Anti - "Magazine Limit For Ducks is only 3"

[Carl N. Brown]

more on FIRE!

Since most who seek to restrict 2A are knee jerk liberals like Norman Lear's Maude, one might think that the fact that the "shouting fire" quote is about Government restricting Free Speech in Wartime would trigger a kick-out of that argument.

Schenck v. United States () 100 U.S. 1
"... The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre 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[sic: substitute power or authority] to prevent. ... When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right. ..."

The "clear and present danger" test was intended by Holmes to limit restriction of free speech; to emphasize that point, the current test is "imminent lawless action" as a result of reckless speech (Brandenburg v Ohio, 1969). If constitutional rights have to be limited, restriction of those rights should also be limited to a clear and present danger of imminent lawless action.

 

[zxcvbob]

I get sick and tired of hearing that old "'Fire!' in a crowded theater" canard. It doesn't apply here. Gun control laws are always "prior restraint" (look it up if you don't know what that means)

 

[Justin]

Robb Allen has a succinct and great takedown of just how stupid it is to compare yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater to gun control.

http://blog.robballen.com/Post/11085/a-poor-choice-of-words

One thing I cannot stand is how fast many 2A supporters nod their head in agreement that no right is absolute and then pop off to agree that you can’t yell fire in a theater, as if that has anything to do with the price of cheddar in Sheboygan.

Yes, it is true that no right is unlimited because at some point your rights will interfere with other people’s rights. Usually the example is yelling ‘Fire’ in a theater, and then saying well,yes, there are some styles of firearms that can be restricted – however, this is a poor logical argument.

You see, you cannot yell fire if there isn’t a fire. You cannot libel or slander, incite violence, yell ‘I have a bomb’ on your flight to Poughkeepsie, or sit outside your neighbor’s window at 3 AM screaming the national anthem off key. However, even though there are limits to how you use your speech, there are no limits on speech itself. You are free to use every word in the English language, mixed with Portuguese and gibberish made up from childhood memories. You are not limited to syllables, you may use words that are newly coined or ones cribbed from ancient texts. You can even yell ‘Fire’ – either in the comfort of your own home or in a theater when yes, there is a fire. Every word, sentence, and dangling participle is at your disposal, it is the context or the use of that may get you into high temperature dihydrogen monoxide.

I hate how even some of the 2A greats conflate the free speech issue with gun ownership. The limit to the right is in the use of it, not it the tools of the trade. There is no logic behind saying “You can use this particular tube to launch projectiles, but not that tube" as an acceptable limit to a right. Instead the focus should be “You may not use any tube to launch projectiles in a way that violates the rights of others (namely the right to not have involuntary, high velocity body piercing) without cause”.

The fact we’re arguing which tubes are considered ok and not is arguing from a weak position, and I think it’s a poor choice of words.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Gun control laws are always "prior restraint" (look it up if you don't know what that means)

Gun control aimed at certain guns could be compared to banning V-8 Fords because 1930s bank robbers used them to outrun police, or banning vans because serial killers use them to kidnap victims.

 

[jmr40]

Ducks don't shoot back, bad guys do.

 

[r1derbike]

M R Ducks!
M R Not!
S A R!
C M L O Bills?
L I B! M R Ducks!

I think (right, wrong?) that the 3-shell limit would be sufficient for experienced hunters?

 

[gspn]

Well...since anyone who murders a person has already violated the law against murder...why does he think these same people would obey the law about magazine capacity?

In addition to the other arguments above...there is a removable plug in my shotgun that lets me change the capacity whenever I like.

 

[Texan Scott]

Carpooling your kids to school & NASCAR both involve automobiles.

What's good for one may have nothing to do with the other, however.

Legally hunting migratory waterfowl in federal wetlands & protecting your family from the meth tweak in your kitchen at 2am may both involve firearms, but...

What point did they think they were trying to make, exactly?

 

[r1derbike]

Justin's Robb Allen quote has raised a question for me; is there any step in preparation of a duck for dinner that requires a bath in high temperature dihydrogen monoxide?

 

[gym]

Ducks aren't murderers. Next time a group tries a home invasion, tell him we can save any over 3 for him so as not to go over the limit. As long as he feels that he is a crack shot and stop 3 with 3 shots..
The guy sounds like a want to be intellectual who needs an outlet for his gibberish.

 

[r1derbike]

Ducks aren't murderers. Next time a group tries a home invasion, tell him we can save any over 3 for him so as not to go over the limit. As long as he feels that he is a crack shot and stop 3 with 3 shots..
The guy sounds like a want to be intellectual who needs an outlet for his gibberish.

This^

Next time the conversation pops-up, especially if an MSR creeps into the conversation, ask him which self defense hardware he would choose in a multiple armed intruder home invasion, and why magazine limits are absurd in that very real scenario.

 

[tarosean]

What does hunting and hunting regulations have to do with the 2nd again??


Thats right, not a darn thing..

 

[cambeul41]

I haven't met any anti-gun colleagues or students in Detroit.

Could it be that in Detroit they understand that they are as vulnerable as anyone? That police response time is a lot slower than the attack time?

 

[KTXdm9]

Ducks don't shoot back, bad guys do.

Winner.

 

[Cryogaijin]

One in the tube, two in the magazine, backed up with quite a few slugs, actually. The slugs are because ducks like hanging out in bear country up in alaska. Talked to a couple game control peeps about it, and they all told me they did the same thing.

 

[Pilot]

Last time I checked flocks of ducks were not attacking people, and trying to kill them. These antis are just plain dumb.