Bingo. This is the analogy I've used when confronted with the 'fire in a theater' trope. "I can still tell fire, I'll just go to jail. My ability to SPEAK isn't impeded, just what I can do with that speech. Just as I can't use a gun for illegal purposes without going to jail. Your restricting my 2nd Amendment rights is the equivalent of removing my vocal cords.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
"You don't have the right to bear suitcase nukes.."
- Thread starter DW357
- Start date
Bingo. This is the analogy I've used when confronted with the 'fire in a theater' trope. "I can still tell fire, I'll just go to jail. My ability to SPEAK isn't impeded, just what I can do with that speech. Just as I can't use a gun for illegal purposes without going to jail. Your restricting my 2nd Amendment rights is the equivalent of removing my vocal cords.
badshot101
NES Member
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2013
- Messages
- 218
- Likes
- 97
Had to Google false dichotomy. Makes sense now.
I guess his absurd argument is that we put limits on freedom of speech so why not limit the type of arms/weapons one person can have? Not sure how limiting the type of weapons would have prevented yesterday's crap. Such a ridiculous argument that goes back to the saying that criminals don't follow laws. Smh.
No we do not (usually) put prior restraint on free speech. You can get in trouble for yelling fire in a theater, but they can't duck tape your mouth closed before you go into the theater. However many other European and other countries have hate speech laws that limit what you can say, which is a very bad thing since the govt then can wipe out inconvenient criticism of itself. I had a Malaysian roomate once whose father was in the government. He said they wanted to allow free speech but couldn't since it was too "destabilizing". Scary stuff.
hv55maxx
NES Member
id start that argument with: I wouldn't wipe my ass with the paper that's written on because i don't even want my sh!t to touch that garbage
Well, that's how my kids react to pretty much everything I say, so I'm good....
Horrible
NES Member
This is all a GIANT distraction by this Administration to blame everything except for the real causes for these mass shootings.
By diverting us away from the Islamic terrorist angle to this, 0bama is able to continue accepting "refugees" from terrorist nations that will lead to the next attack to forward his agenda.
It also keeps everyone distracted from the $hitty economy, $18.5T of national debt, and all of 0bama's other fu(k ups and SHillary's unlawful and corrupt past.
Not to mention that ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that they are proposing (backround checks, AWB, etc) would have prevented this attack or any of the other recent attacks. Hell, look at Lyretta Lynch's statements. These people are cheerleading these attacks!
By diverting us away from the Islamic terrorist angle to this, 0bama is able to continue accepting "refugees" from terrorist nations that will lead to the next attack to forward his agenda.
It also keeps everyone distracted from the $hitty economy, $18.5T of national debt, and all of 0bama's other fu(k ups and SHillary's unlawful and corrupt past.
Not to mention that ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that they are proposing (backround checks, AWB, etc) would have prevented this attack or any of the other recent attacks. Hell, look at Lyretta Lynch's statements. These people are cheerleading these attacks!
namedpipes
NES Member
Cite?
Exactly. The correct response to someone saying "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater" is "No, legally you can't (unless there really is a fire), but that doesn't mean that they sew your mouth shut when you go into a theater. Likewise, not being legally able to brandish or discharge a firearm at someone (without exigent circumstances) doesn't mean that you remove all firearms from society."
Tell him that he doesn't have the right to free speech on the internet or his smart phone since they didn't exist when the constitution was created. I hate it when statists think they can "interpret" the constitution how they please. To them it means "insert a bunch of additional language that doesn't exist in the document that fits my agenda."
Last edited:
I love when idiots use the "fire in a crowded theater" quote as they pretend that they haven't completely misunderstood and misrepresented that quote.
In God We Trust
NES Member
Anytime some makes the "yelling fire in a theater" argument, remind them that you can in fact do it. There has been to push from government to install a device in your mouth that prevents you from forming the word "fire" when you are in such a setting. You are taught that it is dangerous and that there may be legal repercussions and then you are trusted not to do it.
It is much the same as committing murder. The difference is that government is trying to take your guns away instead of respecting it as a basic human right and punishing you if you misbehave with them
It is much the same as committing murder. The difference is that government is trying to take your guns away instead of respecting it as a basic human right and punishing you if you misbehave with them
The nuke/bazooka thing is just a standard anti trick, they use it to lure you into a space to make you look like a lunatic. I don't even engage them.
"Suitcase Nukes and Bazookas? Sorry, but back here, on planet earth, we're talking about small arms. Like things that shoot projectiles made out of metal that can be carried by one or two guys. Not sure what planet you are currently on, but that's what's going on down here. "
-Mike
"Suitcase Nukes and Bazookas? Sorry, but back here, on planet earth, we're talking about small arms. Like things that shoot projectiles made out of metal that can be carried by one or two guys. Not sure what planet you are currently on, but that's what's going on down here. "
-Mike
badshot101
NES Member
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2013
- Messages
- 218
- Likes
- 97
Incorrect. If you stand up in a theater and yell FIRE, when there is no fire, even if everyone just looks at you like an idiot, you can be charged with a crime. The example you give above is simply an example of someone making a decision not to charge you when a crime was committed.
The relevant statute in most states would be disorderly conduct, or "inducing panic". Here is a link to the relevant statute in Ohio. http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2917.31
You will note that even in the absence of a consequence (an actual panic) its a first degree misdemeanor. If actual harm results it escalates to a felony. The statute goes into great detail on what kinds of harm and their related felony escalations.
Please do us all a favor and do a little google-foo before spreading bad information.
I haven't read through all the responses and there are many good ones.
As far as the yelling fire in a theater goes anyone can yell fire anywhere but if there's no fire they could be charged with a crime. No one is muzzled upon entry to the theater just because they might yell fire.
As far as the yelling fire in a theater goes anyone can yell fire anywhere but if there's no fire they could be charged with a crime. No one is muzzled upon entry to the theater just because they might yell fire.
One of the core principles for a functioning society is 'don't be an ***hole.' Now, you can be an ***hole and society may well function, but if everybody is an ***hole things go south pretty quick.
One of the big problems that we have today is that many people think that they should be allowed to be an ***hole and anyone who doesn't like it should just shut up. They want to be afforded the benefits and courtesies of polite society, but don't think that they need to adhere to those standards themselves. This is why, imo, it is appropos to use the term spoiled children when referring to so many of these nutbags.
ochmude
Marine Veteran
I read the entire statute that you linked to, and I don't agree that it supports your position that "even in the absence of a consequence (an actual panic) its a first degree misdemeanor." If an individual stands up in a theater, yells "FIRE!!!", and everyone looks at him like he is an idiot and no one panics, then that person did not in fact "cause the evacuation of any public place, or otherwise cause serious public inconvenience or alarm...." He didn't cause anything at all, and the statute clearly requires that something must happen as a result of the utterance. There would need to be an evacuation or the public would need to be seriously inconvenienced. The utterance itself, absent any reaction at all, is not illegal. As such, that individual would not have sufficiently satisfied the elements of this particular statute to warrant an arrest, much less a successful prosecution. Now, there may be a charge for attempting to induce a panic, but I'll crowd-source that research rather than using my own Google-fu.
Yes, unfortunately type A people have been allowed to rule. There was a time that rude, inconsiderate jerks were put in their place but now people say don't make a scene, let it go etc. and that just emboldens these type of people to be even bigger Ahls.
Although manners haven't disappeared completely they sure have fallen by the wayside.
Although manners haven't disappeared completely they sure have fallen by the wayside.
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2013
- Messages
- 1,165
- Likes
- 170
Yelling "Fire" in a theater isn't regulated based on freedom of speech but inciting a false panic.
People who make the "nuclear weapons shouldn't be owned by individuals" argument - are farking morons - and should be treated as such.
I've actually found it quite satisfying in the past when confronted by somebody who used this argument - to start off the reply by telling them they're a moron - and then explaining in detail exactly why.
A rifle (or a pistol) - can be used by a bad person to do bad things (like shoot up a school) - or they can be used by a good person to defend themselves from that shooting.
A nuclear weapon is literally a weapon of mass destruction whose sole reason for existence is cause massive destruction and/or the taking of human life in mass quantities.
There is no comparison between the two types of weapons - they live in entirely different levels of the weaponry spectrum - and the people who say they don't are just morons.
That's not a viable legal or moral argument that an individual should be able to own one.
Why shouldn't an individual own one? I don't really care, but as far as I'm concerned the burden of proof for a ban of any sort rests on the ban side
I talk to people who think the same thing about firearms, killing machines that only kill, no real use.
You aren't thinking small enough. It is feasible to build a nuclear weapon that is only big enough to knock out a building and have little other long term effect.
Why would a person want one? As the ultimate defense. A dead man's switch rigged into your bunker could ensure no one survives attacking you. Think the planetary nukes in dune on a household level.
Good article. But I think what they're pointing out in a very long winded way is: There's a huge societal component to these shootings - that just didn't used to exist.
StevieP
NES Member
*wouldn't
