You are correct that common sense and prudence should dictate such expressions. I consider using "bomb" and "airplane" in the same sentence, to be the same as "fire" and "crowded theater", when the intent is to cause panic, distress, injury, etc. Californians have missed the boat on both common sense and prudence, and now should speak out whenever they can. Perhaps it is too late, perhaps not, but I find the argument to not-say-anything-and-maybe-no-one-will-notice suspect.
We just had an election. A friend of mine, a Marine and Vietnam vet, said something disturbing to me. Paraphrasing, he said that in the states where Republicans lost races, it was due to Tea-Party-endorsed contestants taking votes away from the Republicans. He feels that those who ran without Republican party backing, should never have run, because they "screwed" the Republican candidates out of votes they should have gotten. My reply was that the independents had every right to run, and that those votes belong to the voters. He agreed, but that they should have sacrificed their campaigns, and their principles, for the benefit of those who didn't feel as they did, and would not have done the job they may have been elected to do.
My point behind all this is that the third-party candidates exercised their rights. I'm sure they ran not just to make a point, but to actually accomplish something, like win the election. I think my friend would have a diffferent opinion if more of those people had won. Even having lost, they still showed America's distaste for the state of the country.
In the case of those guys up in SF, were they not doing the same? Are not some asking them to sacrifice their principles for those who do not feel as they do?
In California, they limit the type of weapon one can purchase. They limit how one can possess it. What is next? Whether one can possess a firearm at all? Yes, we have a conservative Supreme Court now, but who knows what the future holds? If a court battle is in the works, better to have it when the balance of forces is in your favor. Yes, there are recent decisions in favor of gun owners, but how long did they take to get to the S.C.?
I wonder, JohnKSa, about the motives of those who tell us to sit down and shut up when being abused, or as a old friend used to say, "Hold my coat while I kick your a**!" However, in this country, the First Amendment allows them to say this. The Fourth of those allows me to refuse to comply.
To fiddletown, I would say that complying with an ureasonable request by an LEO in order to get permission to go about my business is trading one fight for another, because now, that LEO thinks it acceptable to make that same demand again and again. If I am expected to abide by the law, why aren't they? As to your second point, Sir, I would look to the early European settlers here and wonder, if less-offensive means were available to obtain the freedoms they desired in the countries they left, why did they leave?
