Important Notice: The site is currently being upgraded to a new software system. This process could take a day or two to complete. During that time, we are going to leave the site up here, on its old software. WHAT GETS POSTED HERE DURING THIS TRANSITION WILL NOT BE COPIED OVER ONTO THE NEW SITE, WHEN THE UPGRADE IS COMPLETE. When we swap over, the content posted while this message is visible will be lost. We wanted to give you folks a place to hang out and talk while we worked though. We will let you know when we are finished. Please pardon the inconvenience, during this transition.

Home Forums Classifieds GT Store Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups


Rate this Entry

Yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater

Posted 12-06-2010 at 09:59 by Razorsharp
Updated 12-06-2010 at 18:30 by Razorsharp

Oftentimes, those who advocate for additional "common-sense" gun-control legislation, counter the Second Amendment's prohibition against the infringement of the right of the people to keep and bear arms with a canard of the anti-gun left, that is supposed to be an end-all argument in support of limiting the scope of the Second Amendment, by comparing that to a supposed limitation on the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech .
You can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater.
Even President Obama subscribes to this particular line of "reasoning" regarding the Second Amendment.

During the presidential campaign, while addressing an Iowa group concerning his stance on gun ownership, then candidate Barack Obama inadvertantly revealed either a lack of understanding of the Bill of Rights or a contempt of the Second Amendment. Candidate Obama told the audience that he respects the right of lawful gunowners to "hunt, fish, protect their families"..., but then said,
... like all rights, they are bound and restrained by the needs of the community. So... I have a right to free speech, but I can't just yell "FIRE" in this auditorium.
The problem with this line of reasoning is that you can yell "FIRE" in a crowded auditorium, there just has to be a fire. See, it's not really a limitation on the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech, but a limitation to the endangerment of innocent citizens. Kind of like my right to wildly swing my arms ends at someone else's nose. The same limitations already exist pertaining to firearms ownership. While one has a right to own a firearm, that firearm owner is limited to the extent that he is prohibited from aiming that firearm at an innocent citizen. The firearm owner is limited to the extent that he is prohibited from endangering a innocent citizen.

However, just as there are times that it is permissible to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater, there are times when it is not only permissible, but necessary to aim a firearm at a person.

As a so-called Constitutional scholar, either President Obama does not really understand what it is that is being limited, or he really does understand, he is just trying to fool as many people as possible.

Sadly, there doesn't seem to be a shortage of fools.
Posted in Uncategorized
Views 4235 Comments 1 Edit Tags Email Blog Entry
« Prev     Main     Next »
Total Comments 1


  1. Old Comment
    Amen! there is no shortage of the attacks that occur on the 2nd Amendment.

    we are also seeing an attack on the 4th Amendment being carried out by the TSA on a daily basis. the Israeli's had had a much more serious threat to their airlines for a much longer period than we here in the USA have had.

    they handle it through "profiling". but alas, that is such a dirty word here in America. the PC Left has now equated profiling to racism instead of good old "gut instinct" and common sense.

    yet another way the race card is killing America...
    Posted 12-07-2010 at 14:57 by IQof1 IQof1 is offline

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:27.

GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
GT Store

Users Currently Online: 445
89 Members
356 Guests

Most users ever online: 4,867
May 19, 2015 at 1:03