Gun Control & RKBA

Starboard Tack

(11,181 posts)

89. I do not propose anyone be held accountable for legal acts

Fri May 15, 2015, 02:30 PM

May 2015

I propose that certain acts be made illegal, including hate speech, capital punishment and lethal defense of property. All these are "throwbacks" to an earlier time, as is the Second Amendment.
Who do you think should approve of islamophobia and other bigotry?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

97 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Anyone notice some of the strongly Anti-RKBA people are also very anti-free speech in GD. [View all] NutmegYankee May 2015 OP

who'd a thunkit? discntnt_irny_srcsm May 2015 #1

Funny there is an OP saying just the opposite. upaloopa May 2015 #2

The standard talking past each other. NutmegYankee May 2015 #5

I noticed a lot of anti-hate speech posts Starboard Tack May 2015 #3

Violence in response to speech is never justified. NutmegYankee May 2015 #4

Very true! Starboard Tack May 2015 #10

Drawing cartoons does not incite violence. NutmegYankee May 2015 #11

I can only wonder which planet you live on if you truly believe that Starboard Tack May 2015 #17

The terrorists were looking for a reason to attack for their ideology - NutmegYankee May 2015 #20

The ideology may drive it, but the islamophobes provide the opportunity Starboard Tack May 2015 #63

How many cartoons did the Idiot Boys who died in Dallas actually see? cherokeeprogressive May 2015 #82

"to further their authoritarian agenda" Starboard Tack May 2015 #32

I'm referring to ISIS, took responsibility for the attack NutmegYankee May 2015 #61

Pamela Geller may have gotten her oats in a most peculiar manner... Eleanors38 May 2015 #7

This apparently was not an example of "free" speech. Starboard Tack May 2015 #12

An incitement charge will be shit-canned by any competentcompetent court. Eleanors38 May 2015 #13

I agree. Starboard Tack May 2015 #18

would you say the same about gejohnston May 2015 #21

Cartoons incite violence blueridge3210 May 2015 #24

They have short memories DonP May 2015 #25

The 'shield' they want would become a sword in right-wing hands... friendly_iconoclast May 2015 #33

And so it has become, less than a week later. From the CBC: friendly_iconoclast May 2015 #64

No. Catholics and Mormons got over this kind of shit a while back Starboard Tack May 2015 #35

Mormons never murdered people gejohnston May 2015 #36

I'll give you that it is "unamerican" to call for hate speech laws Starboard Tack May 2015 #38

agree but one thing gejohnston May 2015 #44

Defending the right to free speech is fine. Starboard Tack May 2015 #46

I don't know anything about these people gejohnston May 2015 #50

You really belive that?! virginia mountainman May 2015 #29

Some are bound and determined to conform to Ronald Reagan's definition of a liberal friendly_iconoclast May 2015 #34

Did I say that drawing an image was incitement to violence? Starboard Tack May 2015 #40

*sigh* blueridge3210 May 2015 #41

Did you hear the speeches of Geller and Wilders? Starboard Tack May 2015 #48

It doesn't matter what their motivation was. blueridge3210 May 2015 #49

We know that. Starboard Tack May 2015 #53

The First Amendment is just fine as is. blueridge3210 May 2015 #54

Yes, their is a law.. virginia mountainman May 2015 #57

That type of law regarding speech... discntnt_irny_srcsm May 2015 #59

"Doesn't mean we cannot talk about their motives." Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #65

No! Legal consequences for inciting violence. Starboard Tack May 2015 #69

The only ones inciting violence are those preaching that "blasphemers" should be killed. Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #70

No, they are not inciting violence. They are promising violence. Starboard Tack May 2015 #74

Only one side is using violence. If the terrorists weren't killing people over cartoons Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #76

Only one side is using violence? Starboard Tack May 2015 #84

Only one side is using illegal violence. blueridge3210 May 2015 #85

Nice distinction Starboard Tack May 2015 #87

A distinction with a vital difference. blueridge3210 May 2015 #88

I do not propose anyone be held accountable for legal acts Starboard Tack May 2015 #89

"Hate Speech" blueridge3210 May 2015 #90

No, it is not meaningless. Starboard Tack May 2015 #91

Boil that word salad down and the result is blueridge3210 May 2015 #92

No, I am not holding anyone responsible for the actions of others. Starboard Tack May 2015 #95

Sorry, no. blueridge3210 May 2015 #96

Sory, but you are wrong Starboard Tack May 2015 #97

In your previous post you described the things you don't like as a throwback and here you Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #93

I did not "dismiss" society as merely a concept Starboard Tack May 2015 #94

Not only are you victim-blaming those who were attacked you're making victims of the attackers. Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #86

The difference is that Gellar did not "incite" violence. blueridge3210 May 2015 #72

That is why the First Amendment needs adjustment Starboard Tack May 2015 #73

Nice double down. beevul May 2015 #75

Would you defend the right of a person of color to march through the midst of a KKK rally? Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #77

no it does not need updating gejohnston May 2015 #79

Sorry, but you're wrong. blueridge3210 May 2015 #80

Furthermore... beevul May 2015 #81

Brandenburg v Ohio discntnt_irny_srcsm May 2015 #30

I guess if someone wants to disregard the 2nd Amendment... NaturalHigh May 2015 #6

Perhaps more disregarded is the 5th's Due Process clause. Eleanors38 May 2015 #8

We're only progressive when it's something we like/agree with it seems. ileus May 2015 #9

Did you just realize that? Starboard Tack May 2015 #16

Simple test: How many times has anti RKBA demanded the Gungeon be shut down in ATA or Meta? DonP May 2015 #14

META was a lot of fun back when it was wide open. ileus May 2015 #15

IMNSHO, the true irony is the anti RKBA think they are the "tolerant" ones DonP May 2015 #19

Meta was.. Puha Ekapi May 2015 #22

I have long noticed virginia mountainman May 2015 #23

Not particularly, no. I've often noticed that individual DUer may take positions that petronius May 2015 #26

I did. beevul May 2015 #27

Guns/being pro-gun are/is antithesis to liberalism. uncleverusername May 2015 #28

Really? Why don't you read what George Orwell said. MicaelS May 2015 #37

Don't know who a George Orwell is or why I should care uncleverusername May 2015 #43

O M G!!! sarisataka May 2015 #47

I'd laugh at the teabagger gun nuts too.... uncleverusername May 2015 #55

Ahh, they know so little.. virginia mountainman May 2015 #58

Many hate filled bigots sarisataka May 2015 #60

You must be really be naive. MicaelS May 2015 #62

You have an insurmountable obstacle sarisataka May 2015 #45

Nonsense. In fact, you're 180 degrees off. beevul May 2015 #39

None of that applies to gun ownership, except in your warped sense of mind. uncleverusername May 2015 #42

Nonsense. beevul May 2015 #56

You fail, utterly, to comprehend what liberalism actually is. Lizzie Poppet May 2015 #66

I call them "Ronald Reagan liberals": friendly_iconoclast May 2015 #31

not me. I am rabidly opposed to those who limit free speech and yet CBGLuthier May 2015 #51

And the 1st allows you to say that sarisataka May 2015 #52

You support an al carte Bill of Rights? hack89 May 2015 #67

I am rabidly opposed to those who limit rights.. virginia mountainman May 2015 #68

For some people "The Greater Good", "The Group", "The Commons", "Society" is all that matters. MicaelS May 2015 #71

Don't you know the Bill of Rights consists of Amendments 3 through 10 tularetom May 2015 #78

Scratch the 10th. It gives the states too much power and limits the fed too much according to some. cherokeeprogressive May 2015 #83