obama not after your guns ?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

benjs said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

Last-12-Exit said:

I don't understand why people want to compare amendments. They're not the same. Yes, the first amendment covers most forms of speech. But it is illegal to yell fire in a movie theatre (when there isn't one). Why? Common sense. It puts peoples lives in danger.

I can't remember the government ever attempting to take any law abiding citizens guns. But make it illegal for a civilian to own a weapon designed for the military and you'd think you just killed their child. this country has never had or tried any form of gun control. Gun control does not infringe on your rights to own guns.

both amendments were made at the same time; why isn't fair to compare amendments? why is it ok to argue muskets but not the printing press? you can't have it both ways.

Because there is no essential difference between the results rendered by a printing press vs. a laser printer. But there is a huge difference between the results of the use of muskets vs. the kinds of weapons we have today. As Last mentioned: common sense.

I'd like to call for a ban on 300+ DPI printers. Anything less should be fine, but I am offended by high-resolution, crisp text output. And I'm tired of the high-res lobbyists telling me that laser printers and printing presses are the same, they clearly are not!

At a very minimum... charge more for the ink.

Or something.

WhatYouTaughtMe

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

benjs said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

Last-12-Exit said:

I don't understand why people want to compare amendments. They're not the same. Yes, the first amendment covers most forms of speech. But it is illegal to yell fire in a movie theatre (when there isn't one). Why? Common sense. It puts peoples lives in danger.

I can't remember the government ever attempting to take any law abiding citizens guns. But make it illegal for a civilian to own a weapon designed for the military and you'd think you just killed their child. this country has never had or tried any form of gun control. Gun control does not infringe on your rights to own guns.

both amendments were made at the same time; why isn't fair to compare amendments? why is it ok to argue muskets but not the printing press? you can't have it both ways.

Because there is no essential difference between the results rendered by a printing press vs. a laser printer. But there is a huge difference between the results of the use of muskets vs. the kinds of weapons we have today. As Last mentioned: common sense.

I'd like to call for a ban on 300+ DPI printers. Anything less should be fine, but I am offended by high-resolution, crisp text output. And I'm tired of the high-res lobbyists telling me that laser printers and printing presses are the same, they clearly are not!

At a very minimum... charge more for the ink.

Or something.

You kidding? That shit is already out of control!

Thirty Bills Unpaid

WhatYouTaughtMe said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

benjs said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

Last-12-Exit said:

I don't understand why people want to compare amendments. They're not the same. Yes, the first amendment covers most forms of speech. But it is illegal to yell fire in a movie theatre (when there isn't one). Why? Common sense. It puts peoples lives in danger.

I can't remember the government ever attempting to take any law abiding citizens guns. But make it illegal for a civilian to own a weapon designed for the military and you'd think you just killed their child. this country has never had or tried any form of gun control. Gun control does not infringe on your rights to own guns.

both amendments were made at the same time; why isn't fair to compare amendments? why is it ok to argue muskets but not the printing press? you can't have it both ways.

Because there is no essential difference between the results rendered by a printing press vs. a laser printer. But there is a huge difference between the results of the use of muskets vs. the kinds of weapons we have today. As Last mentioned: common sense.

I'd like to call for a ban on 300+ DPI printers. Anything less should be fine, but I am offended by high-resolution, crisp text output. And I'm tired of the high-res lobbyists telling me that laser printers and printing presses are the same, they clearly are not!

At a very minimum... charge more for the ink.

Or something.

You kidding? That shit is already out of control!

No shit. It's cheaper to buy a new printer than it is to buy an ink cartridge.

PJ_Soul

benjs said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

Last-12-Exit said:

I don't understand why people want to compare amendments. They're not the same. Yes, the first amendment covers most forms of speech. But it is illegal to yell fire in a movie theatre (when there isn't one). Why? Common sense. It puts peoples lives in danger.

I can't remember the government ever attempting to take any law abiding citizens guns. But make it illegal for a civilian to own a weapon designed for the military and you'd think you just killed their child. this country has never had or tried any form of gun control. Gun control does not infringe on your rights to own guns.

both amendments were made at the same time; why isn't fair to compare amendments? why is it ok to argue muskets but not the printing press? you can't have it both ways.

Because there is no essential difference between the results rendered by a printing press vs. a laser printer. But there is a huge difference between the results of the use of muskets vs. the kinds of weapons we have today. As Last mentioned: common sense.

I'd like to call for a ban on 300+ DPI printers. Anything less should be fine, but I am offended by high-resolution, crisp text output. And I'm tired of the high-res lobbyists telling me that laser printers and printing presses are the same, they clearly are not!

I'm thinking the printing presses from the 1700s might have killed a few people, but I've never heard of death by 300+ DPI printers.

dudeman

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

Last-12-Exit said:

I don't understand why people want to compare amendments. They're not the same. Yes, the first amendment covers most forms of speech. But it is illegal to yell fire in a movie theatre (when there isn't one). Why? Common sense. It puts peoples lives in danger.

I can't remember the government ever attempting to take any law abiding citizens guns. But make it illegal for a civilian to own a weapon designed for the military and you'd think you just killed their child. this country has never had or tried any form of gun control. Gun control does not infringe on your rights to own guns.

both amendments were made at the same time; why isn't fair to compare amendments? why is it ok to argue muskets but not the printing press? you can't have it both ways.

Because there is no essential difference between the results rendered by a printing press vs. a laser printer. But there is a huge difference between the results of the use of muskets vs. the kinds of weapons we have today. As Last mentioned: common sense.

Not much difference between printing press and laser printer but there is a world of difference between print media and 24 hour news channels and internet based news outlets that can broadcast globally in a matter of seconds. Propaganda spreads at the speed of light these days.

mcgruff10

rgambs said:

Mcgruff10, which well-regulated militia do you belong to?

I 'm in the nra and belong to a range. I also have a hunting license in the state of new york and new jersey and have legally owned weapons to protect my family. How's that sound?
and comparing the 2nd amendment to muskets is like saying the founding fathers only meant freedom of press was for the printing press. it's a dumb argument because the founding fathers knew that in time many things were going to change in this country. rights do not change just because technology advances.

mickeyrat

this could be a good argument FOR some to be denied guns......

http://www.newsnet5.com/news/local-news/oh-huron/sheriff-huron-county-woman-shot-dead-by-neighbor-for-mowing-her-lawn-too-late-at-night

Smellyman

mcgruff10 said:

rgambs said:

Mcgruff10, which well-regulated militia do you belong to?

I 'm in the nra and belong to a range. I also have a hunting license in the state of new york and new jersey and have legally owned weapons to protect my family. How's that sound?
and comparing the 2nd amendment to muskets is like saying the founding fathers only meant freedom of press was for the printing press. it's a dumb argument because the founding fathers knew that in time many things were going to change in this country. rights do not change just because technology advances.

woot!

PJ_Soul

dudeman said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

Last-12-Exit said:

I don't understand why people want to compare amendments. They're not the same. Yes, the first amendment covers most forms of speech. But it is illegal to yell fire in a movie theatre (when there isn't one). Why? Common sense. It puts peoples lives in danger.

I can't remember the government ever attempting to take any law abiding citizens guns. But make it illegal for a civilian to own a weapon designed for the military and you'd think you just killed their child. this country has never had or tried any form of gun control. Gun control does not infringe on your rights to own guns.

both amendments were made at the same time; why isn't fair to compare amendments? why is it ok to argue muskets but not the printing press? you can't have it both ways.

Because there is no essential difference between the results rendered by a printing press vs. a laser printer. But there is a huge difference between the results of the use of muskets vs. the kinds of weapons we have today. As Last mentioned: common sense.

Not much difference between printing press and laser printer but there is a world of difference between print media and 24 hour news channels and internet based news outlets that can broadcast globally in a matter of seconds. Propaganda spreads at the speed of light these days.

So it's the speed of propaganda that bothers you?? Pretty sure the first amendment is about free speech, not anti-propaganda. Sorry, just not seeing the connection there. I'll put it this way: I don't think the first amendment would really be any different if those who wrote it could see the future. The speed at which info is spread has no impact on what the amendment stands for. But i think the second amendment would be very different if they could have seen the future.

Smellyman

mickeyrat said:

this could be a good argument FOR some to be denied guns......

http://www.newsnet5.com/news/local-news/oh-huron/sheriff-huron-county-woman-shot-dead-by-neighbor-for-mowing-her-lawn-too-late-at-night

Just protecting his family from noise pollution

mcgruff10

PJ_Soul said:

dudeman said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

Last-12-Exit said:

I don't understand why people want to compare amendments. They're not the same. Yes, the first amendment covers most forms of speech. But it is illegal to yell fire in a movie theatre (when there isn't one). Why? Common sense. It puts peoples lives in danger.

I can't remember the government ever attempting to take any law abiding citizens guns. But make it illegal for a civilian to own a weapon designed for the military and you'd think you just killed their child. this country has never had or tried any form of gun control. Gun control does not infringe on your rights to own guns.

both amendments were made at the same time; why isn't fair to compare amendments? why is it ok to argue muskets but not the printing press? you can't have it both ways.

Because there is no essential difference between the results rendered by a printing press vs. a laser printer. But there is a huge difference between the results of the use of muskets vs. the kinds of weapons we have today. As Last mentioned: common sense.

Not much difference between printing press and laser printer but there is a world of difference between print media and 24 hour news channels and internet based news outlets that can broadcast globally in a matter of seconds. Propaganda spreads at the speed of light these days.

So it's the speed of propaganda that bothers you?? Pretty sure the first amendment is about free speech, not anti-propaganda. Sorry, just not seeing the connection there. I'll put it this way: I don't think the first amendment wouod really be an different if those who wrote it could see the future. But i think the second amendment would be very different if they could have seen the future.

coming off of using weapons to gain freedom from an oppressive government? yeah I'm not feeling that one mrs. pjsoul.

dudeman

mickeyrat said:

this could be a good argument FOR some to be denied guns......

http://www.newsnet5.com/news/local-news/oh-huron/sheriff-huron-county-woman-shot-dead-by-neighbor-for-mowing-her-lawn-too-late-at-night

Well , if the accused is tried and convicted, he will lose his 2nd Amendment rights. Are you implying that anyone else should? Do you believe other law abiding citizens should face penalties because of one murderer's actions?

Last-12-Exit

mcgruff10 said:

rgambs said:

Mcgruff10, which well-regulated militia do you belong to?

I 'm in the nra and belong to a range. I also have a hunting license in the state of new york and new jersey and have legally owned weapons to protect my family. How's that sound?
and comparing the 2nd amendment to muskets is like saying the founding fathers only meant freedom of press was for the printing press. it's a dumb argument because the founding fathers knew that in time many things were going to change in this country. rights do not change just because technology advances.

No, it's not like that. And I'm not comparing the Second amendment to muskets. What does that mean? I said when that amendment was written, the musket was the most powerful weapon known to man. That's not comparing. It's stating fact.

if "rights" don't change, then why can't you yell fire in a movie theater?

mcgruff10

Last-12-Exit said:

mcgruff10 said:

rgambs said:

Mcgruff10, which well-regulated militia do you belong to?

I 'm in the nra and belong to a range. I also have a hunting license in the state of new york and new jersey and have legally owned weapons to protect my family. How's that sound?
and comparing the 2nd amendment to muskets is like saying the founding fathers only meant freedom of press was for the printing press. it's a dumb argument because the founding fathers knew that in time many things were going to change in this country. rights do not change just because technology advances.

No, it's not like that. And I'm not comparing the Second amendment to muskets. What does that mean? I said when that amendment was written, the musket was the most powerful weapon known to man. That's not comparing. It's stating fact.

if "rights" don't change, then why can't you yell fire in a movie theater?

well there were no movie theater's in the 1700's so i'm guessing the founding fathers didn't think of that one. that was probably decided upon somewhere in the 1900's right around the time semi-automatic weapons were made.

Last-12-Exit

mcgruff10 said:

Last-12-Exit said:

mcgruff10 said:

rgambs said:

Mcgruff10, which well-regulated militia do you belong to?

I 'm in the nra and belong to a range. I also have a hunting license in the state of new york and new jersey and have legally owned weapons to protect my family. How's that sound?
and comparing the 2nd amendment to muskets is like saying the founding fathers only meant freedom of press was for the printing press. it's a dumb argument because the founding fathers knew that in time many things were going to change in this country. rights do not change just because technology advances.

No, it's not like that. And I'm not comparing the Second amendment to muskets. What does that mean? I said when that amendment was written, the musket was the most powerful weapon known to man. That's not comparing. It's stating fact.

if "rights" don't change, then why can't you yell fire in a movie theater?

well there were no movie theater's in the 1700's so i'm guessing the founding fathers didn't think of that one. that was probably decided upon somewhere in the 1900's right around the time semi-automatic weapons were made.

Exactly. So rights can change based on technology.

mcgruff10

Last-12-Exit said:

mcgruff10 said:

Last-12-Exit said:

mcgruff10 said:

rgambs said:

Mcgruff10, which well-regulated militia do you belong to?

I 'm in the nra and belong to a range. I also have a hunting license in the state of new york and new jersey and have legally owned weapons to protect my family. How's that sound?
and comparing the 2nd amendment to muskets is like saying the founding fathers only meant freedom of press was for the printing press. it's a dumb argument because the founding fathers knew that in time many things were going to change in this country. rights do not change just because technology advances.

No, it's not like that. And I'm not comparing the Second amendment to muskets. What does that mean? I said when that amendment was written, the musket was the most powerful weapon known to man. That's not comparing. It's stating fact.

if "rights" don't change, then why can't you yell fire in a movie theater?

well there were no movie theater's in the 1700's so i'm guessing the founding fathers didn't think of that one. that was probably decided upon somewhere in the 1900's right around the time semi-automatic weapons were made.

Exactly. So rights can change based on technology.

yeah no, you are wrong on that one.

dudeman

PJ_Soul said:

dudeman said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

Last-12-Exit said:

I don't understand why people want to compare amendments. They're not the same. Yes, the first amendment covers most forms of speech. But it is illegal to yell fire in a movie theatre (when there isn't one). Why? Common sense. It puts peoples lives in danger.

I can't remember the government ever attempting to take any law abiding citizens guns. But make it illegal for a civilian to own a weapon designed for the military and you'd think you just killed their child. this country has never had or tried any form of gun control. Gun control does not infringe on your rights to own guns.

both amendments were made at the same time; why isn't fair to compare amendments? why is it ok to argue muskets but not the printing press? you can't have it both ways.

Because there is no essential difference between the results rendered by a printing press vs. a laser printer. But there is a huge difference between the results of the use of muskets vs. the kinds of weapons we have today. As Last mentioned: common sense.

Not much difference between printing press and laser printer but there is a world of difference between print media and 24 hour news channels and internet based news outlets that can broadcast globally in a matter of seconds. Propaganda spreads at the speed of light these days.

So it's the speed of propaganda that bothers you?? Pretty sure the first amendment is about free speech, not anti-propaganda. Sorry, just not seeing the connection there. I'll put it this way: I don't think the first amendment would really be any different if those who wrote it could see the future. The speed at which info is spread has no impact on what the amendment stands for. But i think the second amendment would be very different if they could have seen the future.

Not the speed of propaganda per se, just the fact that a news story can reach literally, billions of people in a matter of seconds. The media is far more powerful and can therefore influence more people than they could in the 1700's. Guns are more powerful and effective now as compared to the 1700's, too.

I'm just saying that comparing a printing press to a laser printer and a musket to modern military weapons is inappropriate. Substitute the laser printer for the internet and satellite communications and we're closer to accurate, IMHO.

Last-12-Exit

mcgruff10 said:

Last-12-Exit said:

mcgruff10 said:

Last-12-Exit said:

mcgruff10 said:

rgambs said:

Mcgruff10, which well-regulated militia do you belong to?

I 'm in the nra and belong to a range. I also have a hunting license in the state of new york and new jersey and have legally owned weapons to protect my family. How's that sound?
and comparing the 2nd amendment to muskets is like saying the founding fathers only meant freedom of press was for the printing press. it's a dumb argument because the founding fathers knew that in time many things were going to change in this country. rights do not change just because technology advances.

No, it's not like that. And I'm not comparing the Second amendment to muskets. What does that mean? I said when that amendment was written, the musket was the most powerful weapon known to man. That's not comparing. It's stating fact.

if "rights" don't change, then why can't you yell fire in a movie theater?

well there were no movie theater's in the 1700's so i'm guessing the founding fathers didn't think of that one. that was probably decided upon somewhere in the 1900's right around the time semi-automatic weapons were made.

Exactly. So rights can change based on technology.

yeah no, you are wrong on that one.

mcgruff10

Last-12-Exit said:

mcgruff10 said:

Last-12-Exit said:

mcgruff10 said:

Last-12-Exit said:

mcgruff10 said:

rgambs said:

Mcgruff10, which well-regulated militia do you belong to?

I 'm in the nra and belong to a range. I also have a hunting license in the state of new york and new jersey and have legally owned weapons to protect my family. How's that sound?
and comparing the 2nd amendment to muskets is like saying the founding fathers only meant freedom of press was for the printing press. it's a dumb argument because the founding fathers knew that in time many things were going to change in this country. rights do not change just because technology advances.

No, it's not like that. And I'm not comparing the Second amendment to muskets. What does that mean? I said when that amendment was written, the musket was the most powerful weapon known to man. That's not comparing. It's stating fact.

if "rights" don't change, then why can't you yell fire in a movie theater?

well there were no movie theater's in the 1700's so i'm guessing the founding fathers didn't think of that one. that was probably decided upon somewhere in the 1900's right around the time semi-automatic weapons were made.

Exactly. So rights can change based on technology.

yeah no, you are wrong on that one.

Right! Founding fathers had no clue about movie theaters or semi automatic weapons. So rights do not change based on technology. If that s the case then freedom of press is based on the printing press.

mickeyrat

mcgruff10 said:

Last-12-Exit said:

mcgruff10 said:

Last-12-Exit said:

mcgruff10 said:

Last-12-Exit said:

mcgruff10 said:

rgambs said:

Mcgruff10, which well-regulated militia do you belong to?

I 'm in the nra and belong to a range. I also have a hunting license in the state of new york and new jersey and have legally owned weapons to protect my family. How's that sound?
and comparing the 2nd amendment to muskets is like saying the founding fathers only meant freedom of press was for the printing press. it's a dumb argument because the founding fathers knew that in time many things were going to change in this country. rights do not change just because technology advances.

No, it's not like that. And I'm not comparing the Second amendment to muskets. What does that mean? I said when that amendment was written, the musket was the most powerful weapon known to man. That's not comparing. It's stating fact.

if "rights" don't change, then why can't you yell fire in a movie theater?

well there were no movie theater's in the 1700's so i'm guessing the founding fathers didn't think of that one. that was probably decided upon somewhere in the 1900's right around the time semi-automatic weapons were made.

Exactly. So rights can change based on technology.

yeah no, you are wrong on that one.

Right! Founding fathers had no clue about movie theaters or semi automatic weapons. So rights do not change based on technology. If that s the case then freedom of press is based on the printing press.

but speech itself is still speech. I am free to say and be as critical as I deem fit against our government. Which is really what that right is about.