The Gun Fight in Washington. Your opinons?

Not only is your logic flawed, but so is your thinking on most issues.

You're a waste of time.

Guns are used in crimes

http://www.pressandguide.com/articles/2013/06/05/news/doc51ad04f06f7d9972316073.txt?viewmode=2

The detectives recorded the interview, which was played during a hearing before Somers. In it, Brady told the detectives he was drunk and walking to a store when he took a shortcut and saw that the lights were on in the ACCESS building. He said he was surprised by Flores and hit her on the head a few times with a fire extinguisher he grabbed off a wall mount. He said he sexually assaulted her with a desk nameplate, set a series of small fires and used a pool cue to break the glass in a vending machine to steal money and candy before he fled.

Or from a can when the pull top breaks off.

There are 300 millions plus guns in the US and it is a tiny tiny tiny fraction of them that are ever used in crimes.

Next guns are also used as a tool in self defense a legal and it can be a life saving action.

So like fire extinguishers guns can save lives by having them available in times of need.

Footnote people have been killed/murder by being hit by fire extinguishers.

Next guns are also used as a tool in self defense a legal and it can be a life saving action.

And more are used in crimes than in places that don't have as many guns.

You are going to wave a magic wand and removed 300 millions plus firearms so it will be hard to get one in the future by a criminal?

So in other words criminals get their guns from "law abiding" citizens? Maybe we should take them away from those that supply them to criminals.

You are going to wave a magic wand and removed 300 millions plus firearms
so it will be hard to get one in the future by a criminal?

So in other words criminals get their guns from "law abiding" citizens?
Maybe we should take them away
from those that supply them to criminals.

Dear Sir,
"Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a misquote that refers to Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919 and that is used to express the limits upon which free speech may be expressed under the terms of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Holmes, writing for a unanimous majority, ruled that it was illegal to distribute fliers opposing the draft during World War I. Holmes argued this abridgment of free speech was permissible because it presented a "clear and present danger" to the government's recruitment efforts for the war. Holmes wrote:
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.
Holmes wrote of falsely shouting fire, because, of course, if there were a fire in a crowded theater, one may rightly indeed shout "Fire!". Falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, i.e. shouting "Fire!" when one believes there to be no fire in order to cause panic, was interpreted not to be protected by the First Amendment.
Schenck was later overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio, which ruled that speech could only be banned when it was directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot), the test which remains until this day. Some now see the Schenck argument to be mistaken, contending that the pamphleteer's actions were more like yelling fire outside a building to prevent people from entering, rather than trying to encourage people to stampede out.
Despite Schenck being overturned, the phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theater" has since come to be known as synonymous with an action that the speaker believes goes beyond the rights guaranteed by free speech, reckless or malicious speech, or an action whose outcomes are blatantly obvious.
I hope this is helpful.

Regards,

XXXXX XXXXX

]The CRIMINALS r the politicians
who have raped the Bill of Rights.





David

The CRIMINALS r the politicians
who have raped the Bill of Rights.





David

Why didn't you stop the rape with your gun David?
Are you admitting guns don't stop crimes?

What crimes have been stopped with guns in relationship to how many gun owners have lost loved ones?