Federal trial begins Monday for Kansas church that protests military funerals - Polidicks

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;23461918][b]"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."[/b] that's very explicit sir. what if north koreans invade, there can't be a citizen militia because we have no guns let me carry my fucking .50cal rifle damnit, those things can tear tanks to shred, I live in Hawaii, amphibious assault by the North is very plausible.[/QUOTE] Just in my opinion, I don't care if you carry a 50 cal. Go for it. It's not that much more dangerous than a handgun or shotgun other than the fact it'd tear a victim to pieces.

[QUOTE=JDK721;23461728]ITT: People who are basing their decisions on emotions and think it's okay to pick and choose who gets rights. So you want to deny people rights based on what you think is crossing the line?[/QUOTE] Just because it's the constitution doesn't mean it's right. It was written hundreds of years ago. And there's a fine line between protesting for what you believe in and harassing/emotionally damaging people. Look over the whole situation again. An idiotic church is protesting the funeral with shocking signs (Which I mentioned earlier) of someone who died for his country. Constitution or not, free speech seriously needs to have it's limits and adjustments. And since there are so many supreme/federal court cases coming up lately about free speech, you have to accept the fact that the constitution had good intents and was great for it's time, but it's not fit for today.

just condemn these fuckos to death

[QUOTE=JDK721;23461728][U]ITT: People who are basing their decisions on emotions[/U][/QUOTE] What are you talking about?

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;23461918][b]"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."[/b] that's very explicit sir. what if north koreans invade, there can't be a citizen militia because we have no guns let me carry my fucking .50cal rifle damnit, those things can tear tanks to shred, I live in Hawaii, amphibious assault by the North is very plausible. [editline]05:19AM[/editline] are you saying Zeke is not your real name, sir[/QUOTE] It's very vague and doesn't ever define the word arms, this technically means that all destructive devices should be legal, up to and including NBCs. Also good work ignoring my more sound, non-constitutionally based argument completely.

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;23461918]are you saying Zeke is not your real name, sir[/QUOTE] look at you all sly and shit

[QUOTE=Leaf Runner;23461959]What are you talking about?[/QUOTE] You base your argument on emotions. You're saying people can't protest because it'll hurt someones feelings.

[QUOTE=Kagrenak;23461876]Because the right to extreme forms of speech and protest is not only explicit in the constitution (unlike the right to have a .50 caliber rifle, which at best is implicit) but is a necessary element to the functioning of a free and just society. Even not taking the Constitution into account, (after all, it was written by some guys two centuries ago) it is still one of the most important rights that is offered by a free society.[/QUOTE] The greatest display of our rights are what the WBC are doing, as well as other actions like burning the flag. Of course, there are limits to free speech, but that's only when they're infringing on other rights.

[QUOTE=Leaf Runner;23461950]Just because it's the constitution doesn't mean it's right. It was written hundreds of years ago. And there's a fine line between protesting for what you believe in and harassing/emotionally damaging people. Look over the whole situation again. An idiotic church is protesting the funeral with shocking signs (Which I mentioned earlier) of someone who died for his country. Constitution or not, free speech seriously needs to have it's limits and adjustments. And since there are so many supreme/federal court cases coming up lately about free speech, you have to accept the fact that the constitution had good intents and was great for it's time, but it's not fit for today.[/QUOTE] But the limitation of free speech has always been a slippery slope, even though the argument on its own is a logical fallacy, pointing to historical precedent gives it weight. There's no reason to outlaw any form of hurtful speech unless it is directly incendiary or harmful, these assholes are neither.

[QUOTE=Kagrenak;23461968]It's very vague and doesn't ever define the word arms, this technically means that all destructive devices should be legal, up to and including NBCs. Also good work ignoring my more sound, non-constitutionally based argument completely.[/QUOTE] yeah, i heard george washington and the founding fathers were amputees, so they all wanted people the right to have arms cause the evil british would take them oh wait, are you saying we have limits. you're speaking hitler here, i should have no limits on what arm I can bear. and i didn't, by your logic, if you take away my guns, you take away the essence of self-defense.

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;23461810]second amendment, right to bear arms etc you're a hypocrite if you don't support me walking in the street publically with a Barrett .50cal[/QUOTE] Thats actually legal as long as its unloaded (in my state, anyway). I hope they win, as dumb as it sounds. It is technically their first amendment right to protest, no matter how stupid said protest is.

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;23462007]yeah, i heard george washington and the founding fathers were amputees, so they all wanted people the right to have arms cause the evil british would take them oh wait, are you saying we have limits. you're speaking hitler here, i should have no limits on what arm I can bear. and i didn't, by your logic, if you take away my guns, you take away the essence of self-defense.[/QUOTE] No, because guns can be proven to be directly harmful to other people in a real and lasting way. Just as harassment or the causation of emotional distress isn't legal, neither is the ownership and open carry of certain forms of weaponry. The limits currently in place are just fine. The worst these people do is make one think to themselves "Wow, what a bunch of fucktards."

[QUOTE=Timebomb757;23462033]Thats actually legal as long as its unloaded. I hope they win, as dumb as it sounds. It is technically their first amendment right to protest, no matter how stupid said protest is.[/QUOTE] bullshit, then it's just a very heavy club, i need ammo otherwise it's an arm/gun.

[QUOTE=Timebomb757;23462033]Thats actually legal as long as its unloaded (in my state, anyway). I hope they win, as dumb as it sounds. It is technically their first amendment right to protest, no matter how stupid said protest is.[/QUOTE] Depends on where you are, in some states it could be fully loaded with a round in the chamber and still be legal.

I'm going to bed soon. I appoint Zeke and Kagrenak to fill in for me.

[QUOTE=Kagrenak;23462037]No, because guns can be proven to be directly harmful to other people in a real and lasting way. Just as harassment or the causation of emotional distress isn't legal, neither is the ownership and open carry of certain forms of weaponry. [b] The limits currently in place are just fine. The worst these people do is make one think to themselves "Wow, what a bunch of fucktards."[/b][/QUOTE] i lol'ed, do you go around asking a father who lost his son in Iraq then having his funeral as a last goodbye how he feels? im pretty sure if im the father, heavy emotional distress is inflicted on me by having my own dead son's funeral being protested and accused of his soul burning in damnation. [editline]05:29AM[/editline] And guns isn't directly harmful to people in a real and lasting way all the time either, doctors can pull bullets out and you'll survive.

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;23462067]i lol'ed, do you go around asking a father who lost his son in Iraq then having his funeral as a last goodbye how he feels? im pretty sure if im the father, heavy emotional distress is inflicted on me by having my own dead son's funeral being protested and accused of his soul burning in damnation. [editline]05:29AM[/editline] And guns isn't directly harmful to people in a real and lasting way all the time either, doctors can pull bullets out and you'll survive.[/QUOTE] It would feel pretty damn shitty, and I would certainly be pissed. But you know what? I would hope that the father knew that his son died to protect those morons right to protest, and that everyone has that same freedom due to his sacrifice.

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;23462067]i lol'ed, do you go around asking a father who lost his son in Iraq then having his funeral as a last goodbye how he feels? im pretty sure if im the father, heavy emotional distress is inflicted on me by having my own dead son's funeral being protested and accused of his soul burning in damnation. [editline]05:29AM[/editline] And guns isn't directly harmful to people in a real and lasting way all the time either, doctors can pull bullets out and you'll survive.[/QUOTE] You'll survive but you'll still have been shot. I survived getting hit by a car and flying 5 meters through the air and another 7 on the ground, doesn't mean I wouldn't have sued the person who hit me if I could have, and it doesn't mean I liked living through it. They should still win, as this law needs to be struck down. I'm not arguing in favor of their protests, like you seem to think with your little straw men. I'm arguing in favor of them winning so the law can be taken off the books, as it prevents [i]any[/i] protests from taking place near a military funeral for one hour before and one hour after. This means that people with legitimate grievances that need to be aired at a critical place where emotions are high (a funeral) have no outlet for this that would not be harassment.

[QUOTE=Timebomb757;23462120]It would feel pretty damn shitty, and I would certainly be pissed. But you know what? I would hope that the father knew that his son died to protect those morons right to protest, and that everyone has that same freedom due to his sacrifice.[/QUOTE] yeah, but that's you, a random guy in the forum. neither you or me will know the pain of a son dying then getting protested in your fucking face saying your dead son is burning in an eternal hellfire. they can go protest the war, but once you tread on a funeral where you can cause severe emotional distress, you're crossing the line can i go yell FIRE in my local movie theater? It's a really shitty theater that charges too much for a popcorn.

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;23462163]yeah, but that's you, a random guy in the forum. neither you or me will know the pain of a son dying then getting protested in your fucking face saying your dead son is burning in an eternal hellfire. they can go protest the war, but once you tread on a funeral where you can cause severe emotional distress, you're crossing the line can i go yell FIRE in my local movie theater? It's a really shitty theater that charges too much for a popcorn.[/QUOTE] This is different for many reasons and you keep using false analogies. In fact, not a single analogy you have made is appropriate, you should just stop now.

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;23462163] can i go yell FIRE in my local movie theater? It's a really shitty theater that charges too much for a popcorn.[/QUOTE] Sure you can, but you would get in trouble because that is a fraudulent claim. And I'm pretty sure yelling FIRE doesn't have anything to do with your right to protest. Edit: Unless there really is a fire of course, then its all good.

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;23462163]yeah, but that's you, a random guy in the forum. neither you or me will know the pain of a son dying then getting protested in your fucking face saying your dead son is burning in an eternal hellfire. they can go protest the war, but once you tread on a funeral where you can cause severe emotional distress, you're crossing the line [B]can i go yell FIRE in my local movie theater? [/B]It's a really shitty theater that charges too much for a popcorn.[/QUOTE] Bad analogy, but no. [I]Schenck v. United States[/I] famously proved that wrong.

I hope the WBC lose's and gets arrested by police for being illegal. No one understands that constitutional freedom doesn't exist anymore, the patriot act did it. so what now?

[QUOTE=JDK721;23461522]Hopefully they win. Banning them from exercising their First Amendment rights sets a dangerous precedent.[/QUOTE] Fucking this, you remove one groups constitutional rights, you remove everyone's.

[QUOTE=Kagrenak;23462133]You'll survive but you'll still have been shot. I survived getting hit by a car and flying 5 meters through the air and another 7 on the ground, doesn't mean I wouldn't have sued the person who hit me if I could have, and it doesn't mean I liked living through it. They should still win, as this law needs to be struck down. I'm not arguing in favor of their protests, like you seem to think with your little straw men. I'm arguing in favor of them winning so the law can be taken off the books, as it prevents [i]any[/i] protests from taking place near a military funeral for one hour before and one hour after. This means that people with legitimate grievances that need to be aired at a critical place where emotions are high (a funeral) have no outlet for this that would not be harassment.[/QUOTE] anecdote evidence don't count here, boss. not to mention, protesting means you want something achieved, i.e, you protest wal-mart cause they do predatory low prices and shut down small businesses protesting a funeral doesn't do shit other cause grievance, it's harassment and an invasion of privacy You guys always support whatever makes you more 'free', but you don't care about the repercussions or the consequences of it happening, it's more or less always, dur more freedom more freedom. And i ain't using strawmen evidence, sorry. you're in favor of an extreme demonstration of first amendment, I'm in favor or an extreme demonstration of second amendment, simple as that.

[QUOTE=Heartboy;23462237]I hope the WBC lose's and gets arrested by police for being illegal. No one understands that constitutional freedom doesn't exist anymore, the patriot act did it. so what now?[/QUOTE] We threw the constitution out like a page ago, anyway. Constitution or no, the right to protest freely is fundamental to a free society's functioning.

I live right by there, I should walk around with a sign saying something

[QUOTE=Heartboy;23462237]I hope the WBC lose's and gets arrested by police for being illegal. No one understands that constitutional freedom doesn't exist anymore, the patriot act did it. so what now?[/QUOTE] So if there is no more freedom, lets all just give up right? Let the government take the last morsels of freedom we have left, who cares.

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;23462234]Bad analogy, but no. [I]Schenck v. United States[/I] famously proved that wrong.[/QUOTE] yeah, that's a famous example of first amendment being limited by substantial reason, first example of a lot more. this is an example of limiting first amendment so people won't inflict emotional distress on their victims for a meaningless protest.

Yelling FIRE isn't free speech because it incites panic and could cause a riot/whatever to break out. You really are bad at analogies. And you keep bringing up the emotional aspect, our entire justice system is based around the fact that human emotions are fallible and reactionary, and not a proper judge of a situation. Yes, i'm sure it angers the family, and possibly hurts them emotionally, but it causes them no physical harm and it doesn't infringe on their rights, so we shouldn't infringe on the WBC's rights. They're a horrible organization, that's for sure, but they have a right to say what they want to say in the form they use to say it. Unless they hurt someone or otherwise cause a 3rd party harm, then fuck em and throw em in jail. EDIT: Damn it I post slow. There's also this: "protesting a funeral doesn't do shit other cause grievance, it's harassment and an invasion of privacy" It do anything in your mind, but it's an expression of an opinion to the WBC and they're within their rights to do that. Our legal system isn't based on opinion either