Libel, slander, and the right to arms

[M14 Shooter]

When discussing limitations on the right to arms, many people offer that we have restrictions on things such as libel, slander and yelling fire in a theater; if the right to free speech can be so limited, the right to arms can be similarly limited. Because of this, it is argued, restriction on the simple ownership/possession of a firearm, like licensing, registration, background checks and waiting periods, are all constitutionally permissible.

To then look at the issue..

Libel and slander are not protected by the 1st because they cause harm to others.
Yelling fire in a theater is not protected by the 1st because it places others in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.

The question, then:
What harm does simple ownership/possession of a firearm cause to others?
How does simple ownership/possession of a firearm place others in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger?

I look forward to your on-on-topic responses.

 

[BecauseIKnow]

1. Add Possible
2. Add Possible

 

[M14 Shooter]

1. Add Possible
2. Add Possible

Then you fall outside the stated reasoning for the examples provided, which then no longer apply.

It is -specifically- forbidden to limit the exercise of free speech because said exercise MIGHT be slanderous/libelous.

 

[BecauseIKnow]

1. Add Possible
2. Add Possible

Then you fall outside the stated reasoning for the examples provided, which then no longer apply.

It is -specifically- forbidden to limit the exercise of free speech because said exercise MIGHT be slanderous/libelous.

I'm saying they will claim possible harm to others. People shouldn't take guns to theatres but at work, many people work in dangerous areas and till midnight and could have people threatening them so I am all for gun rights, but don't give multiple ar weopons to pyschos

 

[M14 Shooter]

1. Add Possible
2. Add Possible

Then you fall outside the stated reasoning for the examples provided, which then no longer apply.
It is -specifically- forbidden to limit the exercise of free speech because said exercise MIGHT be slanderous/libelous.

I'm saying they will claim possible harm to others.

Yes... and "possibe" doesn't apply to the rationale given in the OP - there has to be -actual- harm or an imminent danger thereof for the examples to apply.

Every gun owner is a possible murderer just like every woman is a possible prostitute and every man is a possible rapist.

 

[BecauseIKnow]

Then you fall outside the stated reasoning for the examples provided, which then no longer apply.
It is -specifically- forbidden to limit the exercise of free speech because said exercise MIGHT be slanderous/libelous.

I'm saying they will claim possible harm to others.

Yes... and "possibe" doesn't apply to the rationale given in the OP - there has to be -actual- harm or an imminent danger thereof for the examples to apply.

Every gun owner is a possible murderer just like every woman is a possible prostitute and every man is a possible rapist.

Well I dont see harm ordinary gun owners cause, and I don't think America will ever change gun rights, people will always be allowed to have firearms because it's also such a big business, and republicans get paid by those corporations to not ban guns so republicans will always vote against it. I don't see gun rights going anywhere

 

[MeadHallPirate]

The question, then:
What harm does simple ownership/possession of a firearm cause to others?
How does simple ownership/possession of a firearm place others in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger?

I look forward to your on-on-topic responses.

ahoy M14 Shooter,

1) i don't think ownin' a firearm, in and of itself, causes any danger to anyone in particular. this, by the way, be why i think all nations ought to be armed with nuclear weapons...afterall, nukes don't kill people, people kill people, aye?

2) since thar always be the possibility that one mighty use said firearm, i'd say that puts folks who be nearby in clear and present danger. i mean, if i had a bomb strapped to me torso, that also would put all folks 'round me in clear and present danger, i reckon, aye? the very fact that i've the option to detonate the bomb would sorta endanger them who be 'round me.

*bows*

- MeadHallPirate

 

[MeadHallPirate]

Well I dont see harm ordinary gun owners cause, and I don't think America will ever change gun rights, people will always be allowed to have firearms because it's also such a big business, and republicans get paid by those corporations to not ban guns so republicans will always vote against it. I don't see gun rights going anywhere

ahoy BecauseIKnow,

well said, me hearty.

gun rights are goin' nowhar, that be absolutely accurate. if ye actually look how the skipper hath legislated (two 'o them years coupled with control 'o both houses 'o congress), a fair readin' 'o Mr. Obama would be that he hath presided as one who be conservative on gun issues.

certainly to the right 'o Mr. Reagan, who enthusiastically supported the Brady Bill.

the Brady Campaign hath given Mr. Obama an "F" on gun control.

aye.

- MeadHallPirate

 

[M14 Shooter]

The question, then:
What harm does simple ownership/possession of a firearm cause to others?
How does simple ownership/possession of a firearm place others in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger?
I look forward to your on-on-topic responses.

ahoy M14 Shooter,
1) i don't think ownin' a firearm, in and of itself, causes any danger to anyone in particular.

Likely, that's because they do not.

2) since thar always be the possibility that one mighty use said firearm, i'd say that puts folks who be nearby in clear and present danger.

How, speficially, does someone owing a firearm next door put you in the same level of danger as someone falsely yelling fire in a theater?

 

[MeadHallPirate]

2) since thar always be the possibility that one mighty use said firearm, i'd say that puts folks who be nearby in clear and present danger.

How, speficially, does someone owing a firearm next door put you in the same level of danger as someone falsely yelling fire in a theater?

ahoy M14 Shooter,

well, we agree on one thing matey. owning a nuke, just like ownin' a firearm, does not in and of itself cause folks to be in danger.

falsely yellin' fire in a theater, in me own opinion, doesn't really cause any kinda danger either. 'tis kind 'o a nuisance, more than anythin'. havin' a firearm on ye whilst amongst other swabbys does expose'm to danger, though...fer the person who be armed might use that firearm.

if that firearm still be in a store behind a glass case, 'tis not likely to cause no one much peril.

*salutes*

- MeadHallPirate

 

[copsnrobbers]

Call this and educated guess.. I suppose I could find the stats but who gives a shit, right?

There are more gun related crimes committed by liberal voters everyday than by conservative gun owners in any 10 years.

 

[MeadHallPirate]

Call this and educated guess.. I suppose I could find the stats but who gives a shit, right?

There are more gun related crimes committed by liberal voters everyday than by conservative gun owners in any 10 years.

ahoy copsnrobbers,

okies matey.

- MeadHallPirate

 

[Old Rocks]

From Kip Kinkle to the fruitloop in the Colorado theater, it is the firepower that the very large magazine on a semi-automatic has that has wreaked havoc. How does one take down someone that can fire 50 to 100 times before reloading?

Does one need more than five shots for defense in a high powered rifle? What is the number of times that a nutjob uses one of the guns with a large magazine in these murder rampages as compared to the ordinary hunting rifles that people like myself own?

 

[Intense]

I'm saying they will claim possible harm to others.

Yes... and "possibe" doesn't apply to the rationale given in the OP - there has to be -actual- harm or an imminent danger thereof for the examples to apply.

Every gun owner is a possible murderer just like every woman is a possible prostitute and every man is a possible rapist.

Well I dont see harm ordinary gun owners cause, and I don't think America will ever change gun rights, people will always be allowed to have firearms because it's also such a big business, and republicans get paid by those corporations to not ban guns so republicans will always vote against it. I don't see gun rights going anywhere

and republicans get paid by those corporations to not ban guns so republicans will always vote against it.

So you are claiming that Republican Legislators are sell outs? What about Democratic Legislators that support the Second Amendment? Are they sell outs, too? The concept of Self Defense, Self Preservation, is over your head, that's a given. You might want to work on that.

 

[Intense]

From Kip Kinkle to the fruitloop in the Colorado theater, it is the firepower that the very large magazine on a semi-automatic has that has wreaked havoc. How does one take down someone that can fire 50 to 100 times before reloading?

Does one need more than five shots for defense in a high powered rifle? What is the number of times that a nutjob uses one of the guns with a large magazine in these murder rampages as compared to the ordinary hunting rifles that people like myself own?

What does it take? One well aimed shot. I agree with you on the concept that a shooter is responsible for where each fired shot ends up. No excuses. From Private Citizen's, to the Cop's at the Empire State Building Shooting, to Armed Gunmen, to Terrorists. I can see large magazines for defense of Private Property, not on the streets.

 

[FA_Q2]

From Kip Kinkle to the fruitloop in the Colorado theater, it is the firepower that the very large magazine on a semi-automatic has that has wreaked havoc. How does one take down someone that can fire 50 to 100 times before reloading?

Does one need more than five shots for defense in a high powered rifle? What is the number of times that a nutjob uses one of the guns with a large magazine in these murder rampages as compared to the ordinary hunting rifles that people like myself own?

Except that his rifle jammed and that high capacity mag was useless after that. The shooting was with 2 handguns and a shot gun. As far as I know, the pistols did not have high capacity magazines.

 

[M14 Shooter]

falsely yellin' fire in a theater, in me own opinion, doesn't really cause any kinda danger either. 'tis kind 'o a nuisance, more than anythin'.

It incites panic and leads to a stampede. This plaxes people in a confition of clear, present ansd immediate danger.
Shouting fire in a crowded theater - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

havin' a firearm on ye whilst amongst other swabbys does expose'm to danger, though...fer the person who be armed might use that firearm.

Not to repeat myself, but...
Yes... and "possibe" doesn't apply to the rationale given in the OP - there has to be -actual- harm or an imminent danger thereof for the examples to apply.

Every gun owner is a possible murderer just like every woman is a possible prostitute and every man is a possible rapist.

 

[M14 Shooter]

From Kip Kinkle to the fruitloop in the Colorado theater, it is the firepower that the very large magazine on a semi-automatic has that has wreaked havoc. How does one take down someone that can fire 50 to 100 times before reloading?

Does one need more than five shots for defense in a high powered rifle? What is the number of times that a nutjob uses one of the guns with a large magazine in these murder rampages as compared to the ordinary hunting rifles that people like myself own?

Not surprisingly, you did not, in any way, address the OP.
Why is that?

 

[9thIDdoc]

"From Kip Kinkle to the fruitloop in the Colorado theater, it is the firepower that the very large magazine on a semi-automatic has that has wreaked havoc. How does one take down someone that can fire 50 to 100 times before reloading?"

Seems to me that boxcutters and explosives have been known to cause even more havoc. And most shotguns firing buckshot can put just as much lead in the air as quickly.

"How does one take down someone that can fire 50 to 100 times before reloading?" [/I]

By being quicker and/or more accuate

 

[NYcarbineer]

From Kip Kinkle to the fruitloop in the Colorado theater, it is the firepower that the very large magazine on a semi-automatic has that has wreaked havoc. How does one take down someone that can fire 50 to 100 times before reloading?

Does one need more than five shots for defense in a high powered rifle? What is the number of times that a nutjob uses one of the guns with a large magazine in these murder rampages as compared to the ordinary hunting rifles that people like myself own?

Except that his rifle jammed and that high capacity mag was useless after that. The shooting was with 2 handguns and a shot gun. As far as I know, the pistols did not have high capacity magazines.

You're assuming that the death toll was not reduced because the gun jammed. The sole purpose of a 100 round magazine is to deliver a massive quantity of firepower in a short amount of time to inflict mass casualties with the greatest efficiency.

There is no reasonable, practical justification for making such a magazine readily available to the average citizen.