Strict Constructionists!

[USFREEDOM911]

Yes, he does.

For instance. If you decide to break the law and bring a weapon into his house he has every right to use deadly force to protect himself, his family, and his property.

And among other things; deadly force can be used to stop a kidnapping, or a rape.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Sex offenders don't have the right to carry guns, or be around children, so I wouldn't have to worry about either if I walked it USF's house.

Since you can't carry a gun, then I suggest that you don't walk into my house univited.
Are you still not able to see your own children, or do they just have to send you letters?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Yeah the context just doesn't make sense in your rebuttal USF.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Yeah the context just doesn't make sense in your rebuttal USF.

Yes it does.
You're an admitted Sex offender and therefore aren't allowed to be around children and/or possess firearms; ergo: don't walk into my house, univised.



By the way; how's that wish of yours going, where you want to have children by a man??

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Yes it does.
You're an admitted Sex offender and therefore aren't allowed to be around children and/or possess firearms; ergo: don't walk into my house, univised.

The I am rubber, You are glue defense, I see.

By the way; how's that wish of yours going, where you want to have children by a man??

Very well.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

The I am rubber, You are glue defense, I see.




Very well.

I saw where you attempted to use the Pee Wee Herman comments and failed miserably.

Let everyone know when you have that little butt baby.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Sex offenders don't have the right to carry guns, or be around children, so I wouldn't have to worry about either if I walked it USF's house.

there you go, thinking like an authoritarian again. Just because the law may say 'so and so' cannot own a gun, doesn't mean 'so and so' doesn't own a gun.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

The I am rubber, You are glue defense, I see.




Very well.

Heck of a job, brownie!

 

[Good Luck]

Very good point and well illistrated. What about laws prohibiting the broadcast of certian language on television? Is that not a direct limitation of free speech? Is that prohibited, just in case someone who might be offended might be listening?

My preference is for broadcast companies to acknowledge the parity of their potential audiences and act accordingly. Forced censorship goes against the principles of liberty.

What I find currently most objectionable in broadcast television is advertising. More than once I have been watching a family movie with my grandchildren, only to have an ad come on with women parading around in their underwear. HELLO! Not really the thing for 6 year olds, you know? I've gotten to the point I rent DVD movies so I don't have to worry about it. I let the stations know what I think about it though. While one should have the self-responsibility to watch that which they do not find objectionable and avoid that which they do object to, it isn't easy when stations run racy commercials during family programming.

Still not an area government should be controlling, though. If a station cannot realize when a commercial is inappropriate for the view audience of a program, let the people control it by turning it off and letting the station and advertiser know why.

 

[Good Luck]

If one wants to lead a march down the main street of his town, he needs to get a permit prior to doing so. No harm has been done, noone has been disrupted, but a permit must be obtained.

Marching down the street disrupts the normal flow of traffic. Even gathering on the corner sidewalk, if the gathering is more than just a few, disrupts normal foot traffic. The right to free speech and assembly, though enumerated, does not supersede others' rights to use public ways to get where they are going. The permit is for the authority to temporarily disrupt traffic, be it automobile or foot, not for the right to speak or assemble.

 

[WinterBorn]

If one wants to lead a march down the main street of his town, he needs to get a permit prior to doing so. No harm has been done, noone has been disrupted, but a permit must be obtained.

The main reason you have to have a permit for a march is that you are marching on a public thoroughfare designed for vehicles. You are disrupting traffic. You will require the police to reroute traffic and maintain the safety of the marchers. You will also disrupt the public access to shops and stores.

In other words you will have a profound effect on other people's lives.

Just as yelling "fire" in a crowded theater will have.

My possession of a firearm (uzi or whatever) does not effect anyone else. That is why the ownership of such a gun should not require a permit. If I use it in a manner which harms others then I should be prosecuted for that harm.