A comparison of two Constitutional rights

[M14 Shooter]

What limits do we have on the freedom of speech?
Why do we have those limits?
How does that reason translate to the limits on guns?

fire in a crowded room.
Threatening someone with death.

IOW, when the exercise of the right causes of harm, or places others in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.
Does simple posession/ownership of a firearm cause harm?
Does simple posession/ownership of a firearm place anyone in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger?

Free speech zones for the public during conventions etc.
Controlled Protest marches where you have to protest down a certain street or time.

IOW, time, place and manner restrcitions when the right is exercised on public property.
How does this relate to simple ownership/posession of a firearm?

Must have missed your response, ball of hot gas...?

 

[Dr Grump]

Joan of Arc heard voices in her head, and led France to several significant victories on the battle filed. I am sure you thought you had a point, but I can't see it.

Yeah, let's talk about a 15th century French saint and compare her to diagnosed psychos and szicho's and their right to have guns in the 21st century....

She is a Saint because the church believed her when she said that she was hearing the Voice of God. If she said the same thing today she would be instantly diagnosed as schizophrenic.

Once again, your point escapes me.

No it doesn't. Unless you are either Dumb as a post or being deliberately obtuse. The point is pretty straight forward.

But I will spell it out for you, as you are obviously having all sorts of problems with this: You think everybody should have the right to be armed. I don't. Convicted felons and those with diagnosed serious mental disorders should not be allowed fire arms.

You wouldn't have a clue what she would have been diagnosed with.....

 

[M14 Shooter]

fire in a crowded room.
Threatening someone with death.

IOW, when the exercise of the right causes of harm, or places others in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.
Does simple posession/ownership of a firearm cause harm?
Does simple posession/ownership of a firearm place anyone in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger?

Free speech zones for the public during conventions etc.
Controlled Protest marches where you have to protest down a certain street or time.

IOW, time, place and manner restrcitions when the right is exercised on public property.
How does this relate to simple ownership/posession of a firearm?

I don't know? I don't think they are the same.

You're arging that because we restrict free spech, we can also restrict guns.
We restrict free speech for specific reasons, established above - the only way your argument works is if the restrictions on guns are for the same reasons.

That is, you cannot argue that because we can restrict right A because of reason B, we can then restrict right Y for reason Z.

So... the questions I asked -- your answers?

 

[M14 Shooter]

IOW, when the exercise of the right causes of harm, or places others in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.
Does simple posession/ownership of a firearm cause harm?
Does simple posession/ownership of a firearm place anyone in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger?


IOW, time, place and manner restrcitions when the right is exercised on public property.
How does this relate to simple ownership/posession of a firearm?

Must have missed your response, ball of hot gas...?

busy with the wife and kids....I responded.

I see - thank you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They do?
The police have a few options.
One) Warrant
Two) Homeowner lets them in of freewill.

Beyond that they don't think what you state.

Three: We heard a toilet flush in an attempt to dispose of evidence.

Go back to playing with your dolls, you don't understand how the world works.

Probable cause. Which any lawyer should be able to work around without a warrant or the homeowner letting them in.

Sure i do, i just dont ascribe to your bullshit opinions.

Keep proving you are stupid beyond measure. Do you have any idea how often cops get away with lying under oath? Can you provide examples of police going to jail for perjury when they do?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yeah, let's talk about a 15th century French saint and compare her to diagnosed psychos and szicho's and their right to have guns in the 21st century....

She is a Saint because the church believed her when she said that she was hearing the Voice of God. If she said the same thing today she would be instantly diagnosed as schizophrenic.

Once again, your point escapes me.

No it doesn't. Unless you are either Dumb as a post or being deliberately obtuse. The point is pretty straight forward.

But I will spell it out for you, as you are obviously having all sorts of problems with this: You think everybody should have the right to be armed. I don't. Convicted felons and those with diagnosed serious mental disorders should not be allowed fire arms.

You wouldn't have a clue what she would have been diagnosed with.....

Most convicted felons have a right to own guns, therefore you have no point, unless you are insisting that your version of reality trump the real world.

Not sure what you define as a serious mental disorders are, but I know for a fact that most of them are considered curable by mental professionals. Are we supposed to deny people that used to be sick their rights simply because you are stupid?

According to NIMH the symptoms of schizophrenia include delusions and hallucinations. Unless you can provide actual evidence that Joan actually heard God telling her what to do, and that she was actually commissioned by God to lead France to victory, I think my guess is a lot more likely that you want to admit.

NIMH · What are the symptoms of schizophrenia?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

that's silly. if someone incorrectly states the law, whether i agree with the law or not, i have every right to accurately set forth the facts. it isn't logical to allow someone blowhard to spout nonsense just because i don't particularly like the case.

Except for the fact that the person you responded to did not misrepresent the law you have a pretty good point.

no she didnt, she ignores it and says that she knows more and better than Scalia and Scotus.

There is a difference, which you missed and decided to just make shit up again.

The way you do when we are discussing Citizen's United?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

She is a Saint because the church believed her when she said that she was hearing the Voice of God. If she said the same thing today she would be instantly diagnosed as schizophrenic.

Once again, your point escapes me.

No it doesn't. Unless you are either Dumb as a post or being deliberately obtuse. The point is pretty straight forward.

But I will spell it out for you, as you are obviously having all sorts of problems with this: You think everybody should have the right to be armed. I don't. Convicted felons and those with diagnosed serious mental disorders should not be allowed fire arms.

You wouldn't have a clue what she would have been diagnosed with.....

i see windbag pulled you into one of his stupid points that he thinks has relevance to the topic.

Mocking people is rarely relevant to the topic, I do enjoy it though.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Joan of Arc heard voices in her head, and led France to several significant victories on the battle filed. I am sure you thought you had a point, but I can't see it.

Yeah, let's talk about a 15th century French saint and compare her to diagnosed psychos and szicho's and their right to have guns in the 21st century....

She is a Saint because the church believed her when she said that she was hearing the Voice of God. If she said the same thing today she would be instantly diagnosed as schizophrenic.

Once again, your point escapes me.

Yanno........................the Son of Sam heard voices as well.

Are you saying that shizoprenic people are the prophets of God?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I don't know? I don't think they are the same.

You're arging that because we restrict free spech, we can also restrict guns.
We restrict free speech for specific reasons, established above - the only way your argument works is if the restrictions on guns are for the same reasons.

That is, you cannot argue that because we can restrict right A because of reason B, we can then restrict right Y for reason Z.

So... the questions I asked -- your answers?

Do you even know my position on regulating guns?

Given that we arent discussing your position on guns, it doesn't matter.

We ARE, however, discussing your position that because we restrict free spech, we can also restrict guns.

To that end, I'd appreciate answers to my questions.

 

[jillian]

Joan of Arc heard voices in her head, and led France to several significant victories on the battle filed. I am sure you thought you had a point, but I can't see it.

Yeah, let's talk about a 15th century French saint and compare her to diagnosed psychos and szicho's and their right to have guns in the 21st century....

She is a Saint because the church believed her when she said that she was hearing the Voice of God. If she said the same thing today she would be instantly diagnosed as schizophrenic.

Once again, your point escapes me.

then perhaps you're being intentionly obtuse?

or maybe you should stop listening to the voices in *your* head.

what i think about jeanne d'arc, who i really like, btw... (not as a saint... but as an historical figure).

she was brilliant...

she strategized EXACTLY what needed to be done to lead the kings troops to victory. the only way she could get anyone to listen to a girl was to say G-d told her what to do. people are also subject to thinking brillant ideas are "inspired". whether they are or not is a subject of nothing more than one's own faith or lack thereof.

here's a pretty good rule of thumb though... if you talk to G-d, that's just faith
if G-d talks to you, that's psychosis

 

[M14 Shooter]

Do you even know my position on regulating guns?

Given that we arent discussing your position on guns, it doesn't matter.

We ARE, however, discussing your position that because we restrict free spech, we can also restrict guns.

To that end, I'd appreciate answers to my questions.

Not everything we have as rights are 100%. You can restrict certain aspects of Speech and at the sametime Guns.
There really isnt much else to it.

Yes, yes there is.

Again:
You're arging that because we restrict free spech, we can also restrict guns.
We restrict free speech for specific reasons, established above - the only way your argument works is if the restrictions on guns are for the same reasons.

That is, you cannot argue that because we can restrict right A because of reason B, we can then restrict right Y for reason Z.

To that end, I'd appreciate answers to my questions

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yeah, let's talk about a 15th century French saint and compare her to diagnosed psychos and szicho's and their right to have guns in the 21st century....

She is a Saint because the church believed her when she said that she was hearing the Voice of God. If she said the same thing today she would be instantly diagnosed as schizophrenic.

Once again, your point escapes me.

Yanno........................the Son of Sam heard voices as well.

Are you saying that shizoprenic people are the prophets of God?

You are the one that called her a saint, not me.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Probable cause. Which any lawyer should be able to work around without a warrant or the homeowner letting them in.

Sure i do, i just dont ascribe to your bullshit opinions.

Keep proving you are stupid beyond measure. Do you have any idea how often cops get away with lying under oath? Can you provide examples of police going to jail for perjury when they do?

ah its all a conspiracy out to get Windbag. There is always an excuse with you.

Funny, I don't recall saying that. I do, however, posting actual cases in the Law section, the area you avoid because it makes your brain hurt, where judges ruled that exigent circumstances trump the 4th Amendment, even though the cops were chasing someone else. I also recall posting examples of outright lies being told by police officers on the stand that were so egregious the judges had to admit on the record that they were lies, and not a single one of them were prosecuted. I can also provide evidence of police saying one thing while surveillance video clearly shows the exact opposite.

All you have is an assertion that I am claiming this is a massive conspiracy to trap me.

Go play with your SpongeBob action figure.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

no she didnt, she ignores it and says that she knows more and better than Scalia and Scotus.

There is a difference, which you missed and decided to just make shit up again.

The way you do when we are discussing Citizen's United?

huh? you must be confusing me with someone else and someone who cares.

You don't care that Citizen's United overturned a century of campaign finance reform?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Do you even know my position on regulating guns?

Given that we arent discussing your position on guns, it doesn't matter.

We ARE, however, discussing your position that because we restrict free spech, we can also restrict guns.

To that end, I'd appreciate answers to my questions.

Not everything we have as rights are 100%. You can restrict certain aspects of Speech and at the sametime Guns.
There really isnt much else to it.

You are 100% wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yeah, let's talk about a 15th century French saint and compare her to diagnosed psychos and szicho's and their right to have guns in the 21st century....

She is a Saint because the church believed her when she said that she was hearing the Voice of God. If she said the same thing today she would be instantly diagnosed as schizophrenic.

Once again, your point escapes me.

then perhaps you're being intentionly obtuse?

or maybe you should stop listening to the voices in *your* head.

what i think about jeanne d'arc, who i really like, btw... (not as a saint... but as an historical figure).

she was brilliant...

she strategized EXACTLY what needed to be done to lead the kings troops to victory. the only way she could get anyone to listen to a girl was to say G-d told her what to do. people are also subject to thinking brillant ideas are "inspired". whether they are or not is a subject of nothing more than one's own faith or lack thereof.

here's a pretty good rule of thumb though... if you talk to G-d, that's just faith
if G-d talks to you, that's psychosis

The only way she could get anyone to listen to her was to announce victories she had no way of knowing about, are you trying to rewrite history to fit your agenda?

The simple fact is that anyone who claims to here the Voice of God is automatically assumed to have some type of mental illness by modern medicine, yet they are not all automatically dangerous. ABS wants to prohibit anyone who ever sees a psych doctor from exercising their rights, and I am mocking him. If you want to be mocked yourself feel free to jump back in and say something.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not everything we have as rights are 100%. You can restrict certain aspects of Speech and at the sametime Guns.
There really isnt much else to it.

Yes, yes there is.

Again:
You're arging that because we restrict free spech, we can also restrict guns.
We restrict free speech for specific reasons, established above - the only way your argument works is if the restrictions on guns are for the same reasons.

That is, you cannot argue that because we can restrict right A because of reason B, we can then restrict right Y for reason Z.

To that end, I'd appreciate answers to my questions

no, no they are not for the same reasons. They are not mutually exclusive in any sense of the notion. The only thing they have in common are that they are rights. Otherwise you treat them differently.

Ok...im not arguing that sooooo.........anyways i'm moving on from whatever your point is about what you think i am doing or not doing, or could be doing.

Guns can be restricted, end of story.

I accept your concession of the point. Thank you.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Given that we arent discussing your position on guns, it doesn't matter.

We ARE, however, discussing your position that because we restrict free spech, we can also restrict guns.

To that end, I'd appreciate answers to my questions.

Not everything we have as rights are 100%. You can restrict certain aspects of Speech and at the sametime Guns.
There really isnt much else to it.

You are 100% wrong.

He’s 100 percent correct.

No right is absolute. See: Schenck v. United States (1919).

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not everything we have as rights are 100%. You can restrict certain aspects of Speech and at the sametime Guns.
There really isnt much else to it.

You are 100% wrong.

He’s 100 percent correct.

No right is absolute. See: Schenck v. United States (1919).

Citing the government to tell me I am wrong about my rights makes as much sense as citing the Vedas to prove I am wrong about the age of the Earth.