TexasCHLforum.com

The Senator from California may not be in the sixth grade, but she has the same mentality.

Get 'em, Ted.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/exp ... 07602.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But she never got around to answering, did she?

The more I see of this guy, the happier and more confident I am.

I literally LOL'd on this one:

I've seen the bullets that implode.

We have bullets that IMPLODE?!?! Not sure why I would want one, I prefer the ones that EXPLODE...but I'm willing to shoot them to "research" and see what the fuss is all about

She uses child porn in her example of curtailing 1st Amendment rights. The fact is, we don't outlaw high capacity cameras with assault lenses because some people use them for illegal activates. Just as we don't (shouldn't) outlaw firearms because some people will use those for illegal activities.

We cannot yell "FIRE" in a theater, but that doesn't mean we tape everyone's mouth shut before they go in a theater (although I wouldn't mind if they did at times.)

I doubt she could understand the fallacy of her position, as she does have a 6th grade mentality.

Jaguar wrote:She uses child porn in her example of curtailing 1st Amendment rights. The fact is, we don't outlaw high capacity cameras with assault lenses because some people use them for illegal activates. Just as we don't (shouldn't) outlaw firearms because some people will use those for illegal activities.

We cannot yell "FIRE" in a theater, but that doesn't mean we tape everyone's mouth shut before they go in a theater (although I wouldn't mind if they did at times.)

I doubt she could understand the fallacy of her position, as she does have a 6th grade mentality.

Excellent retort. Thank you.

I like his attitude. Rather refreshing in a patriot sort of way. I am certain he let her off with such obviously insane statements about the Constitution because he was being polite.

He needs to stop being so polite. Feed him some gunpowder.

Anygunanywhere

At the end Durbin says something along the lines of "these rights are not obsolute" I find that more disturbing than DiFi's lunacy.

Remember that Feinstien is the definative expert on guns in the Senate...She scours through publications, diagrams, specs, and other visual aids to increase her expertise on the subject of guns...And she has never had to really handle or shoot many of them either...

If this is true, then every teenage boy in this country could be considered a gynochologist...

stevie_d_64 wrote:Remember that Feinstien is the definative expert on guns in the Senate...She scours through publications, diagrams, specs, and other visual aids to increase her expertise on the subject of guns...And she has never had to really handle or shoot many of them either...

If this is true, then every teenage boy in this country could be considered a gynochologist...

"Mr Chairman I appreciate pointing out the State Of Texas does have books."

Jaguar wrote:We cannot yell "FIRE" in a theater, but that doesn't mean we tape everyone's mouth shut before they go in a theater (although I wouldn't mind if they did at times.)

I don't think it's illegal yell "FIRE" in a theater if there is actually a fire. It's not the act that is illegal it's the consequences of that act. At least in my opinion. Others may have a different opinion.

Mack wrote:

Jaguar wrote:We cannot yell "FIRE" in a theater, but that doesn't mean we tape everyone's mouth shut before they go in a theater (although I wouldn't mind if they did at times.)

I don't think it's illegal yell "FIRE" in a theater if there is actually a fire. It's not the act that is illegal it's the consequences of that act. At least in my opinion. Others may have a different opinion.

Zackly.

Anygunanywhere

Mack wrote:

Jaguar wrote:We cannot yell "FIRE" in a theater, but that doesn't mean we tape everyone's mouth shut before they go in a theater (although I wouldn't mind if they did at times.)

I don't think it's illegal yell "FIRE" in a theater if there is actually a fire. It's not the act that is illegal it's the consequences of that act. At least in my opinion. Others may have a different opinion.

The court, if memory serves me correctly, rules the act of doing so was illegal rather than the result, which was a very poor ruling as it confused freedom of action or choice and/or freedom of speech with rights. It is a confusion which persists to this day as a result. If we viewed it with a more correct lense, you have the freedom to choose to say such a thing, it isn't outside the bounds of free speech to do so. However you do not have the right to transgress on the rights of others, specifically in this situation thier private property rights, this being ownership of thier physical selves.
How are you doing so by shouting fire? Via the ensuing panic and the possibility of injury or death to them if the crowd stampedes due to that panic.
Had the court ruled correctly they should have said you have the freedom to say it but you don't have the right via freedom of speech to endanger others in such fashion. Hence if you shout fire, any injury, death, or damage that are caused by your choice, you are legally liable for.

Jaguar wrote:She uses child porn in her example of curtailing 1st Amendment rights. The fact is, we don't outlaw high capacity cameras with assault lenses because some people use them for illegal activates. Just as we don't (shouldn't) outlaw firearms because some people will use those for illegal activities.

We cannot yell "FIRE" in a theater, but that doesn't mean we tape everyone's mouth shut before they go in a theater (although I wouldn't mind if they did at times.)

I doubt she could understand the fallacy of her position, as she does have a 6th grade mentality.

Don't give them ideas now.

My Facebook friends who are anti gun are just loving how Diane just stood her ground and made a fool of Ted.

Isn't it odd how two people can read about the same incident and come away with two different views.