Reply to Thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TerryMiller" data-source="post: 1794986" data-attributes="member: 7900">Regarding the issue of hollering &quot;Fire&quot; in a theatre, even if there is the caveat of &quot;causing harm,&quot; there is still a restriction.&nbsp; One does not have an &quot;unlimited right&quot; to their speech.&nbsp; To a number of participants here on the OSA forums, they have the idea that the 2A gives unlimited rights to the possession, and carrying, of firearms.&nbsp; To limit the argument for restrictions that it must cause harm seems to me to be limiting other possibilities that a court or legislative body may come up with.I don&#039;t necessarily agree that we should have too many limitations to our rights, but I will still contend that there are individuals out there with very little common sense that own firearms and want absolutely NO restrictions to what they percieve as a right.&nbsp; Thus, having some limitations as to who may carry openly (or concealed) seems reasonable.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TerryMiller, post: 1794986, member: 7900"] [FONT=Georgia][SIZE=3]Regarding the issue of hollering "Fire" in a theatre, even if there is the caveat of "causing harm," there is still a restriction. One does not have an "unlimited right" to their speech. To a number of participants here on the OSA forums, they have the idea that the 2A gives unlimited rights to the possession, and carrying, of firearms. To limit the argument for restrictions that it must cause harm seems to me to be limiting other possibilities that a court or legislative body may come up with. I don't necessarily agree that we should have too many limitations to our rights, but I will still contend that there are individuals out there with very little common sense that own firearms and want absolutely NO restrictions to what they percieve as a right. Thus, having some limitations as to who may carry openly (or concealed) seems reasonable.[/SIZE][/FONT] [/QUOTE]

Verification