Should the 1st Amendment be repealed?

[SemiAuto]

Straight up question.

[skeemer]

I voted yes (for a future vote) so when we have the technology available to us, we can mobilize Thought Police to prevent malicious or dangerous thoughts before they become reality.

[ybnormal]

Ok, I'll bite, why do you ask?

[SemiAuto]

Ok, I'll bite, why do you ask?

Curiosity considering some of the responses to the 2nd amendment repeal poll.

[bmorepunk]

Both your "repealed?" threads should be repealed.

[pickles]

I think the more pertinent question is, "Should there be no limits upon the first amendment?"

No, the knee-jerk reaction is to say, "No, there shouldn't be."

But that doesn't hold w the reality of the way it is enforced.

Should you be able to yell, "Fire!" in a crowded theater?

You should be able to threaten people w violence?

Should you be able to lie and disparage people in public?

[ms maggie]

Both require restrictions. Your rights don't trump my safety.

[Contumacious]

Straight up question.

Straight up answer.

The First Amendment has been repealed.

If the flockers can differentiate speech into "commercial", "obscene" then the speech is protected only if the dumb arses agree.

Secondly, the First Amendment also incorporated the Right to Petition. But judges are nowadays IMMUNE FROM PROSECUTION, THEY CAN STICK IT TO A LITIGANT WITH IMPUNITY.

So that Amendment has been de facto abolished.

Next question, please.

.

[Grindelwald]

This thread should be repealed.

[dsummoner]

Would it matter for the so-called Libbies? In that they have become the conservative lickers of the government boot while the upper extremities of government are planted to elbow level, bilaterally, in the terminus of their collective alimentary canal... one need only but wait for the promulgation of the Department of Government Truthiness without the inefficient parroting of the same from the arm puppets.

[cprenegade]

Both require restrictions. Your rights don't trump my safety.

There already are restrictions on both the 1st and 2nd amendments. I have the right to say anything I want, as long as it does not endager anyone else. I have the right to own a gun, as long as I do not use it in a manner that endangers someone elses safety. There are laws on the books that punish those abusing those rights. Perhaps it is time they start being enforced to the max in all cases. I am all for jailing people for a long time with no parole anyone who is caught with a gun that has been illegally obtained.

[demopublican]

Repeal them all!

[Jeebus]

Both require restrictions. Your rights don't trump my safety.

A curious statement, as most certainly your safety doesn't trump my rights.

YOUR safety has NOTHING to do with my rights. Owning a gun is not a crime -- using it illegally is. And that's the only way your safety would be at risk.

Now if I commit a crime with a firearm, we have something called "due process" that can be used to take away one of my rights, but your own perceived uneasiness or discomfort or feelings about YOUR safety doesn't eliminate my rights.

There are just as many people who feel the opposite way that you do - they feel that their safety is enhanced when law-abiding citizens exercise their right to K&BA.

"Rights" are not at the whim of liberal or conservative winds, and if you want to amend the Constitution, there is a process in place -- use it.

BTW - I think the Westboro Baptist morons are hideously evil hatemongers, but my feelings about their speech content does not eliminate their free speech rights.

[bmore_ken]

Let's repeal them all so no women can vote and blacks can be enslaved

[soulflower]

A curious statement, as most certainly your safety doesn't trump my rights.

YOUR safety has NOTHING to do with my rights. Owning a gun is not a crime -- using it illegally is. And that's the only way your safety would be at risk.
.

If you own a gun and don't break any laws, you don't have anything to worry about.

You guys are afraid of your own shadows...

[Byng]

Both require restrictions. Your rights don't trump my safety.

We could start by making so-called legal 'responsible' gun owners, actually and legally 'responsible' for stopping irresponsible people from getting their guns. And should an irresponsible person gain access to their guns and use them to kill or maim people then the legal owner of the weapon should be charged as an accessory to the crime.

[Jeebus]

You guys are afraid of your own shadows...

As are the gun grabbers who see every lawful semi-automatic weapon owner as a mass murdering psychopath who needs to be disarmed.

[soulflower]

As are the gun grabbers who see every lawful semi-automatic weapon owner as a mass murdering psychopath who needs to be disarmed.

More paranoia. I think you guys get off from living in fear of threats that don't exist

[Jeebus]

We could start by making so-called legal 'responsible' gun owners, actually and legally 'responsible' for stopping irresponsible people from getting their guns.

It already is a law in most states. Why do you want to add new laws instead of enforcing existing laws?

And should an irresponsible person gain access to their guns and use them to kill or maim people then the legal owner of the weapon should be charged as an accessory to the crime.

It already is a law in most states. Why do you want to add new laws instead of enforcing existing laws?

[Jeebus]

More paranoia. I think you guys get off from living in fear of threats that don't exist

As do the gun grabbers, fearing every legally-owned firearm as a murder waiting to happen.