This is going to pi$$ off a lot of people, but

[Mackey]

FIFY I believe

In a discussion based on what's "socially acceptible" those little differences can mean the world. What I "can do," "cannot do," "should do," and "should not do" are all VERY different things and highly relative.

Two dogs, a young foolish dog and an old wise dog, were sitting in their yard
when the top dog of the neighborhood stops by and takes a crap right in front of them.
"Are you going to just let him get away with that?" asks the young foolish dog.
"Well, he's the top dog, he can do whatever he wants." replied the old wise dog.
"Well then, if he can do it I can do it." snarled the young dog.
The old dog shook his head.
"In this life," said the wise dog, "it's not what you CAN DO ...."
"It's what you DO DO"

 

[IndyDave1776]

It is not often that i find myself completely devoid of an opinion on a subject, but the two different approaches of either slowly conditioning the sheep or else having a Rosa Parks-style hard, fast, in-your-face protest seems to be an interesting question to ponder.

Perhaps Mr. Ortega should add a poll on this subject?

 

[MTC]

It is not often that i find myself completely devoid of an opinion on a subject, but the two different approaches of either slowly conditioning the sheep or else having a Rosa Parks-style hard, fast, in-your-face protest seems to be an interesting question to ponder.

Dave, just curious. Where did you get that there were "two different approaches" and, maybe I missed it but who said anything about a "hard, fast, in-your-face protest"?

 

[downzero]

I think the comparison to the 1st Amendment is a good one. Sure, you have free speech, but if you use that free speech to threaten someone, you will run afoul of the law. If you make a perfectly innocent statement, but it is taken as a threat, you could be in jeopardy until your intent is determined.

Except that's not (quite) the law. The doctrine is called "true threat."

While each circumstance depends on its particular facts, not everything that might be perceived as a "threat" is void of any first amendment protection. The test is far narrower than that, and for good reason.

When there's a claim of right on one side (like free speech), absent compelling evidence to the contrary, that claim of right deserves deference and respect ... even for people we might not like very much.

 

[downzero]

Boy, I hate to break this to you, Downzero, but our so-called constitutional rights are hanging by a thread. That little clause in the 2nd Amendment, "A well regulated militia" is all that the antis need to beat the thing into an unrecognizable gaggle of loose words. One more SCOTUS "bad" justice and it could be gone in a flash. Remember, it was just a 5-4 vote last year that affirmed that the 2nd applied to citizens as individuals. It could have gone the other way.

I didn't know that the strength of Supreme Court holdings depended on vote count. Should I be concerned that Miranda v. Arizona is going to be overruled as well, or do you think that since everyone who decided it is literally dead, that the decision can stand for a little while?

It also seems that you got at least one fact wrong. District of Columbia v. Heller was decided in 2008.

 

[mrortega]

I didn't know that the strength of Supreme Court holdings depended on vote count. Should I be concerned that Miranda v. Arizona is going to be overruled as well, or do you think that since everyone who decided it is literally dead, that the decision can stand for a little while?

It also seems that you got at least one fact wrong. District of Columbia v. Heller was decided in 2008.

2008 was a good year.

What else besides vote count does the SC do? They make the law. Never mind the stuff we were taught in Civics about the courts interpreting the law the reality is that the SC very much legislates. African Americans were deemed to not be legal persons by vote count of the SC. Then when the votes changed they suddenly were. I'm very much afraid that in the not-so-distant future a new majority will find reasons to reverse some of the rights we now enjoy. Vote count is everything. It trumps even the intent of the framers.

 

[Compuvette]

Rosa Parks.

I'm sorry, but every time I see this and the comparison to gay rights I get a little pissed. Again, Rosa Parks didn't choose to be black. We are comparing how we CHOOSE to exercise a right to discrimination based on race or sexual orientation. That doesn't add up. You cannot compare the repercussions of your choices to someone being targeted for how they were born.

To the OP, yes I think we need to show a little common sense. There have been "reasonable" limits on the first amendment so I'm not shocked that there could be more limits on the second. It can, has, and could happen.

 

[Cpt Caveman]

If I looked out my window and saw a dude sitting in a lawn chair with binoculars and a rifle looking at my house, I'd be getting MY rifle!

 

[88E30M50]

Justin Bieber?

Heck, I think even I would do a MWAG call if I saw him carrying.

 

[ViperJock]

Outlawing the bearing of arms would be illegal.

The mob can't just get whatever the mob demands on any particular day and they can't elect anyone with the authority to do so.



I speak for millions.

Sure they can. It's called "democracy." Where 51% of the voters can take the rights away from the other 49%.

 

[CathyInBlue]

If no one is making waves, then the boat isn't going anywhere. People have to make waves for the "ship of state" to make forward progress. (Note the lower case on that last word.)

 

[ATM]

Please explain super restrictive gun laws in some major cities plus Illinois.

Too many passive citizens there lulled into believing they are slaves to the state rather than its masters.

Sure they can. It's called "democracy." Where 51% of the voters can take the rights away from the other 49%.

Well then, thank goodness we are a Constitutional Republic rather than this mob rule system you are describing.

 

[Compuvette]

Too many passive citizens there lulled into believing they are slaves to the state rather than its masters.



Well then, thank goodness we are a Constitutional Republic rather than this mob rule system you are describing.

I think the issue here is should this happen, or can it happen. You are stating it shouldn't and I agree. He is stating that it does happen, and it does. Reality vs. theory.

There are a lot of things that shouldn't happen but do.

 

[mrortega]

Too many passive citizens there lulled into believing they are slaves to the state rather than its masters.



Well then, thank goodness we are a Constitutional Republic rather than this mob rule system you are describing.

My wife gets very upset and asks, "How could people like O'bama get elected?" I repeat the name of a pipefitter who worked for me. I tell her he and a lot of his buds vote straight Democrat no matter what other issue is at stake because they're "for the working man." That's the problem with Chicago/Illinois politics. Each special interest votes for their promised goodies: Black for special treatment (affirmative action); labor for Davis Bacon guarantees on public bids; gays for all the promises they are made; etc. Pretty soon the Dems have a majority and to hell with the rest of us.

That's why I'm so concerned about what CAN happen. I know 95% of African Americans are not pro abortion or pro gay marriage but they helped put the biggest pro abort into the White House. I know plenty of pro life union plumbers but they won't vote other than Democrat. So when it comes to the 2nd Amendment they couldn't care less.

 

[ATM]

I think the issue here is should this happen, or can it happen. You are stating it shouldn't and I agree. He is stating that it does happen, and it does. Reality vs. theory.

There are a lot of things that shouldn't happen but do.

I might be more worried if I chose to live in one of those foul places where further illegal infringements are popularly tolerated and accepted.

 

[ATM]

...Bacon...

Your last post really caught my attention.

 

[ViperJock]

Well then, thank goodness we are a Constitutional Republic rather than this mob rule system you are describing.

HAHA good one! Oh, wait was that a joke? I just assumed it was....

 

[88E30M50]

This is the goal. The biggest problem we face in getting there is that too many sheep see armed civilians as the threat to be handled, not the solution to be embraced. I think that within 5 years, we will see either this, or we will see a complete police state. It could go either way.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Thing is, that fine, fine example of Israeli womanhood (Does this AR make my butt look big?) isn't, in the strict American sense of the word, a civilian. She's a member of the Israeli military, and to my understanding, they are required to take their battle rifles with them everywhere they go, even when in civilian clothing.

 

[ATM]

Thing is, that fine, fine example of Israeli womanhood (Does this AR make my butt look big?) isn't, in the strict American sense of the word, a civilian. She's a member of the Israeli military, and to my understanding, they are required to take their battle rifles with them everywhere they go, even when in civilian clothing.

...exactly the same as it once was in colonial America.

Although the requirement has faded with time, the Constitutional provision for such still remains.