ban on assault weapons and 10 round clip limit

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Lexical [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Quick question, are you on drugs or do you really not know what is going on?

You're a fucking moron, lol.

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Lexical [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What I find funniest about your line of arguments is the fact that I can do the exact same motions and still be arguing for my side.

Yeah...fucking uncanny isn't it? Not that we'd need interpretation or definition for clarification...right?

Talk about making my fucking arguments for me, lol.

[Autotune]

If we are going to interpret which guns people can and can't have, then perhaps we should interpret what free speech people can and can't say.

Why not ban harsh words so that we no longer hurt people's feelings which could cause them to go on these murderous sprees?

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Autotune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If we are going to interpret which guns people can and can't have, then perhaps we should interpret what free speech people can and can't say.

Why not ban harsh words so that we no longer hurt people's feelings which could cause them to go on these murderous sprees?

What planet do you live on, bro?

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Autotune]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What planet do you live on, bro?

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

With this logic, the same one you do apparently.

[Resheph]

Originally Posted by Autotune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If we are going to interpret which guns people can and can't have, then perhaps we should interpret what free speech people can and can't say.

We already do.

* Go to the movies and yell 'fire!', lemme know how that turns out for ya.
* Catch a flight to... well, anywhere. Tell a random passenger you have a bomb. Talk to you in 20 years.
* Go to a beach and yell 'shark!' in the summer. I want a video.

[Autotune]

Originally Posted by Resheph [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

We already do.

* Go to the movies and yell 'fire!', lemme know how that turns out for ya.
* Catch a flight to... well, anywhere. Tell a random passenger you have a bomb. Talk to you in 20 years.
* Go to a beach and yell 'shark!' in the summer. I want a video.

All of those are less dangerous than what I spoke of. So why are those "illegal" as you say and what I say isn't?

[Humerox]

Let's let him off the hook, lol...

There are several common law exceptions including obscenity, defamation, incitement, incitement to riot or imminent lawless action, fighting words, fraud, speech covered by government granted monopoly (copyright), and speech integral to criminal conduct. There are federal criminal law statutory prohibitions covering all the common law exceptions other than defamation, of which there is civil law liability, as well as making false statements (lying) in "matters within the jurisdiction" of the federal government, speech related to information decreed to be related to national security such as military and classified information, false advertising, perjury, privileged communications, trade secrets, copyright, and patents. Most states and localities have many identical restrictions, as well as harassment, and time, place and manner restrictions.

Freedom of speech is also sometimes limited to free speech zones, which can take the form of a wire fence enclosure, barricades, or an alternative venue designed to segregate speakers according to the content of their message. There is much controversy surrounding the creation of these areas — the mere existence of such zones is offensive to some people, who maintain that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution makes the entire country an unrestricted free speech zone.

No definition or clarificaion needed there, either...is there Autotune? You know...since the Constitution is fucking clear about all this, right?

[Autotune]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Let's let him off the hook, lol...

There are several common law exceptions including obscenity, defamation, incitement, incitement to riot or imminent lawless action, fighting words, fraud, speech covered by government granted monopoly (copyright), and speech integral to criminal conduct. There are federal criminal law statutory prohibitions covering all the common law exceptions other than defamation, of which there is civil law liability, as well as making false statements (lying) in "matters within the jurisdiction" of the federal government, speech related to information decreed to be related to national security such as military and classified information, false advertising, perjury, privileged communications, trade secrets, copyright, and patents. Most states and localities have many identical restrictions, as well as harassment, and time, place and manner restrictions.

Freedom of speech is also sometimes limited to free speech zones, which can take the form of a wire fence enclosure, barricades, or an alternative venue designed to segregate speakers according to the content of their message. There is much controversy surrounding the creation of these areas — the mere existence of such zones is offensive to some people, who maintain that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution makes the entire country an unrestricted free speech zone.

No definition or clarificaion needed there, either...is there Autotune? You know...since the Constitution is fucking clear about all this, right?

So why not ban harsh language to keep from setting people off and limiting the amount of mass shootings?

[Resheph]

Originally Posted by Autotune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

All of those are less dangerous than what I spoke of. So why are those "illegal" as you say and what I say isn't?

I'm not saying anything you're saying is illegal. I'm simply pointing out that free speech has, indeed, been limited in scope.

This thread is something I come to when bored. TBH it's a pointless argument because those who are dead-set on their argument won't listen to anyone else and those in the middle have no argument because people either a) agree with them and don't need convincing or b) are so stuck on their own views they're impossible to convince.

It's like religion. You can point out fallacies in someone's religion for a decade and not get anywhere. Same for politics.