Janet Reno

Yes,we license cars and drivers and still we have 30-40 thousand people(Including children) killed every year and over 3 million injured.

Ms. Reno may have to look into this car thing next. Perhaps if you prove you need a car according to Federal guidelines and......
 
TR, you are right on the money. The RKBA is a fundamental right, under the law, and must not fall under any distinction as compared with other fundamental rights, such as speech, assembly, religion, etc.
 
The old "yelling fire in a crowded theater" argument is bogus. Reno and her ilk use it to demonstrate how a right (free speech in this case) can be regulated and limited, and thus use it to justify regulating the RKBA. However, yelling "fire" in a theater is not a First Amendment issue; it is a property rights issue. A movie ticket is a contract between the purchaser and the theater owner. The contract is understood to state that the theater owner will allow you use of his facilities and viewing of his films if you behave so as not to interfere with his other customers or damage his property. If however, there is a sign posted at the box office stating that yelling "fire" is acceptable and should be expected and you purchase a ticket, then your rights are not violated when someone does stand up and starts yelling "fire" at the top of their lungs.

Not that I expect honesty or logic from this (mal)Administration.

Jack
 
Doesn't the idea of licensing and testing seem strangely like the old literacy tests that the south used to use to keep African Americans from being able to vote?
 
Jack makes a good point. Further...

Its not against the law to yell Fire in said theater. If said declaration was deemed to be made maliciously...prosecution is on "incitement to riot", "actions contributory to injury and mayhem", etc. If there was indeed a fire, then said declaration is not only acceptable but expected.

My point is that it has been misinterpreted....speech isn't infringed upon, its the causal effects of that speech that come under scrutiny


------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
Can we build a wall around Washington DC and call it a continuation of "The Great Wall of China?" Trap them all in and let them fend for them selves... Kinda "Escape from New York" thing?

------------------
"But I don't want to go among mad people," Alice remarked.
"Oh, you can't help that," said the Cat: "we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad."
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn't have come here."

RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE
 
IMO Ms. Reno is a cool and clever hardliner, skilled in the use of sophistry, and therefore not to be trusted. Her proposal would, of course, do nothing to curb the criminal abuse of guns. It would merely harrass honest gunowners, as she intends, while drawing more power to Washington.

Just my $0.02.

[This message has been edited by jimmy (edited August 17, 1999).]
 
If someone would have told me 20 years ago that we would have a 2 term President like Klinton, a 7 year running attorney general like Johnny Reno and a Secretary of Defense like Cohen, i would have laughed at them. Can this nation sink any lower? Yes, it is truly the best government Money can buy.
 
Ivan,

You are dead on:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>...it is truly the best government Money can buy.[/quote]

------------------
John/az

"The middle of the road between the extremes of good and evil, is evil. When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!

http://www.countdown9199.com
 
I suppose I could accept a competency & licensing exam if it is the same one senators and congresscritters take to be appointed deputy U.S. marshals so they can carry anywhere in the United States, including Washington, DC.

And it, of course, confers the same carry privileges throughout the 50 states the senators and congresscritters enjoy.


[This message has been edited by bruels (edited August 17, 1999).]
 
Our Dear and Esteemed Attorney General seems to need to go back to school and study civics.

This is a great example of the old saw about repeating a lie often enough, eventually it becomes the truth.

The LIE:`We have freedom of speech ... but not freedom to yell `fire' in a crowded theater,'

Now, notice that Our Esteemed Attorney General is clever enough to add the modifier
"falsely"

The TRUTH: We have freedom of speech, even freedom to yell fire in a crowded theater.

This freedom does nothing to shelter us from
paying the penalty of criminal wrongdoing if our intent in yelling fire in a crowded theatre was to cause mayhem or for some other nefarious reason.

Just as the Right to Keep and Bear arms cannot be used to shelter one who bears arms with criminal intent. That is a wholly separate issue, and has no bearing whatsoever on anything at all.

That said, Non of us has to pass a government sponsored examination in order to speak. So straight to hell with this non-sense about having to be approved to exercise our God Given Rights which exist independent of the Constitution and the attendant Bill of Rights.
 
Dog3,

You just made a great point about yelling "fire" and how that argument applies to the 2nd (ie...criminal intent). Just once I would like to see someone publicly rebuke these false arguments.

Am I really asking too much?

Jack
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top