Shouting "Fire" in a crowded movie theater?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

Not protected under the First Amendment.

Actually firing into a crowded movie theater? Protected under the Second Amendment.

Ironic.

[RedStateLiberal]

1. Murdering people is not a right.

But I understand the point you were trying to make.

[Lionessa]

2. Firing is not protected. Never has been WTF? kind of bs strawman you got here.

Carrying is in some states protected, but firing is not.

Someone this calculated in his presentation would have gotten then gun somewhere, this wasn't a random act of violence, which are the only acts that strict gun laws can curb. These premeditated acts (and groups, like gangs) will be supplied with some suitable weapon. Had gun not been available, he might have chosen a bomb, and that would be even worse, but likely he'd have gotten hold of illegal guns.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

4. The point is....

just about any measure taken to prevent handgun violence is met with howls of "Second Amendment" from the NRA.

And your nihilistic attitude aside, I notice that nobody in Canada or anywhere in Europe is throwing bombs into movie theaters. You make it sound as though this kind of violence is like the tide coming in, and we should just be accepting because it's just going to happen anyway.

I refuse to accept it.

[Lionessa]

19. Then your point is poorly presented with bs strawman hype to start, and therefore not

worth bothering with as a separate OP, when so many other reasonable OPs are available.

Good day.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

23. I'm sorry to have wasted your time...

I'm sure you were out curing cancer today, and I reget having detained you.

[warrprayer]

54. He DID have bombs

his apartment was full of them. But he used a gun.

[Lionessa]

65. Yep, I read that just after I posted the above. Prior to that I had read the possibility, not the

definitive yes.

[snooper2]

3. apparently you can't masturbate in a movie theater either

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

5. Different gun (nt)

[GarroHorus]

6. So you are claiming this guy was not arrested and will not face charges?

That's the bullshit strawman you just put up.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

9. Look at Post #2

[GarroHorus]

13. I looked at that post and your bullshit response to it

Over the top rhetoric much?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

15. Thank you for that Content-Free (tm) Post

I'm not sure how one's rhetoric can be "over the top" after a dozen people have been slaughtered in a theater.

[Scootaloo]

57. While you make an OP trying to clear him of wrongdoing

by reason of insanity.

[GarroHorus]

59. Buh bye n/t

[Scootaloo]

63. Stings, doesn't it?

[FormalObserver]

7. Then what

was he arrested for?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

11. Look at Post #2

[uppityperson]

68. Lionessa's post? Yes. And?

[hifiguy]

8. FALSELY shouting fire in a crowed theater

is the actual phrase Justice Holmes used. Truthfully shouting "Fire" could save lives.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

10. Good point! (nt)

[Taverner]

12. Um, I don't think the second ammendment applies to deadly use of your weapon

Just that you can have one

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

14. Ask the NRA

Stand Your Ground? I can shoot the moment I get scared.

And (since I'm tired of retyping "See Post #2) my point is that any common sense attempt to reduce the number of guns circulating in our society is met with cries of "Second Amendment" from the NRA. They're telling their members about Obama's plans to suspend the second amendment when the guy hasn't done anything on guns.

[Taverner]

18. Stand your ground is a horrible law, and in no way is covered by the second ammendment

The NRA is crazy, remember that now

They fetishize their guns in an unnatural way

One might say they love guns more than people

So I don't listen to anything they have to say

But you are allowed the right to a weapon, and you are allowed the right to carry it on your person

Use it? That depends.

But that would be the same if you carried a baseball bat, a gasoline canister or a car going 60mph

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

21. That's not the NRA's position....

They think the second amendment gives you that right to own a flame thrower and to use it on the first (black) person about whom you feel vaguely threatened. And if you suggest that perhaps they're being a little loosey-goosey in their reading of the Constitution, they call you a communist and a homosexual.

Of course, I'm exaggerating in the OP for effect. I know that no reasonable person would argue that shooting up a movie theater is constitutionally protected. But how does a (one assumes) mentally unstable med school dropout lay his hands on that many weapons? Not that it matters, because the NRA doesn't want to close the gun show loophole, doesn't want laws prohibiting mass purchases of firearms, or purchases by strawman buyers, or waiting periods, or background checks. Or licensing and registration, for that matter.

According to the NRA, guns should be regulated with no more stringency than toaster ovens.

[Taverner]

28. And the NRA is crazy

Sure, they might have been sane at one point, but those days are long gone

My guess is that they are writing up a "from my cold dead hands" speech right now...

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

35. And here's the thing...

I'm a gun owner (three rifles and a shotgun). If I had the disposable income to afford a decent 9mm, I would certainly buy one.

I absolutely believe that law-abiding, sane adults should (with some common sense limits) be allowed to own firearms. Even though I have some qualms about it, I'm not totally opposed to conceal-carry legislation.

By some people's standards, I'm a goddam Freeper when it comes to firearms.

[Taverner]

64. Me neither - but I do think the NRA is off its rocker

[PavePusher]

30. You are not "exaggerating"...

you are outright lying to whip up some imagined moral hysteria with no basis in fact.

I'm sure someone, somewhere, must be quite proud of you.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

33. Imagined Moral Hysteria?

What part of "Twelve People Shot Dead In A Movie Theater" sounds imaginary to you?

[Ikonoklast]

44. Good thing none of the dead are any of *your* loved ones.

Good thing, right?

I'm sure your pals are proud of you, too, and your total lack of empathy.

Seems to be a trait of a certain segment of our society.

[PavePusher]

46. You have no idea what I feel, or where my friends and family members are.

Please avail yourself of the next opportunity to attempt aerial fornication with a rotationally transiting toroidal pastry.

[Ikonoklast]

56. I know exactly where you stand on this issue.

Guns before everything.

Your words betray you.

You fool no one here.

Go back to the cave.

[PavePusher]

67. You are wrong, but I can't help you with that.

Have a nice day.

[Progressive dog]

20. common sense and NRA don't go together

Good posts, but isn't it like beating your head against a wall?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

22. Pretty much, but I'm bored today (nt)

[4th law of robotics]

25. "I can shoot the moment I get scared."

No, that's not what it says.

Have you actually read any of the things you are opposed to or are you working solely on hearsay?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

31. That's what the NRA says...

Clearly you're not getting their literature. Stand Your Ground allows the use of deadly force any time there is a threat, without the obligation to first retreat. And since there's no way, other than my own confession, for law enforcement to know just how threatened I was, I can pretty much blaze away.

[4th law of robotics]

34. No, again you are incorrect

I suggest you do research on the subject.


First there is no "stand your ground law". There are a multitude of such laws each slightly different.

All of which require a "reasonable" belief of threat. Not simply a declaration on your part that you felt scared.

You can run in to a crowded mall scream that you're frightened and start blasting away, consequence-free.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

38. I'll do that. I'll do that right away...

because some guy on the internet that I've never met thinks I should.

Stand Your Ground is a state law, and so (yes) there are multiple variations on it. But the "reasonable" belief that there is a threat is pretty open to interpretation. Especially if there aren't any witnesses to contradict your story. If I tell the police that the unarmed black teenager was charging me, all I really have to do is make sure I shot the kid in the chest and not the back. Honest, officer, I was afraid for my life.

[4th law of robotics]

41. You seem opposed to doing any research

why is that?

Are you afraid learning any more would weaken your preconceived notions?

If so I suggest you not worry. The human mind is remarkable in it's ability to rationalize and ignore/downplay information that doesn't suit it's stereotypes.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

45. Yes. I'm terrified.

By God, You've Found Me Out!

I don't know what it is, but just the thought of Googling something just scares the BEJEEPERS out of me.

But here's something that might interst that remarkable mind of yours. Have you ever stopped to think that maybe YOU need to do a titch of research? Because your replies to me haven't actually been to provide any factual refutation to anything I've said, only to deny everything and claim that I need to learn more.

Maybe. And I'm only throwing this out as a possibly here. Just spit-balling. Maybe. Maybe you're the one who doesn't know what he's talking about.

[4th law of robotics]

51. One of us has made at least one blatantly untrue statement

about what SYG means.

It wasn't me.

So no, I'm not the one who "doesn't know what he's talking about".

You also claimed, quite falsely, that the 2nd protects firing in to a crowded theatre. Your facts are not straight.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

60. Thank God We Cleared That Up

If it wasn't you, then it must have been me. There's just no getting around a rock-solid argument like that.

But here's the thing. One of us is clearly a molester of small animals, and since it's not me, then it must be YOU! HA! WOAH! I totally pwned you on that one! High Five!! Didn't see it coming!

Look, I'd love to keep this up, but quite frankly, you're starting to bore me.

[4th law of robotics]

62. No, it was you

not simply because I *wasn't* wrong but because you were.

You have made at least two false statements. One that stand your ground laws protect anyone who claims to be afraid (ask this guy: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/texas-stand-ground-shooter-headed-prison-210731482.html). And two that the 2nd protects the right of citizens to shoot in to crowded movie theaters (do I even need a link for that one?).

But here's the thing. One of us is clearly a molester of small animals, and since it's not me, then it must be YOU! HA! WOAH! I totally pwned you on that one! High Five!! Didn't see it coming!

Except I said nothing to suggest I was. Whereas you have given ample evidence of your ignorance on this subject.

Look, I'd love to keep this up, but quite frankly, you're starting to bore me.

That is such a clever retort. You're probably the first person to ever use it after losing an argument on the internet.

[Go Vols]

40. .

They're telling their members about Obama's plans to suspend the second amendment when the guy hasn't done anything on guns.

He has actually done something on guns,he signed the bill that permits concealed loaded firearms at/in National Parks.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

42. That's right...

His only action regarding gun control has been to make gun controls looser. And he publicly approved of the overturning of the Washington DC ban on handguns.

Obama clearly has little interest in the subject, but you wouldn't know that from the NRA literature.

[uppityperson]

70. "Firing is not protected. Never has been WTF? kind of bs strawman you got here."???

"Carrying is in some states protected, but firing is not. "

Yup. I agree with post #2.

[Scootaloo]

58. Everyone's a "law abiding citizen" until they kill people

Of course by then it's a little late to revoke their rights to carry a weapon around.

[PavePusher]

16. Utterly untrue, of course. But thanks for trolling. n/t

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

17. No, no. Thank YOU for taking the bait (nt)

[ProgressiveProfessor]

26. Thanks for clearly admitting you are a troll

MIRT referral sent

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

29. Uh huh....

[4th law of robotics]

24. No . . . no . . . no it is not

it is neither protected by the 2nd amendment nor is it ironic.

[CBGLuthier]

27. Bad Analogies

Moronic.

[JonLP24]

32. This post doesn't make any sense

no matter how many ways I look at it.

Besides the shouting fire thing originated from a Supreme Court Justice(I believe Holmes) who ruled against a group protesting WWI - whose decision was later overturned.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

36. Seemed like a good idea at the time (nt)

[NCTraveler]

37. Serious Fail nt

[Marinedem]

39. Ummm, no. No it is not.

I'll send you a blank check if you can prove that statement.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

43. Read the rest of the thread

You come late to the party, you get the stale appetizers.

[uppityperson]

71. you forgot to tell him to read Lionessa's post #2 taking you to task.

[11 Bravo]

47. Remarkably glib!

Also remarkably foolish and outright dishonest. Firing into a crowded movie theater is in no way protected by any part of the U.S. Constitution.
And in case you're interested, I hold a VA concealed carry permit and own a .45, a 9mm, and three long guns. (All with trigger locks, and all safely ensconced in a gun safe.)

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

48. Thanks for noticing...

I always try to be remarkably glib. And carry breath mints because you just never know.

Since you're replying to the OP and clearly haven't read the rest of the thread, I'm not going to go through the whole thing with you. This thread has clearly passed its freshness date.

[11 Bravo]

49. Actually, I've read the entire thread, and yes I am responding to the OP.

That's kind of how this place functions. I hit "reply" in response to you. If I had chosen to reply to any other posters to this thread, I would have done so. See how it works?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

50. No. Could you explain that to me again?

Seriously. With nearly 10,000 posts I just don't know how to find my way around in here.

[11 Bravo]

61. I could try, but as you have acknowledged, after 10K posts, it would probably be a waste of time.

(Hey, we all have shortcomings. The fact that you can admit to yours is the first step toward conquering it.)

[Fresh_Start]

52. I call BS...

Firing into a crowded movie theater is NOT protected under the 2nd amendment

[elleng]

53. No, firing is in NO WAY protected.

(Unfortunately, carrying a firearm into public places is protected.)

[virgogal]

55. Ridiculous comparison. n/t

[madinmaryland]

66. Hmmm. Wonder if he will use the "Stand Your Ground" law? Gotta protect yourself against

all those crazy movie goers.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

69. Wow.

Holy shit, I'm no gun nut, but what a dumb fucking post.

[Nye Bevan]

72. Right. Because the "right to bear arms" is identical to the "right to perpetrate a massacre".

Stupidest post on this subject that I've seen so far. Congratulations.