Musicmystery
Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
I looked in my copy of the constitution and nowhere did what you claim should be to manage guns.
http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3098129
If you weren't so busy with insults and smileys, you could read threads for context. But even in that post, you're inventing instead of reading.
The claim was that we don't restrict free speech, so why should we restrict guns? The reality, which I posted, is that we do indeed restrict free speech.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
quote:
States or municipalities shouldn't be restricting rights.
Restricting First Amendment rights or Freedom of the Press wouldn't be tolerated for one minute! I don't understand why people have tolerated this nonsense for so long.
The difference is that firearms are potentially a threat to other citizens.
When free speech or freedom of the press poses a threat to other citizens, it is also restricted.
No reason firearms should be exempt from this reasonable approach.
In that thread, from there, you went off on your pet law rant instead of sticking to the topic.
If you want to claim that we DON'T restrict free speech---libel, national security, for example--have at it. But we do.
Oh, and
quote:
ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
When you have to invent my views in order to "refute" them, it doesn't say much for you.
*insert mocking smiley*
Now, if you want to claim we shouldn't limit free speech either, enjoy.
But you don't seem able to argue points and positions--everything is personal attacks to you.
< Message edited by Musicmystery -- 3/7/2010 3:27:30 PM >
|
RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread