. Engage your pop-up blocker like I do.

    That's an Examiner thing, not mine.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Sparky508's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Graham, , USA
    Posts
    343
    Thank you gentlemen, for clearing up my point, which was that nobody is physically stopping you from doing it, IE: with duct tape. Sensible people, refrain from these actions because they are, um what’s the word? Sensible.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315
    Quote Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
    McCarthy screws that up, as well. Much like an earlier person of the same name chased "communists", she pursues firearms owners without aim or reason.
    Need to check your facts. Turns out Joe McCarthy was absolutely correct both about the communists and about the dangers. He just wasn't much of a representative for the ideas he was espousing.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by heresolong View Post
    Need to check your facts. Turns out Joe McCarthy was absolutely correct both about the communists and about the dangers. He just wasn't much of a representative for the ideas he was espousing.
    You'd have to show me a lot of proof that he was right, because everything I've seen shows that McCarthy went on the most un-American witch hunt of our country's history.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  13. #13
    Regular Member VW_Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Leesburg, GA
    Posts
    1,098
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky508 View Post
    "McCarthy compares her proposal to limits on free speech — for example, one cannot yell fire in a crowded theater. It is too dangerous. So are high-capacity clips."

    So with this logic in place, there should be a duct-tape dispenser of some sort at the entrance to the movie theater, so as to prevent this from happening? I suspect that would constitute reasonable speach control legislation?

    Im pretty sure that I CAN yell fire in a theater, but like so many other REASONABLE people out there, I have refrained from it.

    Thanks Dave.
    There is no limit on your free speech. You can yell fire in a theater any time you want. You must however understand the responsibility, and accept the consequences for your actions.

    I still do not understand why people continue to mistake responsibility of your actions as a limit on your rights.

    It is simply not true.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by VW_Factor View Post
    There is no limit on your free speech. You can yell fire in a theater any time you want. You must however understand the responsibility, and accept the consequences for your actions.

    I still do not understand why people continue to mistake responsibility of your actions as a limit on your rights.

    It is simply not true.
    That is a limit, as government imposed punishment as a result of a particular act makes that act no longer "free" - there is a cost associated with it.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  15. #15
    Regular Member VW_Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Leesburg, GA
    Posts
    1,098
    Quote Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
    That is a limit, as government imposed punishment as a result of a particular act makes that act no longer "free" - there is a cost associated with it.
    They did not limit you sir.

    You simply are held accountable for your actions..

    This is not a complicated thing to understand.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Arlington, WA
    Posts
    81
    I must be the only one to agree with The Seattle Times. I don't see any harm in limiting clips to ten rounds.

    I've never even seen a higher capacity clip. Garands are what, eight rounds? Don't know about Steyrs or Carcanos. SKS have ten round stripper clips. I suppose some C96 Mauser owners might be sore.

    I guess I just don't see what the fuss is about.

    And, you'd think that anyone buying ink by the barrel, like The Seattle Times, would care about the meaning of words.
    Last edited by Dain Bramage; 01-20-2011 at 05:26 PM.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by VW_Factor View Post
    They did not limit you sir.

    You simply are held accountable for your actions..

    This is not a complicated thing to understand.
    Perhaps you are unfamiliar with what the concept of "free speech" entails. By definition, free speech means speech that does not hold with it the threat of government-originated punishment. Imposing a punishment for speaking in a particular manner is a government-imposed limitation upon free speech, because the government takes action to impose a cost as a result of that speech. You certainly wouldn't say that you have "free speech" in China simply due to your capability to enunciate words, would you? Clearly, "limit" in the context of government action goes beyond the mere physical restraint of an action. By the definition you're using, it is only if you were duck taped on the mouth or had your vocal cords removed that the government could "limit" your speech. That is an unreasonable standard of interpretation of "free speech".

    Even within the context of Schenck v. US (where the fire quote comes from), it is stated that speech which create a "clear and present danger" of "substantive evils" are those that Congress has a right to abridge. The court specifically admitted that restraint against abridgment was not being upheld: "It well may be that the prohibition of laws abridging the freedom of speech is not confined to previous restraints..." In the ruling, it was decided that Congress's abridgment of free speech was acceptable within this context. The current standard for free speech comes from Brandenburg v. Ohio, where the opinion of the court stated: "the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

    From each ruling, you can see that what is in question is the limits of such abridgment of the right, not whether the abridgment exists. There was no question as to whether it was or was not a limitation, but whether the limit was acceptable.
    Last edited by Tawnos; 01-20-2011 at 07:01 PM.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  18. #18
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
    That is a limit, as government imposed punishment as a result of a particular act makes that act no longer "free" - there is a cost associated with it.
    So you believe one's rights are unlimited? Free to do whatever you want, anytime, anywhere, to anyone?
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    So you believe one's rights are unlimited? Free to do whatever you want, anytime, anywhere, to anyone?
    Did I ever claim that?
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    SeaTac, Washington, USA
    Posts
    434
    Quote Originally Posted by Dain Bramage View Post
    I must be the only one to agree with The Seattle Times. I don't see any harm in limiting clips to ten rounds.

    I've never even seen a higher capacity clip. Garands are what, eight rounds? Don't know about Steyrs or Carcanos. SKS have ten round stripper clips. I suppose some C96 Mauser owners might be sore.

    I guess I just don't see what the fuss is about.

    And, you'd think that anyone buying ink by the barrel, like The Seattle Times, would care about the meaning of words.


    So if is is ok to limit you to ten rounds does that make it ok to limit you to one gun? That would seem to be a logical extension. Who needs more than one anyways? And of course extra magazines should be outlawed as well. For me this is what all the fuss is about.
    irfner

  21. #21
    Regular Member VW_Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Leesburg, GA
    Posts
    1,098
    Quote Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
    Did I ever claim that?
    I think you are unfamiliar with personal responsibility, and what it means given your rights. People that think like you do sir, are a reason why our rights are eroded over time.

    Please. Don't continue to mistake having to take responsibility for your own actions as limits to your actions or rights.
    Last edited by VW_Factor; 01-20-2011 at 08:33 PM.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by irfner View Post
    So if is is ok to limit you to ten rounds does that make it ok to limit you to one gun? That would seem to be a logical extension. Who needs more than one anyways? And of course extra magazines should be outlawed as well. For me this is what all the fuss is about.
    irfner
    He was making a joke about "clips" versus "magazines".
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by VW_Factor View Post
    I think you are unfamiliar with personal responsibility, and what it means given your rights. People that think like you do sir, are a reason why our rights are eroded over time.

    Please. Don't continue to mistake having to take responsibility for your own actions limits to your actions or rights.
    Interesting, did you read anything of what I said? I'd like to know where my analysis was flawed. Moreover, could you show me how my thoughts are the reason our rights are eroded over time? Last I checked, nothing I said was related to taking responsibility for ones' actions. Instead, it addressed the question of whether a proscriptive government ban on a particular exercise of speech constitutes a limit on that speech. I believe I showed that it does, the court agrees it does, and that the court finds that under specific circumstances such a restriction on free speech can be found constitutional. Again, it's not whether the abridgment of the right exists, but if the abridgment is acceptable under the first amendment.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Skagit Valley, Washington
    Posts
    451
    Quote Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
    McCarthy went on the most un-American witch hunt of our country's history.
    Wouldn't that be the Northern states in their war of aggression as they deprived the Southern states of the constitutionally guaranteed right to secede? Millions of American lives were lost.

  25. #25
    Regular Member VW_Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Leesburg, GA
    Posts
    1,098
    Quote Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
    [snip] Moreover, could you show me how my thoughts are the reason our rights are eroded over time? [snip] Instead, it addressed the question of whether a proscriptive government ban on a particular exercise of speech constitutes a limit on that speech. I believe I showed that it does.[snip]
    I'll quote this and do just that.

    While it seems we disagree, we'll just have to agree that we disagree.. I see what you are posting here, and I understand where it comes from. I see it as a problem.

    I see someone who mistakes a persons responsibility and obligation to make sure their own rights do not impede the rights of others.. As a limit to his OWN rights.

    I am sorry you feel that way.

    Maybe its simply two different way of looking at it. Or perhaps its something more than that.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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