Second Amendment News and Views.

[StatFreak]

But you both have missed the fact that it wasn't Jay who misquoted that line; it was the author of the article he copied/re-posted.

One might argue that if Jay had performed due diligence, he would have seen the error and included [SIC] after the misquote to denote that it was taken verbatim. One might argue that.

However, people who live in stone houses shouldn't throw glasses. Also, people who live in glass houses make interesting neighbors. 

Given the common misuse around here of simple words like "loose" (lo̅o̅s) (meaning 1. Not fastened, restrained, or contained: loose bricks. 2. Not taut, fixed, or rigid: a loose anchor line ..4. Not tight-fitting; not tight: loose slots) when the intended word was "lose" (lo̅o̅z) (meaning 1. To be unsuccessful in retaining possession of; mislay: He's always losing his car keys. ... 4. To fail to win: Did you lose the big game?; I'm losing all my money to this supposedly loose slot machine. )   one might politely suggest that Jay's oversight go unchallenged. One might suggest that. 

[brichter]

Stat, have you been peeking again?    


<edit>

Stat, you did see this part also, right?

And, the verdict in the Schenk case was later overturned (Brandenburg v. Ohio 1969), by the way...  not to mention that Holmes himself changed his view to be the opposite of what it was initially, in Abrams vs. US.

The new criteria for unprotected speech states that the speech must be directive, and likely to incite imminent lawless action. Since yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater is not directive, it fails the first criteria. So, even correctly quoted, the statement is still false.

I really love it when argumentative folks quote this one, because although most everyone has heard the original decision, very few people actually know the law concerning it.   

[StatFreak]

Stat, have you been peeking again?    


<edit>

Stat, you did see this part also, right?

And, the verdict in the Schenk case was later overturned (Brandenburg v. Ohio 1969), by the way...  not to mention that Holmes himself changed his view to be the opposite of what it was initially, in Abrams vs. US.

The new criteria for unprotected speech states that the speech must be directive, and likely to incite imminent lawless action. Since yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater is not directive, it fails the first criteria. So, even correctly quoted, the statement is still false.

I really love it when argumentative folks quote this one, because although most everyone has heard the original decision, very few people actually know the law concerning it.    

Yup, I read it before posting. Even so, you were both blaming Jay instead of the author of the article. I just had to break your collective balls a little since Jay was re-posting an article unabridged. It also gave me a chance to vent my little pet peeve indirectly...    

Of course, now people will deliberately misuse the words just to mess with me... 

[brichter]

I think I have a screw lose... 

[channelmaniac]

I think I have a screw lose... 

Think?

 

[tacman]

I was on the way home after work on I-55 S/B just before the Central Ave. exit when I spotted this billboard. I was amazed and amused that they would put this up in such an anti-gun locale (Cook County/Chicago). Kudo's to the advertisers!!!

Dan (tacman)

[Tilt]

And an ad for a Slidefire stock no less, Dianne Feinstein would piss her pants! 

[Buzz]

And an ad for a Slidefire stock no less, Dianne Feinstein would piss her pants! 

She might as well, she's already S*** in her mess kit !!!!  ( For all you 4Fs it's a old military term )

[tacman]

The state rifle association is applauding the ad, and of course now the antis are frothing at the mouth and are targeting the billboards owner.

Dan (tacman)

[proten]

That's tuff sh**,Thats freedom of speech.

[StatFreak]

I think I have a screw lose... 

Think?

 

Eye tink sew, to.*

*That's one, "too," by the way. Another one, which makes "two" of them "to" discuss.  

I think I have a screw lose... 

Oddly, the error rarely happens in the other direction. I guess I'm screwed either way. 

Wait, I can see it now! A HUGE casino sign that reads: "We have lose slots!!"      That'll bring 'em in.

or how about: "We'll pay you back up to $100 if you loose!      I guess they mean loose change. 

[StatFreak]

I was on the way home after work on I-55 S/B just before the Central Ave. exit when I spotted this billboard. I was amazed and amused that they would put this up in such an anti-gun locale (Cook County/Chicago). Kudo's to the advertisers!!!

Dan (tacman)

The state rifle association is applauding the ad, and of course now the antis are frothing at the mouth and are targeting the billboards owner.

Dan (tacman)

That's tuff sh**,Thats freedom of speech.

Damned Right!

I've never been particularly pro gun, but the more the government tries to take our rights away, the more pro gun I get. I hope the billboard owner tells the anti-gun lobby where to get off and sticks to his guns (pun intended).