No, it wasn't a bad analogy. High capacity ammo clips in the hands of a solid citizen are no more dangerous than non harmful speech. Neither should be illegal.
There is freedom of speech in the private sector but it is balanced by the accountability of civil litigation if the speech is damaging.
No, it wasn't a bad analogy. High capacity ammo clips in the hands of a solid citizen are no more dangerous than non harmful speech. Neither should be illegal.
bulll
corporations fire people for Internet posts,
corporations ask candidates for their passwords to their private facebook, etc accounts.
taxpayer-financed public schools suspend/expel/arrest students any speech violations in or out of school
etc, etc, etc.
There's TONS of intimidation of free speech in private sector.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 03-15-2013 at 02:05 PM.
Free speech does not necessarily mean freedom from the repercussions of said speech.
Last edited by CosmicCowboy; 03-15-2013 at 01:55 PM.
a 5-year old was arrested at school and booked as a terrorist for talking about "shooting" at her friend, she was talking about shooting bubbles, not bullets. Obviously, the repercussions of shooting bubbles are criminalizing.
the obvious problem with your "repercussions" position is that lots of speech harms no one, "breaks no bones", but it still widely intimidated.
1. Washington, D.C.
The nation's capital is also the capital of gun deaths. There were 24.5 firearm-related deaths per 100,000 people in Washington, D.C.
Possession of firearms
In Washington, D.C., all firearms must be registered with the police, by the terms of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975.
The same law also prohibited the possession of handguns, even in private citizens' own homes, unless they were registered before 1976. However, the handgun ban was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2008 case District of Columbia v. er. The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment acknowledges and guarantees the right of the individual to possess and carry firearms, and therefore D.C.'s ban on handguns was uncons utional.[3]
Following the er decision, the Washington D.C. City Council enacted a set of rules regulating the possession of handguns in citizens' homes. In addition to each handgun being registered with the police, the rules require that D.C. residents undergo a background check and submit fingerprints. The firearms registry photographs the applicant. Residents must take an online gun safety course, and pass a written test on the District's gun laws. Residents must also declare where it will be kept.[4][5][6][7]
Concealed carry
The District of Columbia does not permit the concealed carrying of firearms. Open carry is also prohibited. A lawsuit was filed on August 6, 2009, to compel the district to issue permits to carry weapons.[8]
Father accidentally shoots, kills 10-month-old son in front of family
A 10-month-old boy was shot and killed by his father Thursday in an apparent accident at a Nashville, Tenn.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...of-family?lite
NRA is really pissed off at the death of highly potential gun fellator.
And in other news, someone was killed in a car accident. happens.
gun fellators' fatalism is hilarious
And Seat belts are pulsory to minimize fatalities in car accidents. Seatbelt regulation has been highly effective.
Boo s hysteria is hilarious.
Pushers blue team cheerleading is hilarious.
mandatory seat belts, and all kinds of safety features have been designed into cars in the last 35+ years have reduced car deaths.
the alcohol industry, always seeking profits at all costs, has very effectively limited the state penalties for DWI, as well has blocking any attempts to lower the legal limit beyond the ridiculously high 0.08. Countries not ruled by their alcohol industries use 0.05.
And if you really want to use a car regulation analogy the proposed gun regulations would be more like outlawing cars with more than 150hp.
I confess to being a V8 fellator
no. the correct analogy would speed limits of 150 mph for all vehicles, no seat belts, no reinforced bodies for crash protection, no air bags.
And we've now drilled down to moronic.
FREEDOM!
in William Wallace here thinks seat belts meaningfully infringe on his liberty.
I voluntarily wear my seatbelt. I did it before it was against the law not to wear it.
Just like I safely use guns with large capacity magazines.
My 86 year old mother just got her CHL last weekend using my 15 shot 9mm.
Last edited by CosmicCowboy; 03-15-2013 at 03:38 PM.
Your personal antcitdotes are irrelevant tbh. Has seatbelt regulation effectively reduced fatalities?
Yes. Nobody is killed by seatbelts any more.
It would be even safer to stuff the car with the strawmen you keep building.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)