What is the solution? Or at least what action should be taken?

[WinterBorn]

if you are fired because of your race, or sex, the employer can be hammered by the law
but people get fired all the time for ''free'' speech--it's not free/unlimited if you can get fired for it

try reading the 1st A sometime and you will see it protects you from the government not your boss,,,or me,,,
so shut the **** up,,,


your ignorance is noted,,,

wow---why so angry--upset over a ''friendly'' discussion ???? you are out of your mind
free speech is limited--no question about it

that has nothing to do with the 1st amendment,,,
maybe the problem is you for working for the wrong person,,,

so, you agree the 1st Amendment does not give you unlimited right of free speech?

try reading the 1st A sometime and you will see it protects you from the government not your boss,,,or me,,,
so shut the **** up,,,

And, as I showed you, the 1st amendment can be regulated.

 

[WinterBorn]

if you are fired because of your race, or sex, the employer can be hammered by the law
but people get fired all the time for ''free'' speech--it's not free/unlimited if you can get fired for it

try reading the 1st A sometime and you will see it protects you from the government not your boss,,,or me,,,
so shut the **** up,,,


your ignorance is noted,,,

wow---why so angry--upset over a ''friendly'' discussion ???? you are out of your mind
free speech is limited--no question about it

that has nothing to do with the 1st amendment,,,
maybe the problem is you for working for the wrong person,,,

so, you agree the 1st Amendment does not give you unlimited right of free speech?

Nope...you can't violate the Rights of others with your speech......just like the 2nd Amendment, you can't use a gun to violate the Rights of other people....already have laws that cover that......

But the 1st and 2nd amendments can be regulated.

 

[WinterBorn]

In 1964 God was kicked out of schools and children were no longer told they were made in the image of God.

Now we enjoy the fruits of that decision.

View attachment 272695

Nonsense – ‘god’ never belonged in schools to begin with.

who are you to tell other people what they can or cant have in their schools???

I'm guessing a ******* nazi,,,

No one said God doesn't belong in school.

They simply said the school can't lead the prayers.

who are you to tell other people what they can or cant have in their schools???

I did not. The US Constitution did. It does not allow the gov't to select an "official" religion. Just like there can be no religious test for an elected office.

But you can have prayer/God in schools and led by the schools. They just have to be private schools.

 

[progressive hunter]

try reading the 1st A sometime and you will see it protects you from the government not your boss,,,or me,,,
so shut the **** up,,,


your ignorance is noted,,,

wow---why so angry--upset over a ''friendly'' discussion ???? you are out of your mind
free speech is limited--no question about it

that has nothing to do with the 1st amendment,,,
maybe the problem is you for working for the wrong person,,,

so, you agree the 1st Amendment does not give you unlimited right of free speech?

try reading the 1st A sometime and you will see it protects you from the government not your boss,,,or me,,,
so shut the **** up,,,

And, as I showed you, the 1st amendment can be regulated.

then show me one law that bans speech,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

In 1964 God was kicked out of schools and children were no longer told they were made in the image of God.

Now we enjoy the fruits of that decision.

View attachment 272695

Nonsense – ‘god’ never belonged in schools to begin with.

who are you to tell other people what they can or cant have in their schools???

I'm guessing a ******* nazi,,,

No one said God doesn't belong in school.

They simply said the school can't lead the prayers.

who are you to tell other people what they can or cant have in their schools???

I did not. The US Constitution did. It does not allow the gov't to select an "official" religion. Just like there can be no religious test for an elected office.

But you can have prayer/God in schools and led by the schools. They just have to be private schools.

it seems to me the problem is public schools that control the people..

communities should be able to decide for themselves,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

try reading the 1st A sometime and you will see it protects you from the government not your boss,,,or me,,,
so shut the **** up,,,


your ignorance is noted,,,

wow---why so angry--upset over a ''friendly'' discussion ???? you are out of your mind
free speech is limited--no question about it

that has nothing to do with the 1st amendment,,,
maybe the problem is you for working for the wrong person,,,

so, you agree the 1st Amendment does not give you unlimited right of free speech?

Nope...you can't violate the Rights of others with your speech......just like the 2nd Amendment, you can't use a gun to violate the Rights of other people....already have laws that cover that......

But the 1st and 2nd amendments can be regulated.

then they would say that,,but they dont,,

rights are not subject to a simple vote by 9 people

 

[WinterBorn]

wow---why so angry--upset over a ''friendly'' discussion ???? you are out of your mind
free speech is limited--no question about it

that has nothing to do with the 1st amendment,,,
maybe the problem is you for working for the wrong person,,,

so, you agree the 1st Amendment does not give you unlimited right of free speech?

try reading the 1st A sometime and you will see it protects you from the government not your boss,,,or me,,,
so shut the **** up,,,

And, as I showed you, the 1st amendment can be regulated.

then show me one law that bans speech,,,

I showed you a law that holds you criminally liable for it. Law does not silence speech. But it can punish speech in certain situations. Like inciting a riot.

 

[WinterBorn]

wow---why so angry--upset over a ''friendly'' discussion ???? you are out of your mind
free speech is limited--no question about it

that has nothing to do with the 1st amendment,,,
maybe the problem is you for working for the wrong person,,,

so, you agree the 1st Amendment does not give you unlimited right of free speech?

Nope...you can't violate the Rights of others with your speech......just like the 2nd Amendment, you can't use a gun to violate the Rights of other people....already have laws that cover that......

But the 1st and 2nd amendments can be regulated.

then they would say that,,but they dont,,

rights are not subject to a simple vote by 9 people

Determining whether a law is constitutional ultimately is determined by 9 people. YOu can argue with it if you want. But that is the way it is done.

 

[2aguy]

try reading the 1st A sometime and you will see it protects you from the government not your boss,,,or me,,,
so shut the **** up,,,


your ignorance is noted,,,

wow---why so angry--upset over a ''friendly'' discussion ???? you are out of your mind
free speech is limited--no question about it

that has nothing to do with the 1st amendment,,,
maybe the problem is you for working for the wrong person,,,

so, you agree the 1st Amendment does not give you unlimited right of free speech?

Nope...you can't violate the Rights of others with your speech......just like the 2nd Amendment, you can't use a gun to violate the Rights of other people....already have laws that cover that......

But the 1st and 2nd amendments can be regulated.

Yes.....the 2nd Amendment is regulated...

1) You can't use a gun for a crime.

2) You can't buy, own or carry a gun if you are a felon or adjudicated dangerously mentally ill.

3) You can't knowing sell to the above two....

That is pretty much all the regulation we need to "regulate" the 2nd Amendment.

 

[2aguy]

hey bud you ever find those laws you speak of??

from: Is it illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre?
"The origin of the phrase is from the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). It specifically rules on the limitation of freedom of speech (first amendment):

The original ruling is this:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

As pointed out by @phoog, this does not saying anything about the lawfullness of shouting "fire", it says that if your speech creates a clear and present danger, the first amendment will not protect you, even if the danger does not result in actual harm."

So my example is accurate, with a caveat. "...it says that if your speech creates a clear and present danger, the first amendment will not protect you, even if the danger does not result in actual harm."

so you cant show me any laws ,,,
as I figured,,,

I did not show state laws, but I did show that the right of free speech can (and is) regulated.

The charge of Inciting to Riot is a regulation of free speech.

from: Criminal Threats
"Even though the Constitution guarantees the right of free speech, that right is not an absolute one. The law has long recognized specific limitations when it comes to speech, such as prohibitions against slander and libel."

show me a law that restricts speech,,,

nowhere in the first does it say you cant be held responsible for your speech,,it only says the government cant restrict it


try reading it sometime,,,

"Even though the Constitution guarantees the right to possess a firearm, that right is not an absolute one. The law has long recognized specific limitations when it comes to possessing a firearm, such as prohibitions against convicted felons and the mentally ill possessing firearms."

See how that works?

Yes....and in the same ruling Scalia said this...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Then, Scalia wrote this...protecting all of those rifles you anti-gunners want to ban....and by name, he stated the AR-15 is a protected rifle.....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

 

[Andylusion]

I am not looking for "We needs armed good guys!" or "Ban all privately owned guns!".

I am looking for actual, workable things that can be done to prevent the kinds of tragedies we have seen in the last week.

For conservatives, the time for Thoughts & Prayers is over. If you won't come up with solutions, someone else will. If the population is afraid, they will surrender their freedoms for a sense of safety. You have to do something.

For liberals, the knee-jerk reaction of banning guns is not a viable answer. **** party lines. This is about a balance of safety and individual freedom (especially the freedom to defend ourselves).


So what are the answer(s)?

Full enforcement of the law. More police, more enforcement of the law. Less rules against law abiding citizens, more capital punishment, and murderers being put in the ground. Stop all this "let's reduce the prison population" crap, and more "put the bad guys in the dirt".

That is the solution. That is the answer.

All you have to do is look at Singapore. For all it's flaws, it is one of the safest cities on the Earth.

In 2016, the island nation’s police reported 135 total days without any crimes including snatch-theft, house break-ins and robbery. That low crime rate means many small businesses enjoy little concern about shoplifting.

In fact, as CNBC recently observed, many local businesses take few precautions when closing shop at night.

For instance, in the ground floor lobby of a mixed-use building in the downtown business district, many shops don’t have windows, locks — or even doors.​

Now the left-wing would love to say that it is because of gun control that they have no crime, let alone murder. Singapore rarely has more than a murder or two a year.

But that isn't true. UK has tons of crime, and some of the toughest gun laws in the world.

The reason Singapore has low crime, and almost no murder, is because they enforce the law. Murders do not sit on death row for decades. They are usually there for 3 years or less. Then they are either acquitted, or they are hanged. That is our solution.

The last Murder I looked up in Singapore, it was 12 months between crime and trial. It was then 12 months between Trial and execution for the murder of a small girl at a shopping mall bathroom.

This is why in a city of 5.6 Million, they have fewer than 2 or 3 murders, and only a few dozen crimes a year.

We need to start doing that. That will solve this problem.

If you are Christian like me.... Ecclesiastes 8:11 says "When the sentence for a crime is not quickly carried out, people's hearts are filled with schemes to do wrong."

Death row inmate Charles Walton Wright dies in prison months before execution date

Double murder in 1985. Passed away of natural causes, after living his entire life on the tax money of his victims, months before his execution date. Almost 35 years later, age 64, getting free health care for his cancer.....

This is not justice. And you wonder why we have murder all over the place in this country? It's pretty clear to me.

 

[WinterBorn]

wow---why so angry--upset over a ''friendly'' discussion ???? you are out of your mind
free speech is limited--no question about it

that has nothing to do with the 1st amendment,,,
maybe the problem is you for working for the wrong person,,,

so, you agree the 1st Amendment does not give you unlimited right of free speech?

Nope...you can't violate the Rights of others with your speech......just like the 2nd Amendment, you can't use a gun to violate the Rights of other people....already have laws that cover that......

But the 1st and 2nd amendments can be regulated.

Yes.....the 2nd Amendment is regulated...

1) You can't use a gun for a crime.

2) You can't buy, own or carry a gun if you are a felon or adjudicated dangerously mentally ill.

3) You can't knowing sell to the above two....

That is pretty much all the regulation we need to "regulate" the 2nd Amendment.

The point I was making is that the amendments can be regulated. Someone stated that they cannot be regulated.

 

[Jitss617]

that has nothing to do with the 1st amendment,,,
maybe the problem is you for working for the wrong person,,,

so, you agree the 1st Amendment does not give you unlimited right of free speech?

Nope...you can't violate the Rights of others with your speech......just like the 2nd Amendment, you can't use a gun to violate the Rights of other people....already have laws that cover that......

But the 1st and 2nd amendments can be regulated.

Yes.....the 2nd Amendment is regulated...

1) You can't use a gun for a crime.

2) You can't buy, own or carry a gun if you are a felon or adjudicated dangerously mentally ill.

3) You can't knowing sell to the above two....

That is pretty much all the regulation we need to "regulate" the 2nd Amendment.

The point I was making is that the amendments can be regulated. Someone stated that they cannot be regulated.

But why? What regulation would have stopped this??

 

[WinterBorn]

so, you agree the 1st Amendment does not give you unlimited right of free speech?

Nope...you can't violate the Rights of others with your speech......just like the 2nd Amendment, you can't use a gun to violate the Rights of other people....already have laws that cover that......

But the 1st and 2nd amendments can be regulated.

Yes.....the 2nd Amendment is regulated...

1) You can't use a gun for a crime.

2) You can't buy, own or carry a gun if you are a felon or adjudicated dangerously mentally ill.

3) You can't knowing sell to the above two....

That is pretty much all the regulation we need to "regulate" the 2nd Amendment.

The point I was making is that the amendments can be regulated. Someone stated that they cannot be regulated.

But why? What regulation would have stopped this??

I never said a regulation would have stopped this. What I said was part of a side discussion that started when someone claimed that our rights cannot be regulated at all.

 

[Jitss617]

Nope...you can't violate the Rights of others with your speech......just like the 2nd Amendment, you can't use a gun to violate the Rights of other people....already have laws that cover that......

But the 1st and 2nd amendments can be regulated.

Yes.....the 2nd Amendment is regulated...

1) You can't use a gun for a crime.

2) You can't buy, own or carry a gun if you are a felon or adjudicated dangerously mentally ill.

3) You can't knowing sell to the above two....

That is pretty much all the regulation we need to "regulate" the 2nd Amendment.

The point I was making is that the amendments can be regulated. Someone stated that they cannot be regulated.

But why? What regulation would have stopped this??

I never said a regulation would have stopped this. What I said was part of a side discussion that started when someone claimed that our rights cannot be regulated at all.

Having a wet dream?

 

[WinterBorn]

But the 1st and 2nd amendments can be regulated.

Yes.....the 2nd Amendment is regulated...

1) You can't use a gun for a crime.

2) You can't buy, own or carry a gun if you are a felon or adjudicated dangerously mentally ill.

3) You can't knowing sell to the above two....

That is pretty much all the regulation we need to "regulate" the 2nd Amendment.

The point I was making is that the amendments can be regulated. Someone stated that they cannot be regulated.

But why? What regulation would have stopped this??

I never said a regulation would have stopped this. What I said was part of a side discussion that started when someone claimed that our rights cannot be regulated at all.

Having a wet dream?

I was trying to have a constructive discussion. Pity so few others were.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

I am not looking for "We needs armed good guys!" or "Ban all privately owned guns!".

I am looking for actual, workable things that can be done to prevent the kinds of tragedies we have seen in the last week.

For conservatives, the time for Thoughts & Prayers is over. If you won't come up with solutions, someone else will. If the population is afraid, they will surrender their freedoms for a sense of safety. You have to do something.

For liberals, the knee-jerk reaction of banning guns is not a viable answer. **** party lines. This is about a balance of safety and individual freedom (especially the freedom to defend ourselves).


So what are the answer(s)?

first thing to do is ban both the democrat and republican parties and reinstall the constitution to its rightful place as the rule of law,,,

Can't say I disagree with that. There isn't much difference between the parties anymore.

 

[rjs330]

Immediate public execution with perp screaming all the way to his ultimate end.....have those executions with all the drama shown once a month at all middle- high schools....fight leftist bullshit mind manipulation with REALITY!

Unfortunately, 40% of these clowns off themselves when the cops show up. Most of the rest are killed by the cops. So not many actually would face the execution.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I was trying to have a constructive discussion. Pity so few others were.

For how long have we heard that the Death enalty does not deter and we are getting rid of it slowly across the country.

We have adopted codlling of prisoners because it doesn't help to be course with them.

We are disintegrating into a society of individual iPhone users and see little of the ties that bind us, but that wasn't supposed to make a difference either.

And yet we see more and more of these massacres each y ear it seems.

Maybe shaming these miscreants, executing them within a month if not a week and burying their remains at sea over an undisclosed location would deter some of this crap?

Worth trying in my opinion.

I know what does N OT work:

Blaming the other party

whining about it

making a martyr out of the guy t rying to find out why he did it

blaming guns instead of the perp

proposing pointless feel good remedies that we all know will not work.

 

[Third Party]

Yes.....the 2nd Amendment is regulated...

1) You can't use a gun for a crime.

2) You can't buy, own or carry a gun if you are a felon or adjudicated dangerously mentally ill.

3) You can't knowing sell to the above two....

That is pretty much all the regulation we need to "regulate" the 2nd Amendment.

The point I was making is that the amendments can be regulated. Someone stated that they cannot be regulated.

But why? What regulation would have stopped this??

I never said a regulation would have stopped this. What I said was part of a side discussion that started when someone claimed that our rights cannot be regulated at all.

Having a wet dream?

I was trying to have a constructive discussion. Pity so few others were.

This is like trying to stop auto accident deaths-what do you do, take away the cars? If not you have to control the people-put valium like drugs in our foods-that will calm everybody down.