In response to:

The Complex Truth About the Second Amendment

alogolf Wrote: Feb 14, 2013 11:54 AM
Liberals keep using the "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater" discussion as a way of showing that it is o.k. to restrict the 2nd amendment. If you look at this argument it does not hold up. Yelling the word fire in a theater, when there is no fire, is wrong and it should be forbidden. But, if a law was passed to demand that the word fire is not to be spoken at all, for any usage, than such a ban of the word “fire” would be absurd. Banning a firearm is the same as banning the word fire. Discharging any firearm wrongly-even a musket gun should be illegal . This we all agree on as clear minded people. But, to say that a semi auto firearm needs to be banned and all legitimate use is forbidden, is wrong, like banning the word fire!
scott s. Wrote: Feb 14, 2013 4:20 PM
You can regulate "yelling fire in a crowded theater" but such regulation is subject to a test of "strict scrutiny". If Chapman agrees that regulation of RKBA requires strict scrutiny, then we're getting somewhere.

The debate on gun control lately has been going like this: Liberals propose various restrictions on allowable firearms, acceptable owners and approved ammunition. Conservatives exclaim, "Second Amendment!" And the debate, at least in the mind of the latter group, is over.

The Second Amendment, they believe, is not just one important provision of our basic government document. It's the first and last word on the subject of firearms.

Viewing the proposals offered since the Sandy Hook massacre, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., concludes the supporters intend "to completely GUT our Second Amendment rights." The Utah Sheriffs' Association warned President Barack...