Free Speech

[Rudyard K]

Originally Posted by WTF

Not the same thing...not even close to what is being discussed.

Since I made the original post...It seems a bit presumtuous to think you know what was in my mind.

Originally Posted by WTF

This had already been addressed.

Then, if you feel it has been sufficiently vetted, I guess you can sit on the side lines and let others talk. One can only hope.

Originally Posted by WTF

Like I said, I'm with Mazo on this one and I think it is a linear position!

Somehow I thought you would.

[Rudyard K]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

What those limits are is really under debate here, least as I read it.

Agreed. But I guess I was posing some debate of "What they should be?". Seems we debate the justification of current laws all the time. Why not here?

[discreetgent]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Article [I.]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;


Some how, over the course of the last century, this Article has been turned on its head. By today's interpretation, the government must proscribe religion except for secularism or atheism; which are also forms of "religious" beliefs.

Yeah, the amendment itself is contradictory and it has been interpreted far more on the not establishing part than the other.

[discreetgent]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Agreed. But I guess I was posing some debate of "What they should be?". Seems we debate the justification of current laws all the time. Why not here?

And I think we have seen a debate. London for example has been quite vocal on the matter and others have chimed in.

[Rudyard K]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Article [I.]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;


Some how, over the course of the last century, this Article has been turned on its head. By today's interpretation, the government must proscribe religion except for secularism or atheism; which are also forms of "religious" beliefs.

To steal PJ's response (or is it London's)...

Word!!

[Rudyard K]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

And I think we have seen a debate. London for example has been quite vocal on the matter and others have chimed in.

Then the purpose of this post was???

Originally Posted by discreetgent

What those limits are is really under debate here, least as I read it.

[charlestudor2005]

I think the only responsible thing to do is repeal the First Amendment. That way there would be no constitutional arguments regarding free speech and religion. The government as well as private industry would be totally free to regulate both subjects. Talk about freeing up some Court time-wasters.

[London Rayne]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

To steal PJ's response (or is it London's)...

Word!!

Yea it was mine first! He only coined the phrase in this area...I have had it since I was 8 lol. Go figure we are both from Fla.

[discreetgent]

I'm curious RK - I don't recall if the subject has been discussed elsewhere - whether you agree that the 2nd amendment should have limits

[discreetgent]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Then the purpose of this post was???

I read your post as claiming there was no debate here; my misreading.

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

I'm curious RK - I don't recall if the subject has been discussed elsewhere - whether you agree that the 2nd amendment should have limits

Right after the Court ruled on its latest interpretation, there was a group that wanted to be able to carry guns into Hartsfield. If I recall, they even filed suit. So far, I don't think they have been successful. That would be at least one limitation.

Of course, then there was that guy that wore an unconcealed weapon at an Obama appearance. He wasn't arrested, but he was surrounded by law enforcement. lol

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Since I made the original post...It seems a bit presumtuous to think you know what was in my mind.

I have no idea what was on your mind, I do however know what was written after your intial post. Your second post was apples and oranges in regards to those post.

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Somehow I thought you would.

Yes, I think we should restrict a little as possible the 1rst and 2nd amendment.
I thought Mazo said it best and was agreeing with him:


Originally Posted by Mazomaniac
On this topic I take the literary equivalent of the NRA's position: "Books don't rape children, people rape children"

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Then, if you feel it has been sufficiently vetted, I guess you can sit on the side lines and let others talk. One can only hope.

Nobody is arguing that the guy should be allowed to preach about child porno in a school. That comparison about religion was ludicrous.

[Rudyard K]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

I'm curious RK - I don't recall if the subject has been discussed elsewhere - whether you agree that the 2nd amendment should have limits

I think we did once discuss this elsewhere. My thought (not based on rulings of court, but based on my view of original intent) is...

That originally, there was to be no limitation upon this right. In other words, an individual could own a cannon (probably the most powerful weapon of the time) without limitation.

That being said, I do also believe that today, based on the fact that weaponry has a much more significant destructive effect, some limitation must be applied to that original concept. We can argue or discuss where that line should be...but I do agree there must be a line. As such, some kind of popular opinion must be the determination of where the line should be.

I think the same thing goes for "Free Speech". And IMHO, I think the writer of that "How to" book, about that subject, has stepped over that line.

[Rudyard K]

Originally Posted by London Rayne

Yea it was mine first! He only coined the phrase in this area...I have had it since I was 8 lol. Go figure we are both from Fla.

Honey, I know that seems like a long time...but for folks like PJ, when you were 8, he was looking at colleges for his kids.

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by London Rayne

Granted, but some laws make zero sense compared to what is moral. I won't go there lol, but it's obvious some laws should be removed while others should be implemented.

What is considered moral varies by individual. Laws are absolute. It is not fair to punish someone for your sense of morality. Remember, there are people in this world that think it is moral to stone you for your "activities".