You can regulate my speech, but not my fucking guns!

[world wide wally]

So, you pass these stupid fucking laws that say I can't say "fuck" "shit" "cunt" or "twat" on broadcast or basic cable TV, but we can't possibly regulate ANYTHING about weapons because it is "in the constitution".

This is such a fucking joke on mankind........ such a bad fucking joke!.

These assholes wanting to bring us into their dark world of "freedom" are insulting to the intelligence of a 2 year old (which I suspect are free game to anyone with the "freedom" to own an assault weapon).

You don't have a fucking CLUE what FREEDOM is.

It is time to get REAL America.
Stop with the bullshit semantics and bullshit "its in the constitution".

Fuck you
Fuck your gun worship
Fuck your fantasy of being Wyatt Earp (who confiscated guns to clean up the town of Dodge City)
and Fuck the tea-horse you road in on.

This is STILL America
This is STILL the civilized world

Thank you for leaving.
Now we can go on with REAL life.

[harmonicon]

1. I think you're confused.

There aren't laws about not swearing on tv. There are FCC regulations about broadcast television and radio and what can be said on that in certain contexts. I think it's mostly bullshit, but there aren't laws about what you can and can't say. Get your facts straight before you get so upset about something next time.

[obxhead]

5. There are however laws about swearing on the street.

In VA beach around the main strip there are no swearing signs posted. You can (and will) be fined for violating a law against swearing in this "family" area.

I personally feel the law is a violation of the Constitution, but it still stands today. I believe it was passed 5 or 6 years ago.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

17. If only you could cuss a violent felon into submission

The anti-rights faction is quick to remind us that while cars may kill more people annually cars have non-violent utility. While the primary function of a gun may be violent it does have utility for those who wish to protect themselves from people of violent, criminal intent.

What utility does screaming, "Suck! Fuck! Run amok!" have for the betterment of society? Lobbing vulgarities could actually be seen as disturbing the peace.

[obxhead]

20. I see a lot of things as disturbing the peace

particularly religions, firearms, war, oh my the list could go on and on.

Use of profanity may disturb your peace and the peace of the families visiting VA beach.

That's why there are laws regulating it. Does it piss me off? yes, but not because I can't use "bad" words in that area. It pisses me off because all of the real problems and we get laws like this.

Worried about a potty mouth while the country flounders with very real life and death issues. That's my real problem.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

21. Any place you have politicians you're going to have stupid laws

But we use politicians as conduits to affect the laws we want to govern our society. Yes, they wander off on their own all too frequently but no system is perfect and ours is the best of an undeniably horrible spectrum of choices.

You choosing to be offended about guns or religion is just that: your choice. Thankfully, we live in a society where the politicians are compelled by mandate to defend you -- with guns -- if any religion attempted to violently compel you to recognize its creed; and if the government itself ever tried to impose a creed hopefully you would own a gun to enforce your rights.

In fact, if enough people owned guns maybe governments would be disincentivized from imposing asinine decrees. Does a prohibition on profanity in public places rise to that level? Is it worth bearing arms to be "free" enough to scream "Suck! Fuck! Run amok!" or is such a fight better saved for when the acolytes of the Flying Spaghetti Monster demand we kneel before the Omnipasta One?

[JDPriestly]

7. Regulations are not laws?

Federal regulations are the actual enforceable laws authorized by major legislation enacted by Congress. The Clean Air Act, the Food and Drug Act, the Civil Rights Act are all examples of landmark legislation requiring months, even years of highly publicized planning, debate, compromise and reconciliation in Congress. Yet the work of creating the vast and ever-growing volumes of federal regulations, the real laws behind the acts, happens largely unnoticed in the offices of the government agencies rather than the halls of Congress.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/fedregulations.htm

Most federal agencies are created by Congress through statutes called "enabling acts" which define the scope of an agency's authority. Because the Constitution does not expressly mention federal agencies (as it does the three branches), some commentators have called agencies the "headless fourth branch" of the federal government. However, most independent agencies are technically part of the executive branch, with a few located in the legislative branch of government. By enacting the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in 1946, Congress established some means to oversee government agency action. The APA established uniform administrative law procedures for a federal agency's promulgation of rules, and adjudication of claims. The APA also sets forth the process for judicial review of agency action.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_agency

Congress delegates to federal agencies the authority to make and enforce regulations. Federal agencies have quasi-judicial authority.

Regulations are the law.

[harmonicon]

11. *sigh*

[JDPriestly]

13. I personally don't think that the Constitution intended that there by regulations

limiting the right to free speech and assembly. The Courts, however, are quite willing to enforce them.

And the exercise of free speech and assembly may slow down traffic or cause a mess in a public place like a park or the front of a public building or the sidewalk or a street, but probably won't cause any deaths. The exercise of the Second Amendment IS causing deaths. Therefore the right of the people to life, to public safety and security may have to be balanced with Second Amendment rights.

Remember how the police enforced speech and assembly regulations on the Occupy movement in New York City, Portland, Oregon and elsewhere in the country?

And Occupy wasn't threatening anyone's life. They did not allow weapons.

Open carry laws? Gabrielle Giffords? 20 six-year-olds?

And gun lovers think there should be no regulation?

Our rights under the Constitution have to be in balance.

Regulations are created to balance the right of one person with the right of another. We all have a right to breathe clean air. XYZ Company has the right to manufacture its products. But if, in the manufacturing process, XYZ Company emits into the air some substance that deprives me of my right to clean air, then the EPA regulates XYZ Company so that my right is protected.

That's the way these things are balanced.

Speech is far less likely to seriously interfere with the safety or rights of others than are guns, yet the argument could be made that speech is subject to more regulation than guns.

[world wide wally]

23. My point is that speech can be "regulated" without reasonable people claiming it "violates" their

Constitutional rights as Americans. So if we can do that with speech, we can do that with guns.

[harmonicon]

26. It is done. I don't know what you're going on about.

Certain public places, and any private place that wishes, can bar you from having a gun or certain types of gun.

I don't like guns or gun violence either, but setting up false equivalencies isn't going to help.

[triplepoint]

2. George Carlin Said It Best...

.
.

.
.
.And then there was Colonel Kurtz's monologue:

[cantbeserious]

8. The American Dream - You Have To Be Asleep To Believe It

eom

[Earth_First]

9. pussy fart?

[TheKentuckian]

14. Not only do you show ID but you have a background check.

If your uncle gives you a beer, porn, or cigarettes then NO ID. If your uncle gives you a gun it works the same way an other portable property does like say a chainsaw but the "free for all" that some folks pretend does not exist.

[Robb]

19. The vast majority of guns used in crimes are bought illegally.

No ID required.

[obxhead]

4. America

Love it or leave it.

I find every gun nutter said that repeatedly during the Bush administration.

They can take their own advice as far as I'm concerned.

[The Straight Story]

6. I wasn't aware that there were no regulations on guns (nt)

[glowing]

10. Owning a gun should be similar to the likes of owning a car. It should be looked at like

a "privelage" (and cars are more necessary in everyday life than a gun). If you sell a car, a title and registration goes hand in hand with the "sale". If a father gives his son his car, the title and registration will be changed to reflect the new ownership. If the son is 16 and is "borrowing" family cars, then insurance must be placed on the child who will be using family vehicles and the insurance cost would increase. The insurance company requires a Driver's license from the family to insure the son to drive those vehicles.

So, if these are all American Loving idgits who have nothing to hide or fear, why is it gun owners aren't mandated to take classes, pass a gun safety course, obtain a license to kill, maintain insurance on the weapon, and make sure any family members who would be utilizing the weapon in the home also has their license and insurance to utilize the weapon. I would bet regulating weapons like they were the deadly weapons they are and making people insure theirselves to have a weapon in their home, the insurance companies would be making all kinds of rules and regulations in order to insure someone to own a weapon. At the very least, when someone accidentally shoots someone or themselves, there is an insurance policy to cover the medical and/ or pay out for the life lost by that weapon. The insurance companies would probably be handing out special safes that they monitored to know how often the gun owner had it out and about so they knew what types of fees to charge a gun owner. Eventually, it would be a real expense to own a weapon to go along with the responsibility that owning a weapon entails. With gun buy backs and a well regualted, insured protocols, illegal weapons would eventually be hard to obtain into the future.

[TheKentuckian]

18. It isn't a privilege, it is a right. Rights aren't about regularity of use or immediate utility.

While I would also argue we have an implied right of free passage to go where our pursuit of happiness takes us in our own land and a vehicle would seem critical to this, the right is not enumerated and folks structuring such laws had wiggle room to frame vehicle use as a privilege and nobody really complained for decades until it was used to frame an argument.

Now if you want to make vehicle use a right, I'll probably support that and I think ownership pretty functionally is, you can do whatever on your own private property, it is use of the public roads the carries almost all the restrictions.

[glowing]

22. No, its a right to have a well regulated militia. It is NOT a right to use weapons irresponsibly

or to take my life. This is the modern world, not the wild west. Unless you are using the weapon for a practical use, like hunting, then you are just messing around, and learning to target people to kill them. Sorry, but I have rights to live; not die from a stray bullet being shot up into the sky on New Years (and yes, a few people in my area were injured, 1 died from a stray shot up celebration bullet this New Year's... because the gun nutters think their guns are going to be taken away, more stupid shootings have occurred around me).

[TheKentuckian]

31. The well regulated militia is a rationale, the right is to the people to keep and bear arms.

That does not mean that anyone had a right to take your life other than in self defense nor to use firearms irresponsibly. Such things have criminal penalties.

[Marrah_G]

12. Do you feel better now? n/t

[hobbit709]

15. "This is STILL America This is STILL the civilized world"

you want to put money on that?

[Iggo]

24. Whoo-boy! I bet that felt good! (n/t)

[EastKYLiberal]

25. It's a fucking joke that anyone feels entitled to do anything they want at anytime.

Or that they should be able to do anything they want in complete privacy.

I'm frankly sick of the whining from both sides when it comes to security issues.

Banning public ownership of military weapons isn't the end of freedom anymore than having to walk by a few security cameras or having a few international phone calls monitored is the freedom.

Anyone willing to sacrifice sacrifice human life to ensure the ABSTRACT idea of liberty deserve neither.

[Agnosticsherbet]

27. Earp was regulating guns in Tombstone...

And the Clantons refused and thought they could fight. The Clantons were cattle rustlers, call that unregulated libertarian tea party capitalists.

[Quantess]

28. Holy shit.... this got past the jury?

The c word? Goood goddamn, that just isn't right.

[world wide wally]

29. Didn't mean to offend anyone. I was just pointing out the few words I could think of that are

"regulated" on television and wondering why guns can't be regulated a little more if speech can be.

[Quantess]

30. My first reaction is, this is just weird for the c-word to get past a jury on the DU.

I am generally anti-censorship of words. I am against word-policing of individual words, and always have been. It's the meanings behind the words that are important, and I have always said so.

I'm a woman and in general on the DU I have always seen too much emphasis placed on the offensiveness of individual words, such as the c- word, etc. without taking into account the context.

But it's jusy weird to see this get past a jury 2-4. Is this a good sign or a bad sign? Hard to say...