NY Gov Gun Laws...

[JCline0429]

You tell me to ignore the Nazi, then I tell you to ignore the picture of Jeasus in the hallway, or the prayer before the meeting, or any of the long list of things that were just fine for so many years. It cuts both ways.

And, ignore The Ten Commandments and Nativity Scene on the court house lawn as well.

The Mayans were right, the world is coming to an end (they were just off a month or two). We agree on something. Rep point.

[MountainMan]

Oh Geez........ National Signing Day and this thread is S-T-I-L-L lumbering on? Give it a rest guys.

[JCline0429]

Oh Geez........ National Signing Day and this thread is S-T-I-L-L lumbering on? Give it a rest guys.

Ignore this thread if it annoys you.

[MountainMan]

Oh Geez........ National Signing Day and this thread is S-T-I-L-L lumbering on? Give it a rest guys.

Ignore this thread if it annoys you.

Ignore my comments it they annoy you!





Ever heard of something called a joke? Look it up.

[JCline0429]

Oh Geez........ National Signing Day and this thread is S-T-I-L-L lumbering on? Give it a rest guys.

Ignore this thread if it annoys you.

Ignore my comments it they annoy you!





Ever heard of something called a joke? Look it up.

Why would I ignore your comment? I agree with you.
It was simply a suggestion...look it up.

[WataugaMan]

You tell me to ignore the Nazi, then I tell you to ignore the picture of Jeasus in the hallway, or the prayer before the meeting, or any of the long list of things that were just fine for so many years. It cuts both ways.

And, ignore The Ten Commandments and Nativity Scene on the court house lawn as well.

The Mayans were right, the world is coming to an end (they were just off a month or two). We agree on something. Rep point.

Well, we can't disagree on everything ya know.

[Watauga72]

Freedom of speech allows for the public to decide what they believe rather than authorities. In the open marketplace some ideas will win, many will lose. Allowing a forum for even the most abominable of speech such as the Illinois nazis is important, as if we start restricting one group the door is opened to future restrictions of other ideas that someone may not like. Yes, they are a hate group...but I believe that further airing of their hateful ideas will only educate the public to how dispicable they are. In the end, we all win.

[JCline0429]

Sounds like you would agree with the right of those crazies who protest at deceased veterans' funerals to do their abominable charades.

BTW, would "we" have "won" had those nazi bas----s caused a riot in which innocent Jews or law enforcement officers had lost their lives?

[Watauga72]

Sounds like you would agree with the right of those crazies who protest at deceased veterans' funerals to do their abomnable charades.

Just because I don't like what they do and say doesn't mean they don't have the right to protest as long as they obey the law. I think they've ruined themselves as an organization by their actions. They've more than worn out their welcome around the country (their ideas have lost out in the public marketplace) and eventually they will run out of steam. Suppressing their right to speech would accomplish nothing.

So, yes, I guess you're correct.

[Watauga72]

Sounds like you would agree with the right of those crazies who protest at deceased veterans' funerals to do their abominable charades.

BTW, would "we" have "won" had those nazi bas----s caused a riot in which innocent Jews or law enforcement officers had lost their lives?

As to your second paragraph....did that happen? Why create fantasy scenarios to try to prove your point? Did we win when Montgomery police used water cannons and police dogs on peaceful marchers in the 50's/60's? Would we have won had the establishment been allowed to suppress free ideas?

Is the threat of some sort of public reaction the new guage for free speech? Who determines that in advance? What if they're wrong? If freedoms are suppressed because of potential public danger, where do you draw a line? Should that be extended to gun ownership?

[bcoach]

Freedom of speech allows for the public to decide what they believe rather than authorities. In the open marketplace some ideas will win, many will lose. Allowing a forum for even the most abominable of speech such as the Illinois nazis is important, as if we start restricting one group the door is opened to future restrictions of other ideas that someone may not like. Yes, they are a hate group...but I believe that further airing of their hateful ideas will only educate the public to how dispicable they are. In the end, we all win.

In the particular case of the Nazi it surpasses freedom of speech. It is terrorism. You have to think of those people who escaped being approached by those who tried to kill them. In that particular case there was no difference at all between the Nazi and the ACLU. On that particular day they were both terrorists.

[Watauga72]

Freedom of speech allows for the public to decide what they believe rather than authorities. In the open marketplace some ideas will win, many will lose. Allowing a forum for even the most abominable of speech such as the Illinois nazis is important, as if we start restricting one group the door is opened to future restrictions of other ideas that someone may not like. Yes, they are a hate group...but I believe that further airing of their hateful ideas will only educate the public to how dispicable they are. In the end, we all win.

In the particular case of the Nazi it surpasses freedom of speech. It is terrorism. You have to think of those people who escaped being approached by those who tried to kill them. In that particular case there was no difference at all between the Nazi and the ACLU. On that particular day they were both terrorists.

So, who determines that these particular nazi's were terrorists? What about the next group that someone doesn't agree with? The ideas of the NAACP might have been considered "terrorism" at one time....they certainly were in the South. Don't think that i am equating the two organizations, I'm not. Just an example of the danger in suppressing any non-violent speech.

[JCline0429]

Sounds like you would agree with the right of those crazies who protest at deceased veterans' funerals to do their abomnable charades.

Just because I don't like what they do and say doesn't mean they don't have the right to protest as long as they obey the law. I think they've ruined themselves as an organization by their actions. They've more than worn out their welcome around the country (their ideas have lost out in the public marketplace) and eventually they will run out of steam. Suppressing their right to speech would accomplish nothing.

So, yes, I guess you're correct.

The losers are the families and friends who came to honor those veterans who paid the ultimate sacrifice for their country not to mention the millions of us who feel likewise about those veterans. Where are their rights in this scenario?
E

[Watauga72]

Sounds like you would agree with the right of those crazies who protest at deceased veterans' funerals to do their abomnable charades.

Just because I don't like what they do and say doesn't mean they don't have the right to protest as long as they obey the law. I think they've ruined themselves as an organization by their actions. They've more than worn out their welcome around the country (their ideas have lost out in the public marketplace) and eventually they will run out of steam. Suppressing their right to speech would accomplish nothing.

So, yes, I guess you're correct.

The losers are the families and friends who came to honor those veterans who paid the ultimate sacrifice for their country not to mention the millions of us who feel likewise about those veterans. Where are their rights in this scenario?
E

How are your rights impacted by these idiots? Are you convinced by their demonstrations that you're threatened or wrong? What is the greater loss, someone being offended by the protesters or the loss of a freedom in this country? There are a ton of posts here about someone taking away the right to own any weapon we choose. If protecting rights is so important, why should the right to own a semi-automatic weapon with a 30+ round clip be more important than the right of self-expression?

[bcoach]

Freedom of speech allows for the public to decide what they believe rather than authorities. In the open marketplace some ideas will win, many will lose. Allowing a forum for even the most abominable of speech such as the Illinois nazis is important, as if we start restricting one group the door is opened to future restrictions of other ideas that someone may not like. Yes, they are a hate group...but I believe that further airing of their hateful ideas will only educate the public to how dispicable they are. In the end, we all win.

In the particular case of the Nazi it surpasses freedom of speech. It is terrorism. You have to think of those people who escaped being approached by those who tried to kill them. In that particular case there was no difference at all between the Nazi and the ACLU. On that particular day they were both terrorists.

So, who determines that these particular nazi's were terrorists? What about the next group that someone doesn't agree with? The ideas of the NAACP might have been considered "terrorism" at one time....they certainly were in the South. Don't think that i am equating the two organizations, I'm not. Just an example of the danger in suppressing any non-violent speech.

I understand your point and this is an extreme example but still one that they supported which shows me how they think. A terrorist is one who terrorizes people. When people of the same thought process wearing the same uniforms as those who tried to eradicate you and your race march down your street that is terror. It is very easy for people who have not experienced terror to not understand it. I guess one of the places I would draw the line is with people who advocate the death of others. That would at least be a good starting point. I also would not support the Klan marching through a black neighborhood for the same reason. As far as the NAACP there are some things that I don't agree with but I have no problem with them as it is not part of their charter to eradicate any particular group of people.
You have the right to be against abortion. You have the right to scream about it at the top of your lungs. You do NOT have the right to promote the death of the doctor.

[JCline0429]

Sounds like you would agree with the right of those crazies who protest at deceased veterans' funerals to do their abomnable charades.

Just because I don't like what they do and say doesn't mean they don't have the right to protest as long as they obey the law. I think they've ruined themselves as an organization by their actions. They've more than worn out their welcome around the country (their ideas have lost out in the public marketplace) and eventually they will run out of steam. Suppressing their right to speech would accomplish nothing.

So, yes, I guess you're correct.

The losers are the families and friends who came to honor those veterans who paid the ultimate sacrifice for their country not to mention the millions of us who feel likewise about those veterans. Where are their rights in this scenario?
E

How are your rights impacted by these idiots? Are you convinced by their demonstrations that you're threatened or wrong? What is the greater loss, someone being offended by the protesters or the loss of a freedom in this country? There are a ton of posts here about someone taking away the right to own any weapon we choose. If protecting rights is so important, why should the right to own a semi-automatic weapon with a 30+ round clip be more important than the right of self-expression?

If you read my whole paragraph, you would see that I was referring mainly to the relatives (mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, grandparents and close friends. It was just an after thought to throw in the millions of citizens who want to know that our service people will have a peaceful, reverent, grateful funeral.
I don't wish to debate you on this subject as evidently we come from different circumstances (just judging from the tone of your posts). I come from a military family from whom close family members have paid the ultimate sacrifice. I'm also a very compassionate person and hurt everytime I hear of a parent who has lost a child in any war. Same goes for what the Jewish "race" has gone through, and still do.
If you are going to pick one sentence from my post and twist it, we can't have a logical debate.
I believe in the rights of groups to protest, march, carry signs, demonstrate, etc etc, but I also believe in individuals to have to be exposed to intimidation whether in the name of freedom of speech or not. The Nazis clearly demostrated in Skokie that their purpose was to intimidate and likely to incite. The old adage that your rights end where my nose begins is a strong belief of mine whether you or anyone else agrees with it or not.If I and several others can't explain our personal feelings to you, then there is no hope for us finding any common ground.
These are my personal feelings and I don't choose to impose them on anyone else, but it has been nice to know that several individuals agree with me.
Peace.

[Watauga72]

JCline, you might be surprised that we share the military background, including my father (career army, served in WWII, Korea, and Viet Nam) and my own service in the navy (no wars to speak of;)). I like to think that those who serve do so to protect the rights of everyone, regardless of how I feel about them personally.

I also feel that it's more dangerous to risk losing freedoms than to fear what someone has to say. Now, when people quit talking and start acting, that is a different matter.

As for understanding your personal feelings, I certainly do. That is the whole point. Neither your personal feelings, those who agree with you, nor my own personal feelings have a role in determining freedom of speech. As soon as we allow speech to be limited because we are personally offended by it, we start down a dark path.

I'm out of here on this discussion.

[JCline0429]

JCline, you might be surprised that we share the military background, including my father (career army, served in WWII, Korea, and Viet Nam) and my own service in the navy (no wars to speak of;)). I like to think that those who serve do so to protect the rights of everyone, regardless of how I feel about them personally.

I also feel that it's more dangerous to risk losing freedoms than to fear what someone has to say. Now, when people quit talking and start acting, that is a different matter.

As for understanding your personal feelings, I certainly do. That is the whole point. Neither your personal feelings, those who agree with you, nor my own personal feelings have a role in determining freedom of speech. As soon as we allow speech to be limited because we are personally offended by it, we start down a dark path.

I'm out of here on this discussion.

Me, too, I thought I made that clear in my last post.

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

The problem with that bunch is that they spend as much time looking for a fight as they do their form of justice. In so many cases they are more the bully than the protector. To take away the rights of a thousand for the complaint of one is not a hero it is a bully. You tell me to ignore the Nazi, then I tell you to ignore the picture of Jeasus in the hallway, or the prayer before the meeting, or any of the long list of things that were just fine for so many years. It cuts both ways. Well unless you are an organization with unlimited money who can travel around the country intimidating people.

Religion is directly addressed in the Constitution, and having Jesus in the hallway goes against the anti-establishment clause, at least in my view, and many others. There is not one word about Nazi's or for that matter any political party in the Constitution. It does not cut both ways. One is free speech, as vile as it may be, which is guaranteed in the Constitution, the other is directly prohibited as part of the Anti-establishment clause. Just because we let those prayers happen in the past did not make it correct, and when it was challenged the court has generally concurred that the religious stuff needs to be moved off gov't areas. Nothing in the Constitution keeps you from practicing your or my religious beliefs in a private manner. It just does not allow the gov't to give preference to one religion over the other, or no religion.

[bcoach]

The problem with that bunch is that they spend as much time looking for a fight as they do their form of justice. In so many cases they are more the bully than the protector. To take away the rights of a thousand for the complaint of one is not a hero it is a bully. You tell me to ignore the Nazi, then I tell you to ignore the picture of Jeasus in the hallway, or the prayer before the meeting, or any of the long list of things that were just fine for so many years. It cuts both ways. Well unless you are an organization with unlimited money who can travel around the country intimidating people.

Religion is directly addressed in the Constitution, and having Jesus in the hallway goes against the anti-establishment clause, at least in my view, and many others. There is not one word about Nazi's or for that matter any political party in the Constitution. It does not cut both ways. One is free speech, as vile as it may be, which is guaranteed in the Constitution, the other is directly prohibited as part of the Anti-establishment clause. Just because we let those prayers happen in the past did not make it correct, and when it was challenged the court has generally concurred that the religious stuff needs to be moved on gov't areas.

I think you understand what I was saying