- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: "No Amendment is absolute."
Posted on 12/5/22 at 2:32 pm to RogerTheShrubber
Posted on 12/5/22 at 2:32 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:Same reason there’s should be no limitation to “arms”. Simply possessing a… thermonuclear bomb…. doesn’t harm anyone unless it’s used.
It shouldn't be illegal. Rioting is already illegal.
0
Posted on 12/5/22 at 2:35 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
The speech he doesn’t agree with.
What about any post I have made in this thread illicits that reply?
Your freedom of speech is limited. You cannot say whatever you want, whenever you want, without legal consequence.
Posted on 12/5/22 at 2:36 pm to memphisplaya
quote:
Show me the law…
42 USC 2122. Plain as day.
This post was edited on 12/5/22 at 2:38 pm
Posted on 12/5/22 at 2:36 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
hate crimes are so they can prosecute you further then the others, simply based on ideology.
Hate crimes are dumb as frick
Posted on 12/5/22 at 2:37 pm to Wtodd
quote:
Hate crimes are dumb as frick
This we agree on. All thought-crime laws should be unconstitutional.
Posted on 12/5/22 at 2:38 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
All thought-crime laws should be unconstitutional.
It's a damn good thing thoughts are crimes or I'd be executed
Posted on 12/5/22 at 2:39 pm to Wtodd
quote:
Hate crimes
= thought crime
quote:
are dumb as frick
Should be unconstitutional.
This post was edited on 12/5/22 at 2:40 pm
Posted on 12/5/22 at 2:40 pm to Indefatigable
Thanks. 
I was trying to remember the code number
But I’ll add one of the big arguments from the left is “it’s not legal to own a cannon.” It is, and it’s legal to build a cannon. A civilian can also own a flamethrower.
I was trying to remember the code number
But I’ll add one of the big arguments from the left is “it’s not legal to own a cannon.” It is, and it’s legal to build a cannon. A civilian can also own a flamethrower.
Posted on 12/5/22 at 2:41 pm to Indefatigable
quote:Not aimed specifically at you, but that seem to be a common standard of those that want to censor speech.
What about any post I have made in this thread illicits that reply?
quote:The government violates it’s own constitution all the time. I’m not a sure how you think that’s a winning argument.
You cannot say whatever you want, whenever you want, without legal consequence.
This post was edited on 12/5/22 at 2:41 pm
Posted on 12/5/22 at 2:41 pm to TbirdSpur2010
I think Trump's overarching point was that conservatives have to fight fire with fire. We play be the rules against a faction that does not. What's the point of quoting constitutional rights if the other side believes that the document is too flawed to acknowledge?
This is an example of Trump being serious but not literal. He has spoken this way from the beginning and half the country still can't or won't figure him out.
This is an example of Trump being serious but not literal. He has spoken this way from the beginning and half the country still can't or won't figure him out.
Posted on 12/5/22 at 2:41 pm to Indefatigable
quote:I see them as being very, very bad policy.quote:This we agree on. All thought-crime laws should be unconstitutional.
Hate crimes are dumb as frick
What is the analysis on them being unconstitutional?
First Amendment analysis seems tenuous, to me.
Posted on 12/5/22 at 2:43 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
I’m not a sure how you think that’s a winning argument.
It depends on the conversation. We were discussing the absolute application of the amendments, a discussion in which my position was that none of the amendments are absolute. In that context, I am not sure how my pointing out that freedom of speech is limited constitutes anything other than a winning argument.
Posted on 12/5/22 at 2:44 pm to Indefatigable
quote:That’s because you’ve already accepted your rights being trampled on, apparently.
I am not sure how my pointing out that freedom of speech is limited constitutes anything other than a winning argument.
Posted on 12/5/22 at 2:45 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
The amendments are all, in fact, limited.
What in the Constitution makes you say this?
Posted on 12/5/22 at 2:48 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
What is the analysis on them being unconstitutional?
First Amendment analysis seems tenuous, to me.
In my opinion, with admittedly no reliance on any legal support because I don't have the time to put that together, thought and opinions are in the purview of "speech" for 1A purposes. Thoughts are the obvious logical precursor to spoken words.
Thus, elevating criminal punishment on the basis that the government didn't like what the perp thought while they were committing the crime would violate the perpetrators right to say (think) whatever he wanted.
Posted on 12/5/22 at 2:48 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Perjury is illegal.
Something something the right to not incriminate himself...
Posted on 12/5/22 at 2:49 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
That’s because you’ve already accepted your rights being trampled on, apparently.
So you disagree with perjury, libel, and slander laws?
This conversation is not about how things should or could be. Its about how they are.
This post was edited on 12/5/22 at 2:51 pm
Posted on 12/5/22 at 2:49 pm to KAGTASTIC
quote:
Something something the right to not incriminate himself...
What?
Posted on 12/5/22 at 2:52 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
libel, and slander laws?
Should only be civil cases. Not criminal.
Posted on 12/5/22 at 2:57 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Libel, slander, and perjury are illegal.
Gov can't sue or prosecute for libel or slander. First Amendment pertains to government infringement. Libel and slander are items between people. Also, the gov doesn't / can't do things that prevent you from being slanderous etc.
Perjury is the subversion of justice by an overt act and the gov does not suppress or limit the ability of anyone to commit perjury, and to be punished for it there must be intent to thwart justice.
These examples don't really get at the point of limits or absoluteness etc.
Page 3 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News