Free Speech

Not the same thing...not even close to what is being discussed. Originally Posted by WTF

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

This had already been addressed. Originally Posted by WTF

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.

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

Somehow I thought you would.

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

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?

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. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

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

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? Originally Posted by Rudyard K

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

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. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

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

Word!!

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

Then the purpose of this post was???

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

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.

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

Word!! Originally Posted by Rudyard K

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.

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

Then the purpose of this post was??? Originally Posted by Rudyard K

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

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 Originally Posted by discreetgent

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

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

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.

Somehow I thought you would. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

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"

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 Rudyard K

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

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 Originally Posted by discreetgent

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.

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. Originally Posted by London Rayne

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.

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. Originally Posted by London Rayne

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".