Vegas Free-for-All - JEB! On Oregon Mass Shootings

JEB! On Oregon Mass Shootings - "Stuff Happens"

alanleroyII

Oct 8, 2015
3:44am

Quote

Originally posted by: Boilerman
So PJ agrees that there are limitations to free speech, and that's good. Why is it terrible then, to balance the rights of the nuts on Fremont with the rights of the business owners and employees on Fremont. How about the Nevada citizens that would enjoy the additional tax revenue generated if the nuts are removed or limited.

Everyone has rights.

Everyone has the right to freedom of speech. Employees and business owners are free to protest the Fremont Street Performers. With a megaphone if they wish.

And yes there are some well recognized limitations to freedom of speech...They include Incitement, Slander, Obscenity, Child Pornography, Fighting words and Threats. The fact is that the Street Performers don't fall into any of those categories.

The fact is that some people like boilerman are offended by some of the street performers and they may impact some private business. That is not a valid limitation on Freedom of Speech and there is no justification to ban them from the public square in the United States of America.

Do you really want the Government to Pick and Choose who has the right to free speech based upon some nebulous criteria like some people don't like the way they look? That's a slippery slope. I'm shocked that anyone who calls themselves a conservative would be so willing to subjugate our cherished first amendment rights to the whims of some Las Vegas bureaucrat.

alanleroyII

Oct 8, 2015
3:45am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: CowboyKell

Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote
Originally posted by: CowboyKell
“It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.” - George Washington

Dang. I fell short in my Militia duties. Maybe it's not too late. Can anyone form a Militia?

Anyone can form a militia. Good luck on getting provided with arms.

I was born with arms.

Boilerman

Oct 8, 2015
3:49am

Block User

The limitations put in place on Fremont Street are modeled after similar restrictions in California. Courts have not struck these limitations down. It appears that the courts are in agreement with me.

Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroyII

Quote
Originally posted by: Boilerman
So PJ agrees that there are limitations to free speech, and that's good. Why is it terrible then, to balance the rights of the nuts on Fremont with the rights of the business owners and employees on Fremont. How about the Nevada citizens that would enjoy the additional tax revenue generated if the nuts are removed or limited.

Everyone has rights.

Everyone has the right to freedom of speech. Employees and business owners are free to protest the Freemont Street Performers. With a megaphone if they wish.

And yes there are some well recognized limitations to freedom of speech...They include Incitement, Slander, Obscenity, Child Pornography, Fighting words and Threats. The fact is that the Street Performers don't fall into any of those categories.

The fact is that some people like boilerman are offended by some of the street performers and they may impact some private business. That is not a valid limitation on Freedom of Speech and there is no justification to ban them from the public square in the United States of America.

Do you really want the Government to Pick and Choose who has the right to free speech based upon some nebulous criteria like some people don't like the way they look? That's a slippery slope. I'm shocked that anyone who calls themselves a conservative would be so willing to subjugate our cherished first amendment rights to the whims of some Las Vegas bureaucrat.

jatki

Oct 8, 2015
3:54am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroyII

Quote
Originally posted by: Boilerman
So PJ agrees that there are limitations to free speech, and that's good. Why is it terrible then, to balance the rights of the nuts on Fremont with the rights of the business owners and employees on Fremont. How about the Nevada citizens that would enjoy the additional tax revenue generated if the nuts are removed or limited.

Everyone has rights.

Oh I disagree on the "fightin' words" part pertaining to some of the street performers. We've been big time harassed and a bigger, less tolerant person than myself could very well take them as fighting words. I ignored the harassment and kept walking a few times it's happened. I've seen some really belligerent dickheads who claimed they were scammed, denied or whatever of their dollar.

One thing about the porn slappers, they've never impeded our way and have never becom belligerent.

jatki

Oct 8, 2015
4:10am

Block User

"No, it wasn’t the common man. The amendment was passed because back when the colonies were in control of England the English confiscated the rifles belonging to members of the individual state militias and banned the part time soldiers from keeping their weapons in their homes out fear they would be used in a rebellion against English rule. The militias were akin to what we think of today as each state’s National Guard. The term “well regulated” indicates they didn’t want the common man possessing fire arms especially without regulation.

If you believe that the framers wanted the common man (rather than the individual state militias) to be able to take the government back, then every common man today should be in as a matter of right be entitled to possess a stockpile of Nuclear weapons and predator drones because without having the equivalent arms of the government the common man can't take back government. "

You have a truly dizzying intellect
~ The Dread pirate Wesley

How int he hell can you possibly interpret it that way? {see above} What part of " the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed", do you not understand Mal?

pjstroh

Oct 8, 2015
4:15am

Block User

Quote

Who is arguing? Not me.

But you should settle this debate with the other corner of your mouth that says anyone who wants limits on gun ownership is kicking dirt into the face of the constitution. There's a word that begins with "H" that describes people who have double standards. Are you familiar with that word?

alanleroyII

Oct 8, 2015
4:37am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: jatki99

Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote
Originally posted by: Boilerman
So PJ agrees that there are limitations to free speech, and that's good. Why is it terrible then, to balance the rights of the nuts on Fremont with the rights of the business owners and employees on Fremont. How about the Nevada citizens that would enjoy the additional tax revenue generated if the nuts are removed or limited.

Everyone has rights.

Everyone has the right to freedom of speech. Employees and business owners are free to protest the Freemont Street Performers. With a megaphone if they wish.

And yes there are some well recognized limitations to freedom of speech...They include Incitement, Slander, Obscenity, Child Pornography, Fighting words and Threats. The fact is that the Street Performers don't fall into any of those categories.

The fact is that some people like boilerman are offended by some of the street performers and they may impact some private business. That is not a valid limitation on Freedom of Speech and there is no justification to ban them from the public square in the United States of America.

Do you really want the Government to Pick and Choose who has the right to free speech based upon some nebulous criteria like some people don't like the way they look? That's a slippery slope. I'm shocked that anyone who calls themselves a conservative would be so willing to subjugate our cherished first amendment rights to the whims of some Las Vegas bureaucrat.

Really? What exactly were they saying? Was it a street performer in costume? I'm going to go out on a limb and say 99% of them are peaceful and trying to get people to have a picture taken with them for a buck donation. Insulting your potential customers is bad for business.

But still if they're out there threatening people they should be arrested. That doesn't give the right to Las Vegas bureaucrats to ban the performers because Mr. Big Government Boilerman doesn't like the way the look.

You really want a government bureaucrat to pick and choose who has the right to free speech? You trust them to do that like boilerman does?

JM2300

Oct 8, 2015
4:53am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh

Quote
Originally posted by: Boilerman
So PJ agrees that there are limitations to free speech, and that's good. Why is it terrible then, to balance the rights of the nuts on Fremont with the rights of the business owners and employees on Fremont. How about the Nevada citizens that would enjoy the additional tax revenue generated if the nuts are removed or limited.

Everyone has rights.

Who is arguing? Not me......

I never saw that one coming.

j/k PJ, carry on and I was in Buffalo the other day. Dined at Mighty Taco and washed it all down with a Loganberry.

jatki

Oct 8, 2015
5:14am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroyII

Quote
Originally posted by: jatki99
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote
Originally posted by: Boilerman
So PJ agrees that there are limitations to free speech, and that's good. Why is it terrible then, to balance the rights of the nuts on Fremont with the rights of the business owners and employees on Fremont. How about the Nevada citizens that would enjoy the additional tax revenue generated if the nuts are removed or limited.

Everyone has rights.

Everyone has the right to freedom of speech. Employees and business owners are free to protest the Freemont Street Performers. With a megaphone if they wish.

And yes there are some well recognized limitations to freedom of speech...They include Incitement, Slander, Obscenity, Child Pornography, Fighting words and Threats. The fact is that the Street Performers don't fall into any of those categories.

The fact is that some people like boilerman are offended by some of the street performers and they may impact some private business. That is not a valid limitation on Freedom of Speech and there is no justification to ban them from the public square in the United States of America.

Do you really want the Government to Pick and Choose who has the right to free speech based upon some nebulous criteria like some people don't like the way they look? That's a slippery slope. I'm shocked that anyone who calls themselves a conservative would be so willing to subjugate our cherished first amendment rights to the whims of some Las Vegas bureaucrat.

Oh I disagree on the "fightin' words" part pertaining to some of the street performers. We've been big time harassed and a bigger, less tolerant person than myself could very well take them as fighting words.

I'm sure most are peaceful, but, there's definitely a few who've been belligerent. I'm the absolute furthest guy for advocating bigger Govt. anything. All I'm saying ,w/o really being in either'camp', some of those guys border the lines of decency. Would you,or anyone here, want to take their young kids down there? I know, it's a really slippery slope when the govt. is deciding who's "in" and who's "out". The govt has gone down slipperier slopes before.
To answer what they said exactly??, I have no idea, but who really remembers a belligerent conversation other than it was..well, really aggressive and threatening.
To answer the other query, no I don't trust any bureaucrat to make any single decision however it wouldn't bother tremendously to see a few of the costumes be ,uh, umm, not be allowed? Did I just say that?

pjstroh

Oct 8, 2015
5:17am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: JM2300
I never saw that one coming.

j/k PJ, carry on and I was in Buffalo the other day. Dined at Mighty Taco and washed it all down with a Loganberry.

Ahhh...Mighty Taco. Its been over a decade since I've had one. Actually, mexican street food in Indianapolis is light years better than Buffalo but Mighty Taco was always pretty solid - especially when I had the beer munchies at 2am =)

«‹11 ›»

Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:

Diamond Membership

$3 per month

Unlimited access to LVA website

Exclusive subscriber-only content

Limited Member Rewards Online

Join Now

Platinum Membership

$50 per year

Unlimited access to LVA website

Exclusive subscriber-only content

Exclusive Member Rewards Book

Join Now