Exactly, it is the difference between you can speak but don't lie; and you might lie so shut up.

Watch out for Stan worshipers.

Brian,

So, that's what keeps happening to Kenny...

/southpark

What were you saying? I wasn't paying attention. My adolescent children were reloading my guns while I was swilling a handful of pills with shot of J.D. It's part of my religion, you know. ...and if any one doesn't like it, I'll yell fire in a movie theater!

Eagerly awaiting part 2.

Easier for kids to buy a gun than allergy medicine? I don't know about where you live but in Texas a kid can't legally buy a gun or bullets. Very few gun regulations? You don't have to present ID, be over 18, wait 5 days for a background check and have a clean record to pick up a some Sudafed at 7-11, you don't need a permit to carry Allerest around in your pocket, you can take into a church, a bank and even a bar. I haven't yet seen the sign that declares an area near a school to be Claritin free or seen anyone signing forms and giving fingerprints and their mother's maiden name to purchase Benadryl. Whoever wrote that is either a resident of some other planet or you might possibly be stretching things just a bit to make his case.

This will end up being another demographic issue and trends are not in the gun controllers' favor.

bullwinkle, yeah, as soon as I saw that, the rest of Toad's comment lost any credibility it could have had.
Granted, if you live in certain cities, you can buy a POS TEC for $20 and up, but it aint legal, and that gun is likely to blow your hand off (and has a body or two on it already). In those same towns, I doubt you'll have any trouble getting allergy or cough syrup however.

Jay Tea said:

"They outline penalties for misusing your rights, not conditions for exercising them at all."

Maybe I'm missing something but outlining penalties for misusing your rights and setting conditions for excercising them is a distinction without a difference.

Maybe I'm missing something...

A brain?

Honestly, why do you keep setting yourself up, JmaR?

There is a difference between "registering with the State before starting a newspaper or blog" and being held accountable for libel or slander. One is authoritarian and one is the price of freedom.

Toad is just another gun-grabbing statist. He is what I am talking about when I talk about Slave Morality. Toad, you won't get my guns by fooling me into your twisted morality. Do you want to try and take them?

There are quite a few "restrictions" on firearms that track the restrictions Mr. Toad talks about. For example, if I fire a gun, several potential laws can come into effect. Depending on my intent when the gun was fired (and if it struck a person), I can have anything from no charges to the death penalty. That is similar to the press and speech penaltys. I can print whatever I want. But if I slander them, I may have to pay a penalty. If I am supeonaed about the source of what I wrote (note that I have already printed the article), I can choose to tell the grand jury or keep quiet. So I choose the penalty. I can yell 'fire' in the theater, I just may be liable to what results.

I agree that I would not want to live where there was no laws about how I exercise my 2nd amendment right. For example I like the laws that say if someone shoots me, they go to jail or the chair. But that is very different from saying I want prescriptive rights that stop even the possesion of the gun.

Of course, put me in charge of prescriptive rights and I may change my tune. If I get to decide before it happens that someone will abuse their right to free speech (e.g. yelling fire in the theater) and thus I can lock them up or remove their vocal cords, then that might not be such a bad thing. I can imagine more than a couple of voices I would be happy to silence. But perhaps that is why we have a written constitution with rights for all so that an individual like me can't decide who goes free and who is locked up.

JmaR: Jay Tea said:

"They outline penalties for misusing your rights, not conditions for exercising them at all."

Maybe I'm missing something but outlining penalties for misusing your rights and setting conditions for excercising them is a distinction without a difference.

Okay, so let's apply the gun rules to speech. Next time you write a letter to the editor, it must be submitted to your local sheriff, where it can be denied publication.

Now do you get it?

My italics didn't flow down right. They were supposed to cover down to the paragraph ending in "difference."

JmaR: Jay Tea said:

"They outline penalties for misusing your rights, not conditions for exercising them at all."

Maybe I'm missing something but outlining penalties for misusing your rights and setting conditions for excercising them is a distinction without a difference.

Okay, so let's apply the gun rules to speech. Next time you write a letter to the editor, it must be submitted to your local sheriff, where it can be denied publication.

Now do you get it?

Speaking of distinctions. There are no "Constitutional Rights" there are "Constitutionaly Protected Rrights".

The Constitution doesn't grant(give) any rights, it protects them from infringemnt by the goobermint.

Magus hit the nail on the head. Far too few Americans even understand that the Constitution isn't about what rights the government gives the people, it's about what powers the people grant to the government. I'm always amazed (and disappointed) that people are allowed to pass the bar without even comprehending this in the least. The founding fathers only included the bill of rights (after the fact - hence 'ammendments'), because the the idea of The People granting powers to the government was so [bleeping] radical at the time. Sadly even two centuries later, it's still too radical of an idea for most people to understand...

As a citizen of a FREE STATE, I can do what I damn well please; if I want to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater I can certainly do so.

I also have to assume responsibility for my behavior and the consequences of my actions which, using the above example, could be criminal and/or civil charges in a court of law.

Those who think that words on a piece of paper will control human behavior are deluding themselves...

A couple of rambling thoughts:

I just brought up the "constitutional rights" comment since Jay Tea said in the post "The right to drink is NOT a Constitutional right."

Well, yes it is. It's protected under the 9th amendment. The general government was given no power or authority to pass laws regarding drinking alcolhic beverages. See article 1 section 8 for the powers delegated to the goobermint.

The Bill of Rights isn't so much a "Bill of Rights" as it is a list of rights the goobermint is not to mess with.

See the preamble to the Bill of Rights for it's purpose, which says in part:

"THE Conventions of a number of the States ... expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added ..."

From the National Archives at:
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

The Bill of Rights is a list of further declaratory and restrictive clauses against the general goobermint. That means it's sutff that they are not to mess with.

And the ninth amendment says that just because we didn't list it in the other amendments doesn't mean it doesn't exist and you can't mess with those either.

Good Service