Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "" video.

Ramled Mas no, there were zero exceptions. Did you misunderstand my point? If you shout fire in a crowded theater, the consequences determine your punishment. However, nobody stapled your lips shut. You had free speech, nobody took your rights away. If you kill someone in the name of religion, religion isn't banned. You go to jail. You. You can search anything about the Mayans and follow their religion. You're absolutely free, nothing can stop you. You can also kill someone - but you shouldn't. You can do anything you want, we can't stop you because this isn't Minority Report. You just can't claim that you did it because of your freedoms, because they won't be there for you in court.
9
Nowhere in the constitution does it say you can't suffer the consequences of your actions. If you slander, you get sued, even with free speech. If you kill, you go to jail, even if it's your religion.
2
charlie brown many times movies put an emphasis of the whistling and ricochet of bullets. Also, silenced guns. Pew pew is a joke on those sound effects.
2
Madra >"If my religion requires me to sacrifice a virgin to my god once every blood moon, you are restricting my freedom of religion by not allowing me to do so" No, you just go to jail for murder. Nobody stopped you until you committed a crime. By the same logic murder laws are a restriction on the second amendment because you can't just shoot people! Murder laws are anti-2A, more at eleven. >"There are exceptions to these rights no matter how you want to word it, you can't change the definition of a word to your own liking just because it conflicts with your views." No exceptions. If you're able to slander someone, that was because you had the freedom of speech to do it in the first place. There are no limits to rights, you just can't use them to justify criminal action. Rights are "you have the right to this, just don't hide behind me if you fuck it up". You're the one who's twisting the argument to fit your already established views. The concept that a right has "restrictions" if you convict someone of a crime is insane. If a right isn't an universal absolute, then what good is it for?
1
How is it an American problem? Literally everyone else makes Black/White arguments to defend whatever... Statism, gun control, communism (usually first world rich teenagers who never lived under communism). Drawing a line in the sand is somehow worse than the crap rhetoric we get exposed to every day? Tell me where the grey is: "I'm not a racist, but...". You can bet that 95% of the sentences that start of like this are racist. There's no grey. "I'm for gender equality, but..." "I'm for gay rights, but..." Unless you're gonna introduce a different subject, the but implies you disagree with the concept you just claimed to agree. We get these undercover antis telling us they believe in gun rights but... Its a way to pretend to be one of us.
1
Machinshin That's fallacious as hell. We got tons of political parties in Europe but except in places like the UK, it's a two party system. There's the communists, the hard right people, etc that almost nobody votes for and some fringe groups that only secure a couple of seats every election. Then there's two major parties or coalitions that end up winning 31% vs the runner-up's 28%. In my country, it's the Socialist Party and the Social Democrats. One is center-left and the other is center-right. They're almost on top of each other in the political spectrum, but since they're two major parties they bicker instead of working together. >"Imho one must often choose the middlepath in many matters for something good to happen" False Dilemma is a fallacy, but so is Argument to Moderation. If I say the sky is blue and you say it's red, compromising and agreeing that it's purple doesn't solve anything. Gun owners are used to "compromise", ie we had things taken from us without anything being given in return, but eery time a new proposed legislation comes we are told to meet them halfway and compromise. >"I think the main problem is that americans has been taught to choose side all the time." Again, this happens all over the world, and sometimes a side has to be chosen. In a subject that matters to me, staying on the fence is hardly going to do me any good. I may stay on the fence on things that don't matter to me at all, and I'm not going to talk about those often, am I? This gives the appearance that I chose sides on everything, when I only did it on like 10% of the subjects. The other 90% are simply not important enough for me to talk about. So if I care about gun rights, what do I get by staying in the middle ground other than tacitally accepting what the antis want?
1
But can the government staple your lips shut before you enter? No. You are only punished after the fact, and if you cause damages. Yelling fire is not an exception yo the First Amendment. You can say it. But you can't use the 1A as a defense in court. Your false equivalence would be like claiming that you support the 2A but you're against murder. Nowhere in the 2A does it say you have the right to murder anyone, just like the 1A won't save you if you commit slander and you get sued.
1
Daniel Uoeno Look, nobody said having rights wouldn't let assholes get away with being assholes. You can use freedom of speech to tell offensive jokes, which can be 100% offensive and 0% funny, but until it causes damages it's a right. Having the right to not be subject to unreasonable searches and seizures lets a lot of pedophiles get away with their actions, too. People misuse things they are legally entitled to have. Booze, cars, etc. Are you pointing the finger at drinking laws and the booze manufacturers for allowing people to misuse booze?
1
SheppardOfDeath if you're high, maybe. The NRA panders to a sizeable audience, they would never say that or they'd lose support while getting flak from both antis or moderates. It's perfectly legal to make binary explosive targets. It's illegal to put it on a fragmenting container or transporting it without a license. Not that terrorists care, but there's a lot of wild shit you can do inside private property. By the way, being allowed to possess something doesn't mean it has to be sold - you can only get tannerite before it's mixed. Grenades could be legal, only no arms manufacturer could (or would want to) sell it to you. None of my business if you lose an arm trying to make one. But if you do make one, it being illegal wouldn't have stopped you until governments can read your mind.
1
deadpan237 Well, the Oklahoma city bomber and the Utoya shooter did more than just pressure cookers. Not being argumentative here, but if you want to terrorize civilians then a pressure cooker that fires off shrapnel everywhere is more than enough. It's not meant to flip over a LAV-3. But if you want to nearly level a building, then those two cowards are a prime example of how "more complex" explosives can be easily sourced compared to 155mm shells, which simply aren't laying around in the first world countries.
1