It's unlawful to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater because the second Amendment allows all those people to tote guns and they might get the wrong idea.
It's unlawful to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater because the authorities need a means to charge the irresponsible ass that caused all the harm. If it's not against the law, they can't charge him.
You will note, and note very carefully, the law doesn't forbid anyone to own a mouth, it only punishes the misuse of that mouth.
Equally important, the law should permit unlimited ownership of guns (the highest law, the Constitution, does), but punishes improper use of them.
What does physically having a voice and using a voice have to do with the first amendment anyway? It says that no laws can prohibit speach, but yelling fire in a crowded building is still illegal.
I just don't see your point. If someone is punnishing my "use" of my mouth that is still violating my speach.
If people want, they can argue that even though the second amendment (or any other amendment) can't be taken literally, but that assault weapons should still be legal. but you guys are fighting on my home turf :P
Nerv shooting people is illegal for the most part owning a gun is not.
The POTENTIAL to endanger public safety is not the same as ACTUALLY endangering public safety.
If it were, then you could ban penises on the argument that every man has the potential to rape.
[quote=LaMidRighter;1058004254]Doesn't matter for my pointYelling fire in a crowded theater can, does, and did do harm to others, which is why it is unprotected speach, the utterance, an action, creates a clear and present danger. Owning an assault rifle in itself is not an intent to harm, and like Gobieman stated, the intent to harm would be firing the rifle, that is the actionn that could be considered a clear and present danger, the behavior of illicit use of the weapon can be banned constitutionally, NOT the action of owning it.
wheere do people have a "right" to not hear someone yell fire in a crowded building. The Bill of Rights specifically says that rights can't be used to get rid of other rights
Wait, so you do think that owning some guns should be illegal? thats just what im saying.
The first amendment says that there can't be any violations in the freedom of speech. Its the freedom to say speech, not some strange "free speech"
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
All I am saying is that you can't take the Bill of Rights completely legal.
And by everyone else's logic, should we allow nuclear firearms and rocket launchers? Those don't harm anyone if they aren't used.
I draw the line against assult weapons because they allow one person to kill many other people at once. This is simillar to what nuclear weapons and rocket launchers do, which is why they should be illegal to private citizens.
However, if one person wants to kill someone else then I am not stopping them from doing that. They can buy a semi-automatic gun.
Is that too much to ask?