Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Alfndrate wrote: As part of a well regulated militia, can I get an f-15?
I wanna fly D:
I'll take a VOught F4U Corsair thanks. Black Sheep Squadron II here I come!
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Well, I for one am glad Colorado passed those new gun control laws. Imagine how much worse this would have been if that guy had been able to get his hands on a firearm. Oh... wait.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/03/22 20:28:46
Well, I for one am glad Colorado passed those new gun control laws. Imagine how much worse this would have been if that guy had been able to get his hands on a firearm. Oh... wait.
And that clip/accessory maker is moving out of state too (Magpul?)... hey, at least the CO legislatures is creating jobs... in another state!
It can't be that many jobs. Most of that stuff is automated and they might bring people with them so they don't have to rebuild completely from scratch. The lost tax revenue might be a bit of an issue though.
Yes magpul has said its bailing. The current states being bet on are Arizona and of course the raw awesome that is Texas. They should move to Texas. half their clients are there.
Colt is also now making noises about moving.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Hordini wrote:I'm not concerned about a conflict of interest, I'm concerned about any branch of the government deciding that a certain kind of discourse is damaging because it is unpopular or extreme, and then restricting that discourse. It doesn't matter which party the government officials are affiliated with (if any), or if they are elected or appointed.
Have you ever held a discourse regarding, say, conspiracy to commit murder? How about merely suggesting that someone kill a political figure? Or perhaps even say the word "bomb" in an airport. How do you reconcile those restrictions with your concern about unpopular or extreme discourses being restricted?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote:The Second Amendment can be updated or repealed at any time. There's even a process in place for it. Not nearly enough Americans want it to happen, though, no matter how much Canadians do, so I'm afraid you're SOL.
Yeah, I guess I will be SOL here in a country with only a tiny fraction of the gun crime rate. That joke is certainly on me, yessir.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/03/22 23:31:35
Frazzled wrote: Yes magpul has said its bailing. The current states being bet on are Arizona and of course the raw awesome that is Texas. They should move to Texas. half their clients are there.
Colt is also now making noises about moving.
The Governor's office released a statement, apparently oblivious to the absolute hypocrisy of it.
Eric Brown, spokesman for the governor, said in an email that nothing in the bills signed by Hickenlooper would prevent Magpul from "manufacturing here and selling elsewhere."
Alfndrate wrote: As part of a well regulated militia, can I get an f-15?
I wanna fly D:
I'll take a VOught F4U Corsair thanks. Black Sheep Squadron II here I come!
I'll take an A10 [/quote
Gotta love that BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT
'I've played Guard for years, and the best piece of advice is to always utilize the Guard's best special rule: "we roll more dice than you" ' - stormleader
"Sector Imperialis: 25mm and 40mm Round Bases (40+20) 26€ (Including 32 skulls for basing) " GW design philosophy in a nutshell
IDK if this has been pointed out but ASSAULT weapons are capable of fully automatic sustained or burst fire. These are far more expensive and difficult to get than SEMI-AUTOMATIC sporting rifles.
Unfortunately the drive-by media likes sensationalism and raising a ruckus with such aggressive sounding words such as "assault-rifle". What would happen if instead of calling a gun with a detachable magazine, black polymer furniture, and a semi-automatic rate of fire, an assault rifle, they called it what it is, which is a semi-automatic sporting weapon.
For the most part, only the military uses assault weapons, civilians have sporting-arms.
Armies: Space Marines, IG, Tyranids, Eldar, Necrons, Orks, Dark Eldar.
I am the best 40k player in my town, I always win! Of course, I am the only player of 40k in my town.
Hordini wrote:I'm not concerned about a conflict of interest, I'm concerned about any branch of the government deciding that a certain kind of discourse is damaging because it is unpopular or extreme, and then restricting that discourse. It doesn't matter which party the government officials are affiliated with (if any), or if they are elected or appointed.
Have you ever held a discourse regarding, say, conspiracy to commit murder? How about merely suggesting that someone kill a political figure? Or perhaps even say the word "bomb" in an airport. How do you reconcile those restrictions with your concern about unpopular or extreme discourses being restricted?
As long as it doesn't go beyond speech and become actions, I don't think any of those things should be illegal. In order to be charged with conspiracy, there has to be an overt action in furtherance of the crime. Otherwise, talk is cheap, and shouldn't be restricted.
Frazzled wrote: Yes magpul has said its bailing. The current states being bet on are Arizona and of course the raw awesome that is Texas. They should move to Texas. half their clients are there.
Colt is also now making noises about moving.
The Governor's office released a statement, apparently oblivious to the absolute hypocrisy of it.
Eric Brown, spokesman for the governor, said in an email that nothing in the bills signed by Hickenlooper would prevent Magpul from "manufacturing here and selling elsewhere."
It's also losing my industry not that they really care, I was looking at putting my shingle out in Colorado Springs, but when the big fish leave a state, smart little fish with nothing lose know it's time to check out too, now looking at Flagstaff Arizona. Not that I'd be any revenue compared to magpul, which all told was 85 million? Or something like that. I'm guessing Magpul's headed to Texas, apparently the Texans are offering 5 years tax free, and a break on new land/building permits, etc.
I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long
Hordini wrote:I'm not concerned about a conflict of interest, I'm concerned about any branch of the government deciding that a certain kind of discourse is damaging because it is unpopular or extreme, and then restricting that discourse. It doesn't matter which party the government officials are affiliated with (if any), or if they are elected or appointed.
Have you ever held a discourse regarding, say, conspiracy to commit murder? How about merely suggesting that someone kill a political figure? Or perhaps even say the word "bomb" in an airport. How do you reconcile those restrictions with your concern about unpopular or extreme discourses being restricted?
As long as it doesn't go beyond speech and become actions, I don't think any of those things should be illegal. In order to be charged with conspiracy, there has to be an overt action in furtherance of the crime. Otherwise, talk is cheap, and shouldn't be restricted.
Then let's go a step further. How about shouting "fire!" in a crowded theatre? Even mere "cheap" talk can cause harm.
See that type of thing is the obvious limit of speech, based on the whole My right to extend my fist ends at your nose, theory. What we're having issues determining as a society *global society. Is how much impact speech has, and how to even begin to judge said speech.
Personally I feel we need to harden the feth up as a society. Crying or letting it impact you because someone said something mean and it hurt your feefees shouldn't be a criminal case, snark back or ignore them like an actual adult and carry on. Where I feel the grey area is, is speech that incites or encourages others to violence, or to commit crimes, that kinda thing.
I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long
KalashnikovMarine wrote:See that type of thing is the obvious limit of speech, based on the whole My right to extend my fist ends at your nose, theory. What we're having issues determining as a society *global society. Is how much impact speech has, and how to even begin to judge said speech.
Personally I feel we need to harden the feth up as a society. Crying or letting it impact you because someone said something mean and it hurt your feefees shouldn't be a criminal case, snark back or ignore them like an actual adult and carry on. Where I feel the grey area is, is speech that incites or encourages others to violence, or to commit crimes, that kinda thing.
But that's my point. It's exactly that grey area that I'm arguing for, here. Speech that incites or encourages others to violence, or is made with the express purpose of terrorizing another, I do not feel is protected (which is what the Canadian court has recently determined in this latest ruling).
Hordini's idea of a perfect Libertarian understanding of the absolute right to free speech doesn't and cannot work because it creates a potential conflict with the rights of others (in effect, he is suggesting that your right to extend your fist should not be infringed ever, under any cirucmstances).
xraytango wrote: IDK if this has been pointed out but ASSAULT weapons are capable of fully automatic sustained or burst fire. These are far more expensive and difficult to get than SEMI-AUTOMATIC sporting rifles.
Unfortunately the drive-by media likes sensationalism and raising a ruckus with such aggressive sounding words such as "assault-rifle". What would happen if instead of calling a gun with a detachable magazine, black polymer furniture, and a semi-automatic rate of fire, an assault rifle, they called it what it is, which is a semi-automatic sporting weapon.
For the most part, only the military uses assault weapons, civilians have sporting-arms.
That's one way to look at it. I have to say though, I completely disagree with the designation of "sporting firearms" on the basis that the 2nd Amendment is not, and was NEVER, about "hunting".
The 2nd Amendment guarantees you the right to bear arms against tyrannical government to ensure security of a free state. It's not about blowing Bambi's head off in the woods - the founding fathers never realized that people would ever try to infringe on others' natural right, as living creatures, to hunt their own food. The notion that anyone would prohibit hunting would be completely insane to them. Rather, the 2nd is about maintaining arms outside of the government's control to act as a check and balance against tyranny.
People make a big stink about "assault weapons", and the text of the Amendment is very clear: SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. But, beyond that, the truth is that a Fudd with his deer rifle, or a high school chemistry teacher with access to gasoline and fertilizer, is going to do a lot more damage if civilians ever needed to fight. Anybody running around with an AR15 is going to end up on Youtube like those poor bastards in Syria, getting smoked left and right.
We just have quite a few people who think that Freedom of Speech means that we could have 10 racists buying all the houses on a street surrounding the house of the only black person, and then burn crosses on their front yards, hang racist posters from their walls, and yell such lovely things as "I think all N**** should die, what about you N***? Someday when you sleep we might just break into your house and burn it down with you inside of it? How about we rape you and your children before we kill you all?" all while standing in their front yard with baseball bats, and a noose in their hand. They might even rent a billboard promoting their racist ideology and promising on that billboard that all blacks on this street will soon be killed.
It doesn't matter that the black person on this street is physically ill from all the stress and in constant fear of his life. Since they never actually touched him it is all perfectly happy and nobody needs to worry about anything. Freedom of Speech is awesome!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/03/23 21:20:24
Hordini's idea of a perfect Libertarian understanding of the absolute right to free speech doesn't and cannot work because it creates a potential conflict with the rights of others (in effect, he is suggesting that your right to extend your fist should not be infringed ever, under any cirucmstances).
If someone's fist comes in contact with anyone else, then there are plenty of things that person can be charged with. Talking doesn't have anything to do with extending fists meeting faces - that is an action that goes beyond speech and expression. I don't think people should be restricted from just saying something like "This person should be punched." However, if someone actually does punch that person, the person who actually punches the person should be charged.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: We just have quite a few people who think that Freedom of Speech means that we could have 10 racists buying all the houses on a street surrounding the house of the only black person, and then burn crosses on their front yards, hang racist posters from their walls, and yell such lovely things as "I think all N**** should die, what about you N***? Someday when you sleep we might just break into your house and burn it down with you inside of it? How about we rape you and your children before we kill you all?" all while standing in their front yard with baseball bats, and a noose in their hand. They might even rent a billboard promoting their racist ideology and promising on that billboard that all blacks on this street will soon be killed.
It doesn't matter that the black person on this street is physically ill from all the stress and in constant fear of his life. Since they never actually touched him it is all perfectly happy and nobody needs to worry about anything. Freedom of Speech is awesome!
There are multiple crimes going on in this situation that go beyond free speech and include additional illegal actions.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/03/23 22:52:40
d-usa wrote: So please sum up the crimes. Because there are all things that people in this thread have said are okay.
Some of tihs probably varies by state, but for a start: menacing or brandishing (with the baseball bats and nooses). The cross burning so close to other people's houses could probably be reckless burning and/or criminal mischief. Combined with the baseball bats and nooses and verbal threats, the cross burning itself could also be illegal in some jurisdictions.
But extreme rhetoric and displaying posters should not be illegal on their own. Saying that I don't think the government should be able to restrict speech because they have decided that it is "damaging discourse" does not in any way mean that I support the scenario that you are describing.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/03/23 23:26:54
Hordini wrote:Saying that I don't think the government should be able to restrict speech because they have decided that it is "damaging discourse" does not in any way mean that I support the scenario that you are describing.
Hordini wrote:Saying that I don't think the government should be able to restrict speech because they have decided that it is "damaging discourse" does not in any way mean that I support the scenario that you are describing.
Actually, yeah, it does.
No, it absolutely does not. Saying that it's okay to hold extreme opinions and display those opinions and demonstrate those opinions peacefully does not extend to menacing people with baseball bats and nooses.
Hordini wrote:Saying that I don't think the government should be able to restrict speech because they have decided that it is "damaging discourse" does not in any way mean that I support the scenario that you are describing.
Actually, yeah, it does.
No, it absolutely does not. Saying that it's okay to hold extreme opinions and display those opinions and demonstrate those opinions peacefully does not extend to menacing people with baseball bats and nooses.
A billboard of a Klansman menacing a black man is exactly the kind of speech that I was saying is justified in prohibiting, and exactly the kind of speech you are claiming should not be.
Hordini wrote:Saying that I don't think the government should be able to restrict speech because they have decided that it is "damaging discourse" does not in any way mean that I support the scenario that you are describing.
Actually, yeah, it does.
No, it absolutely does not. Saying that it's okay to hold extreme opinions and display those opinions and demonstrate those opinions peacefully does not extend to menacing people with baseball bats and nooses.
A billboard of a Klansman menacing a black man is exactly the kind of speech that I was saying is justified in prohibiting, and exactly the kind of speech you are claiming should not be.
A billboard of a Klansman menacing a black man is not the same thing as a Klansman menacing a black man.
Good luck finding a billboard company who would allow that to be displayed. This kind of display would likely be protested against quite heavily (and rightly so), and the billboard company could be boycotted. There are plenty of good responses to that kind of situation that don't involve the government restricting people's rights.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/03/23 23:56:01
