General Discussion

auburngrad82

(5,029 posts)

151. How about you can keep speaking freely, but

Tue May 14, 2013, 11:50 AM

May 2013

you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Oh wait, you can't. But the First Amendment IS still in the Constitution and I don't see people arguing that being able to yell "fire" is protected under the First Amendment.

Explain to me how there are certain forms of speech, such as the example of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, that are not allowed, and it's okay, but ANY form of gun control is bad. That's the part that confuses me.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

307 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Help me understand , why is semi automatic in a rifle so important to gun owners here? [View all] newmember May 2013 OP

Because it's the next best thing to a machine gun. onehandle May 2013 #1

I think there are mods to somewhat easily make it fully automatic DrDan May 2013 #205

nope Duckhunter935 May 2013 #206

so what do you think about the following response about making an AR15 fully automatic? DrDan May 2013 #226

Yeah TnDem May 2013 #227

The correct lower receiver being an AR-15 made before, I believe, 1986 premium May 2013 #230

Not even true, premium May 2013 #210

slippery slope booley May 2013 #2

slippery slope to a safer country. JaneyVee May 2013 #4

slippery slope that leads to fewer gun deaths. samsingh May 2013 #7

How about choosing a better slope? appal_jack May 2013 #16

how does gun control erode gun rights? samsingh May 2013 #111

I don't know, ask the guy that was arrested in New York for having two extra bullets in a magazine. SlimJimmy May 2013 #146

how about the rights of the student that was shot by a security guard? samsingh May 2013 #158

What does that have to do with shooting rabbits with a semi-auto shotgun? SlimJimmy May 2013 #160

but you have your guns while the student has bullets shot into his body samsingh May 2013 #195

My right to own and use that shotgun in a lawful manner has no connection SlimJimmy May 2013 #198

but others who own guns are hurting innocent people who are not enjoying samsingh May 2013 #208

So let's remove that right from the 99.99% who are not hurting people with guns. SlimJimmy May 2013 #233

wouldn't you want to examine approaches that could save innocent victims? samsingh May 2013 #299

I'm not willing to examine an approach that removes a right from 99.99% of those that have SlimJimmy May 2013 #300

its quite a circular argument i'm reading samsingh May 2013 #302

What effect would those initiatives have on the 99.99% that do not commit gun crimes? SlimJimmy May 2013 #303

i don't think you have an argument but your statement echo the circular samsingh May 2013 #304

Typical response. Oh, you are sooooo right, I can't think for myself or have an opinion. I SlimJimmy May 2013 #305

i would love to c the empirical evidence to support the 99.99% claim.btw i think you mean .01 above samsingh May 2013 #306

There are approximatey 52 million households with firearms in the US, and approximately SlimJimmy May 2013 #307

aw, two tiny little bullets...why,they wouldn't hurt a flea... CTyankee May 2013 #209

If you think those that would use a firearm in an illegal manner would follow this limit on SlimJimmy May 2013 #234

We should, as a nation, be able to solve the gun violence calamity that grips our country. CTyankee May 2013 #248

We don't have a national emergency of gun violence, premium May 2013 #251

I agree with everything you say you favor. CTyankee May 2013 #257

That's a fair point. premium May 2013 #259

I'd like to get back to the point you made earlier about having a more just society, clean CTyankee May 2013 #260

Much different cultures. premium May 2013 #261

That doesn't explain Norway, even if it does explain France or Germany. CTyankee May 2013 #262

There's this group. premium May 2013 #263

That sounds liike a good group and very badly needed! CTyankee May 2013 #264

Thank you, premium May 2013 #265

I like Premium's answer, so let me piggyback a bit on it. Curbing gun violence is not a SlimJimmy May 2013 #253

Some problems with your owning that semi-automatic. What happens if that gun is stolen CTyankee May 2013 #258

You, clearly, have never been out hunting rabbits. A rabbit is a moving target and may take SlimJimmy May 2013 #266

I wasn't arguing about your rabbit hunting. You are right, I know nothing about hunting CTyankee May 2013 #267

There is no legal culpability if the gun owner is obeying all appropriate laws hack89 May 2013 #269

OK, do you think that state laws prohibiting a gun owner from transporting his gun, fully CTyankee May 2013 #270

What would be the point of such a law? hack89 May 2013 #271

well, would state laws regulating the manner in which the gun is transported be CTyankee May 2013 #272

Of course not. hack89 May 2013 #273

In any states more than others (as far as you know, of course)? CTyankee May 2013 #274

I am not sure. hack89 May 2013 #275

It appears that there is a "time, place and manner" restriction of some sort on the CTyankee May 2013 #278

Heller tells you what the limits are right now. hack89 May 2013 #280

No, I don't think so. CTyankee May 2013 #283

Does the will of the people always rule supreme? hack89 May 2013 #285

Even Scalia said in Heller that there could be regulations on guns. CTyankee May 2013 #286

I have consistently said that there are limits on the 2A hack89 May 2013 #287

well, no. If it were that simple we wouldn't have the federal courts, esp. the Supreme Court, tell CTyankee May 2013 #290

No shit. Who else but the courts determines what is Constitutional? hack89 May 2013 #291

so my point is that there are lots of gun control laws that we can have but we don't. CTyankee May 2013 #292

No kidding - what do you think my original point was? hack89 May 2013 #293

two points: I don't consider going back to the law before Heller radical and CTyankee May 2013 #294

There was no real law prior to Heller hack89 May 2013 #295

Sure it did change things significantly. That was the whole point. CTyankee May 2013 #296

If the gun owner had his weapons in his home, laying outl, or in a safe, or in his vehicle for SlimJimmy May 2013 #279

actually, I was drawing that distinction between the gun owner who loses possession of CTyankee May 2013 #282

Fair enough. SlimJimmy May 2013 #288

But we wouldn't be , they could still own every other type newmember May 2013 #6

OK, how about you can keep speaking freely, but... appal_jack May 2013 #18

Clearly that's a good analogy , high rate of fire weapons versus typewriters newmember May 2013 #31

See: the Rwandan genocide. appal_jack May 2013 #38

So you want to limit speech since it can be dangerous? but not limit guns that are dangerous newmember May 2013 #43

Nope. Fail. appal_jack May 2013 #45

I was just posting in jest , I know you weren't advocating that. newmember May 2013 #47

Oh. Good! appal_jack May 2013 #55

How about you can keep speaking freely, but auburngrad82 May 2013 #151

I'm not petitioning the government for unfettered access to an RPG derby378 May 2013 #201

Just to clarify: the quote is "falsely" yell fire. CTyankee May 2013 #297

If you'd ever hunted rabbits, you'd quickly understand the value of a semi-automatic shotgun. SlimJimmy May 2013 #156

You called? SlipperySlope May 2013 #105

I don't get it either. JaneyVee May 2013 #3

I'm trying to understand it from all sides newmember May 2013 #22

If semi-autos are banned wercal May 2013 #48

My father has a Remington Model 8 semi-auto rifle Jenoch May 2013 #103

The semi-auto rifle in my safe was built in 1905. Eleanors38 May 2013 #132

I think it's more important to people who are afraid of guns than to gun owners, but that might... NYC_SKP May 2013 #5

Will I get dog piled in there? newmember May 2013 #8

I think half the tension would be gone if we could agree on some education. NYC_SKP May 2013 #9

I agree with your point on education. Jenoch May 2013 #104

Just who is it that are afraid of guns? I really upaloopa May 2013 #10

They are good family fun. What better way to spend quality time with the family Hoyt May 2013 #11

It can be good family fun... Pelican May 2013 #44

Well, you finally got something right, premium May 2013 #52

I grt it was good for you. Unfortunately, guns are not so good for others and society. Hoyt May 2013 #57

Only if they're used in a bad way or irresponsibly. nt. premium May 2013 #61

Which, of course, they routinely are. And thousands of innocents pay the price. Arugula Latte May 2013 #113

Rifles of ALL sorts account for <3% of ALL homicides. Eleanors38 May 2013 #129

Nope. We're talking about rifles Recursion May 2013 #177

Did you find semi-automatic rifles a necessary part of hunting? muriel_volestrangler May 2013 #118

When out hunting rabbits, squirrels, game birds with my .22, premium May 2013 #124

Would you be able to hunt with a restriction to, say, 3 rounds before reloading? muriel_volestrangler May 2013 #134

I don't hunt anymore, premium May 2013 #135

In areas where feral hogs are over-running the landscape, AR-15s are the choice Eleanors38 May 2013 #137

Anyone out to 'eradicate' an entire population of animals ought to have a special licence muriel_volestrangler May 2013 #145

I used "eradication" more as wishful thinking... Eleanors38 May 2013 #147

They only look "menacing" to those that don't know any better. N/T beevul May 2013 #84

And that's the reason folks who covet them are attracted. Hoyt May 2013 #90

You keep asserting it as if it were true... beevul May 2013 #91

You just said it in post above. Hoyt May 2013 #93

No hoyt, I did not. beevul May 2013 #98

I realize you are making an attempt at sarcasm. Jenoch May 2013 #106

Most unfortunately... sarisataka May 2013 #12

Wow. I have never known Jenoch May 2013 #108

Through trial and error sarisataka May 2013 #143

why is semi automatic in a rifle so important to gun owners? HeiressofBickworth May 2013 #13

My husband and I have fun shooting at the range. Mojorabbit May 2013 #80

Would your fun be diminshed by having to pause between shots? muriel_volestrangler May 2013 #119

Pretty obvious you don't know jack about gun owners. premium May 2013 #82

Finding courage in the wrong place: Junkdrawer May 2013 #14

Yeah, what's the big deal about any Constitutional rights?!1??11/!! appal_jack May 2013 #15

No where did I say your rifles would harm me. newmember May 2013 #17

If you are not afraid of harm, then why ban? n/t appal_jack May 2013 #20

for the good of our society ,future of our country newmember May 2013 #24

Not gonna happen. appal_jack May 2013 #28

It seems like you do... Pelican May 2013 #46

I do think the future of our country is our children and the state we leave it in . newmember May 2013 #49

It's hard to believe someone on DU would post thucythucy May 2013 #138

I think the Dems are sensitive to the gun issue because so many of our leaders have alfredo May 2013 #25

The passage of the 1968 Gun Control Act was due primarily to Eleanors38 May 2013 #141

I wonder what percentage of gun sales are because of the fear of Blacks? alfredo May 2013 #157

The present massive increase is more likely due to Eleanors38 May 2013 #159

There's always a surge in gun sales whenever a Dem takes office. I still haven't seen any real alfredo May 2013 #171

Actually, the big increase in gun sales has been going on Eleanors38 May 2013 #172

We know we are the targets. alfredo May 2013 #174

Who is "we," and who is doing the targeting? Eleanors38 May 2013 #179

That's up to the right wing media and the Tea Party. One week it is gays, next week it is Muslims. alfredo May 2013 #180

Well, they'd have a rude surprise when they discover premium May 2013 #182

True, I just don't want it to come to that. alfredo May 2013 #183

And neither do I. premium May 2013 #184

Anarchy only serves the powerful. alfredo May 2013 #186

You've got that right. nt. premium May 2013 #187

Keep safe. Try to stand up to 'em. Eleanors38 May 2013 #281

Here is Chris Rock's take on the Columbine shooting CTyankee May 2013 #298

Really, which of our leaders have been assassinated by RW gun toting nuts? hughee99 May 2013 #190

Sirhan Sirhan was a Christian nationalist angry over RFK's support alfredo May 2013 #197

I'm not sure he's a fit with what is considered RW nutbags these days, hughee99 May 2013 #199

When we see or hear of armed right wingers shooting Obama targets, or Hillary targets, alfredo May 2013 #204

What? Does the 3rd Amendment mean nothing to you? Tommy_Carcetti May 2013 #26

I am pleased with my current ability to exercise my 3rd Amendment rights. appal_jack May 2013 #36

I don't get the people who cite discrepancies in fire power between individuals and cops or military morningfog May 2013 #29

it's one of their paranoid fantasies, morningwood, er, fog Skittles May 2013 #33

One doesn't need to match the firepower of the state. Megalo_Man May 2013 #81

So, people who use this argument are suggesting that morningfog May 2013 #88

RE: Megalo_Man May 2013 #97

Then you are imagining some act of war morningfog May 2013 #120

Re-read what I said a few times. Megalo_Man May 2013 #122

You can't have it both ways. morningfog May 2013 #148

exactly what i've been thinking for a long time RedstDem May 2013 #35

What about that "explicit text" of the Second Amendment? markpkessinger May 2013 #40

Oh, I'd love to see an overhaul of our outdated, outmoded constitution to one of CTyankee May 2013 #216

If you'd just expand rights, we could work together. appal_jack May 2013 #247

Well, my right to work for election of my state legislature to pass stricter gun laws is CTyankee May 2013 #284

My SKS, BAR, and 10/22 are pretty nice also. ileus May 2013 #19

Guns - as discussed here - is/are hardly "progressive." Hoyt May 2013 #32

no. actually they are. the issue is more that you dont have galileoreloaded May 2013 #173

Sure I do. Some people care more about their guns than society. Hoyt May 2013 #178

It's true that some care more about their guns than society, premium May 2013 #185

Being popular ain't necessarily a good thing. I'm sure the majority of Tbaggers love them. Hoyt May 2013 #188

It's necessarily a good thing for those that do own them premium May 2013 #189

In this case it is, from a purely practical view NickB79 May 2013 #191

Clearly important to be "practical" and callous when selecting from your lethal weapon options. Hoyt May 2013 #194

Of course it's important to be practical. NickB79 May 2013 #211

The size of the magazine you use is completely inconsequential at this point derby378 May 2013 #213

This is not a war zone, or crime scene. You guys crack me up. Hoyt May 2013 #220

Just curious Hoyt, premium May 2013 #223

I've had yahoos pull guns on me. Again, this is not a war zone, even Hoyt May 2013 #224

Hoyt, as you know, premium May 2013 #225

I made the mistake of living where confederate flags and guns are considered normal. Hoyt May 2013 #237

I asked what did you do to have people pull guns on you? premium May 2013 #238

Which is why I don't own a weapon of war NickB79 May 2013 #231

You shouldn't feel out manned because a few folks have bigger guns than yours. Hoyt May 2013 #239

No WWII rifle killed millions, none. premium May 2013 #240

I agree on car, promoting guns, not so much. Did you check buyer's background? Hoyt May 2013 #219

Nothing callous about it, premium May 2013 #212

Wern't you a theif a few years ago Travis_0004 May 2013 #229

Maybe that's why he's had guns pulled on him. nt. premium May 2013 #236

In a shotgun it is helpful arely staircase May 2013 #21

so important? Crepuscular May 2013 #23

I'm curious where you are hunting Jenoch May 2013 #110

Indiana Crepuscular May 2013 #121

In Minnesota Jenoch May 2013 #128

gives them bigger boners Skittles May 2013 #27

We have a right to hard dicks! morningfog May 2013 #30

And so do people paralyzed/disabled by someone's irresponsible use of their guns. Hoyt May 2013 #37

Semi autos Half-Century Man May 2013 #34

There's your problem. Sadly, those that covet these abominations can't live without Hoyt May 2013 #41

Semi auto guns became pretty common in the early 1900s. Yo_Mama May 2013 #39

Why only semi-automatics? Why not ban bolt-action sniper rifles? AnotherMcIntosh May 2013 #42

I agree. Why do people practice to shoot others at 1000 yards. Hoyt May 2013 #51

That's the snipers creed, premium May 2013 #56

Pre, we aren't in a friggin war zone. I beg you understand that. Hoyt May 2013 #60

Hoy, I know that, premium May 2013 #64

They are marketed in this country to yahoos, many of whom look forward to fighting here. Hoyt May 2013 #68

They're marketed in this country to hunters. nt. premium May 2013 #71

Not the ads I've seen from manufacturers and lethal weapons traffickers. Hoyt May 2013 #74

Uh Huh. premium May 2013 #76

How many years ago was that? rdharma May 2013 #66

That picture was taken of a soldier in Vietnam. premium May 2013 #67

Very serious antiquated shtuff. rdharma May 2013 #70

Agreed, premium May 2013 #72

Against who? rdharma May 2013 #75

Against whoever the govt. determines premium May 2013 #78

The Kalashnikov rifle was designed ~20 years prior to that picture. appal_jack May 2013 #116

Huh? What are you talking about? rdharma May 2013 #130

That "modern stuff" we have today has been around for decades hack89 May 2013 #142

Well, then he didn't follow from my post #66 referring to that Rem. 700 in Vietnam. eom rdharma May 2013 #232

"Much better stuff today" hack89 May 2013 #242

To be fair, premium May 2013 #243

Exactly! eom rdharma May 2013 #245

It's all good. premium May 2013 #246

I don't want to "ban" anything. rdharma May 2013 #244

Sorry - I thought you supported the AWB. hack89 May 2013 #249

Are semi-automatics all assault weapons? nt Honeycombe8 May 2013 #50

I don't think I wrote assault weapon anywhere in my posts newmember May 2013 #58

You said AR 15. That's not an assault rifle? nt Honeycombe8 May 2013 #85

Nope Duckhunter935 May 2013 #94

Some say it is , some say it's not newmember May 2013 #96

Nope. riqster May 2013 #59

That was my understanding. I thought maybe I'd misunderstood semi-automatics. Honeycombe8 May 2013 #86

The term is confusing mostly because there is no clear definition of what an assault weapon is newmember May 2013 #102

No, not at all Mopar151 May 2013 #65

Thx. I was confused a bit about that. nt Honeycombe8 May 2013 #87

well REGULATED militia krawhitham May 2013 #53

The "Well regulated militia" crap died after the War of 1812. eom rdharma May 2013 #69

"crap"? truebluegreen May 2013 #131

I'm referring to the "militia" clause. The idea of "citizens militia" became obsolete ...... rdharma May 2013 #133

References to the 3rd are a straw man argument and off point. truebluegreen May 2013 #136

No. It just points out how irrelevant the "well regulated militia" clause is today..... eom rdharma May 2013 #139

Non-responsive. truebluegreen May 2013 #140

Why are you asking me? I never made that claim. rdharma May 2013 #144

I was asking you because you sounded like you knew. truebluegreen May 2013 #150

You want to issue cleaning kits, give out ammo, and instruct everyone Megalo_Man May 2013 #83

Actually, the "wild wild west" had less violent gun crime than we have in major cities today. SlimJimmy May 2013 #256

The spring's the thing riqster May 2013 #54

Because Oswald Only Got Three Shots Off jberryhill May 2013 #62

gas lawn mower vs push mower JohnnyBoots May 2013 #63

Could it be that Bushmaster is the largest producer of the AR15 and also the largest donor to the Monk06 May 2013 #73

Is Bushmaster both of those things? ManiacJoe May 2013 #115

Bushmaster doesn't really exist anymore. SlipperySlope May 2013 #153

They still do under another name newmember May 2013 #155

Common use for nearly a century and probably make up the majority of firearms owned. TheKentuckian May 2013 #77

Because you can't kill everyone in the room with a single shot weapon. mwrguy May 2013 #79

Because you might have to shoot more than once quickly. nt rrneck May 2013 #89

You could do that with a revolver , lever action , pump shotgun or even a pump action rifle newmember May 2013 #100

It's really a distinction without a difference. rrneck May 2013 #107

I might need to shoot Megalo_Man May 2013 #109

Are you military ? newmember May 2013 #112

rifles (semi auto or not) are only used in about 4% of gun murders in the U.S. rollin74 May 2013 #92

does not Duckhunter935 May 2013 #95

Yeah, I don't get it. Always made sense to me but then most things that do, don't for many others. raouldukelives May 2013 #117

"Worthless for hunting..." Jenoch May 2013 #127

Sure, done quite a bit of hunting. raouldukelives May 2013 #149

They are also carried extensively in areas of Alaska for self protection from SlimJimmy May 2013 #161

I read an account of a couple guys moose hunting in Alaska. Jenoch May 2013 #163

That happens more often than people realize. SlimJimmy May 2013 #164

Here is a link to the story I mentioned. Jenoch May 2013 #165

Excellent link. I skimmed it for now, but will go back and read it in its entirety later. SlimJimmy May 2013 #166

I prefer a semi-auto for self defense. aikoaiko May 2013 #99

I know , many gun owners say that. newmember May 2013 #101

And they are correct when they say it. SlimJimmy May 2013 #162

Why a semi-auto? ManiacJoe May 2013 #114

The AR15 is merely a rifle hack89 May 2013 #123

into which one can insert a 100-round dual drum mag... VOX May 2013 #200

So ban high capacity magazines. Problem solved. nt hack89 May 2013 #203

and probably jam Duckhunter935 May 2013 #207

Why is banning them so important? hack89 May 2013 #125

Then it's, well, this didn't work, premium May 2013 #126

Agree. That's the start of the slippery slope, isn't it? SlimJimmy May 2013 #167

You can put bullets into the bad guy faster. NT clarice May 2013 #152

Message auto-removed Name removed May 2013 #154

Because most of the gun nuts are "shooting blanks" if ya know what I mean.... gotta compensate. Erose999 May 2013 #168

Of course, premium May 2013 #170

why are anti-gun people so obsessed with penises? Recursion May 2013 #176

Why drive an automatic instead of a stick? NickB79 May 2013 #169

Nobody is talking about getting rid of them Recursion May 2013 #175

cuz they are all crazy cowboys who love to play with things that explode in their hands librechik May 2013 #181

Stop calling them gun owners and call them what they are: gun hobbyists JCMach1 May 2013 #192

Actually the term would be firearms owners. premium May 2013 #193

Someone posting 500 pro-gun posts a month online sure isn't just a hobbyist either. They're a NUT. Electric Monk May 2013 #214

Your opinion premium May 2013 #215

Guess I'm not going to get an answer from you about that movie. nt. premium May 2013 #218

imdb gave it a 6.1/10 but I think I'd give it a 7. nt Electric Monk May 2013 #221

Thanks. premium May 2013 #222

My car has a manual transmission. My rifle is a bolt action. MineralMan May 2013 #196

More efficient at putting bullets in six year old heads n\t Agnosticsherbet May 2013 #202

Because there are thousands, if not millions, dating back about 75 years Mopar151 May 2013 #217

There's a perfectly legitimate need... Hugabear May 2013 #228

I know it's a movie quote but what would make a gun owner buy newmember May 2013 #235

Same reason I write emails instead of letters kudzu22 May 2013 #241

Pretty soon, gun owners will all go out and buy this one!! Sancho May 2013 #250

Your average gun owner isn't going to go out and buy that system, premium May 2013 #252

I bought an Apple II for over $2000 about 30 years ago... Sancho May 2013 #254

Bullshit. premium May 2013 #255

I have a Remington 700..and you're wrong... Sancho May 2013 #268

I own one just to piss you off. Travis_0004 May 2013 #276

The AR-15 is a very easy rifle to modify to better suit the owner... spin May 2013 #277

Kewl story bro! Rex May 2013 #289

Because the government. Iggo May 2013 #301