• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

'Hell no' right back at you, Seattle Times

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,874
Location
, ,
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-in-seattle/hell-no-right-back-at-you-seattle-times

Or try this:

http://tinyurl.com/4nzajly
 

Sparky508

Newbie
Joined
Jul 10, 2009
Messages
347
Location
Graham, , USA
"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.
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
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.
 

SoLasVegas

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
120
Location
Las Vegas, ,
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.
 

.45ACPaddy

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2009
Messages
999
Location
Lakewood, WA
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.
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
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:

Sparky508

Newbie
Joined
Jul 10, 2009
Messages
347
Location
Graham, , USA
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.
 

heresolong

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,318
Location
Blaine, WA, ,
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.
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
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.
 

VW_Factor

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2010
Messages
1,092
Location
Leesburg, GA
"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.
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
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.
 

VW_Factor

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2010
Messages
1,092
Location
Leesburg, GA
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.
 

Dain Bramage

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
83
Location
Arlington, WA
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:

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
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:

irfner

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Nov 24, 2007
Messages
434
Location
SeaTac, Washington, USA
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
 
Top