PDA

View Full Version : The "You can't yell fire..." analogy is irrelevant


tman
11-27-2007, 10:09 AM
I noticed that many "Gun Control" advocates love to use that analogy when arguing in favor of "Gun Control".

They say that the Second Amendment should have limits, because even the freedom of speech has limits and that you can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded room. This is an illogical and unfair comparison.

First of all, you CAN yell fire in a crowded room, although you may suffer consequences.

Secondly, it does not compare with the RKBA.

When they say you can't shout "FIRE!" in a crowded room, they are effectively stating that there should be reasonable limits where you say certain things, how you say them, etc. That's fine. The problem is when they use that logic to argue that there should be restrictions on what firearms you are allowed to posses, or in other words, that you can't own whatever firearm you want without restriction.


They are forgetting a key issue. Even though you may not be able to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded room, you are still allowed to posses a voice. In fact, you are still allowed to posses even a bullhorn. The only restrictions that apply are how you use it.

Therefore, an accurate counter argument is this: I should be able to posses a [insert firearm], but I shouldn't be allowed to open fire in a crowded room of innocent people.

So ultimately, "Gun Control" advocates are using flawed logic, and if anything, are just supporting the argument that the focus should be on enforcing existing laws (example: laws against opening fire in a crowded room).

If we used their logic with the freedom of speech, we would say that people who have voices with certain characteristics need to register their voice as well as make everyone register (or just ban) word processors, telephones, fax machines, and all other communication devices.

Until "Gun Control" advocates are willing to support the idea of having licenses required to own a voice, they need to stay away from our RKBA because the right to self-defense is just as natural as the right to speak.

Thoughts?

DedEye
11-27-2007, 10:12 AM
I like this analogy. It reminds me of the argument that "if guns kill people, pencils cause misspelled words."

Soldier415
11-27-2007, 10:21 AM
I like this analogy. It reminds me of the argument that "if guns kill people, pencils cause misspelled words."

And that forks are responsible for Michael Moore being a ridulous fatbody.

Or that the catering industry is responsible for Rosie O'Donnell looking like a hefalump.

FreedomIsNotFree
11-27-2007, 10:23 AM
Let me add my .02...

With freedom comes responsibility.

Whenever I hear someone mention the "limits" of freedom of speech, they typically use the yelling fire in a crowded theater bit. They claim that you cant yell fire in a crowded theater......my response always is....

"What if there IS a fire in a crowded theater....I can't yell fire to warn the others?".

They usually look at me with a puzzled look.

The real issue is liability. You have the freedom to do just about whatever you want, but some actions, if they cause harm to others is actionable. If you act in an irresponsible manner you could be held liable for those actions.

So, I can yell fire in a crowded theater. If there is a fire, people may view me as a hero. If there is not a fire, and a panic ensues, I could be held liable for any harm or damage that is caused.

Now, lets bring the issue to the 2nd Amendment. I think we would all agree that if we are irresponsible with our firearms, we should be held liable for any harm/damage caused. Therefore, the focus should be on the irresponsible/liable action. In other words, punish those that have proven they are irresponsible...not for what they might do, but for what they HAVE done. And leave those that are responsible the hell alone!!

thekwyjibo
11-27-2007, 12:01 PM
2 words: Prior restraint

Basically it bans someone from even mentioning something (as opposed to punishing someone for saying it after the fact). In the literary world it is considered to be one of the worst forms censorship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint

aileron
11-27-2007, 12:23 PM
Yup and prior restraint is what they are doing to us with the NFA and CCW.

Prc329
11-27-2007, 12:42 PM
To take that analogy a step in the Brady direction.

You can't yell fire in a crowded room but you can still yell fire all you want.

You can have all the guns you want, just can't carry it with you or have them near a school, etc.

I love the logic behind your statement, just playing devils advocate. This may be the next argument if and when RKBA us held up by the supreme court.

dfletcher
11-27-2007, 1:59 PM
I noticed that many "Gun Control" advocates love to use that analogy when arguing in favor of "Gun Control".

They say that the Second Amendment should have limits, because even the freedom of speech has limits and that you can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded room. This is an illogical and unfair comparison.

First of all, you CAN yell fire in a crowded room, although you may suffer consequences.

Secondly, it does not compare with the RKBA.

When they say you can't shout "FIRE!" in a crowded room, they are effectively stating that there should be reasonable limits where you say certain things, how you say them, etc. That's fine. The problem is when they use that logic to argue that there should be restrictions on what firearms you are allowed to posses, or in other words, that you can't own whatever firearm you want without restriction.


They are forgetting a key issue. Even though you may not be able to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded room, you are still allowed to posses a voice. In fact, you are still allowed to posses even a bullhorn. The only restrictions that apply are how you use it.

Therefore, an accurate counter argument is this: I should be able to posses a [insert firearm], but I shouldn't be allowed to open fire in a crowded room of innocent people.

So ultimately, "Gun Control" advocates are using flawed logic, and if anything, are just supporting the argument that the focus should be on enforcing existing laws (example: laws against opening fire in a crowded room).

If we used their logic with the freedom of speech, we would say that people who have voices with certain characteristics need to register their voice as well as make everyone register (or just ban) word processors, telephones, fax machines, and all other communication devices.

Until "Gun Control" advocates are willing to support the idea of having licenses required to own a voice, they need to stay away from our RKBA because the right to self-defense is just as natural as the right to speak.

Thoughts?

Here is the text of the 1st Amendment

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Considering the absolute language I take the approach of Hugo Black and believe "Congress shall make no law" means exactly that - if a person wants to slander someone or yell "fire in a crowded theatre" or reveal state secrets in a time of war they may do so. I'm not too thrilled with that last scenario but I don't see how one gets around it without straying from original intent.

Piper
11-27-2007, 5:42 PM
Here is the text of the 1st Amendment

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Considering the absolute language I take the approach of Hugo Black and believe "Congress shall make no law" means exactly that - if a person wants to slander someone or yell "fire in a crowded theatre" or reveal state secrets in a time of war they may do so. I'm not too thrilled with that last scenario but I don't see how one gets around it without straying from original intent.

Na, you can't reveal state secrets and becovered under the 1st amendment. That's called treason.

subdjoe
11-27-2007, 5:49 PM
" or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Which clearly means that the ONLY protected peaceable assembly is for the reason of petitioning the Government for redress of grievances. That is the only reason given, and if the framers had meant for that clause to be two distinct to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
rights, then it would have read " or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, OR to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Since they connected the two with "and" rather than "or" they must have only wanted to protect that one specific type of assembly.

I love the stuttered "But, but, but....." when I pull that line on someone who advocates the collectivist view of the 2nd.

N6ATF
11-28-2007, 12:33 AM
And that forks are responsible for Michael Moore being a ridulous fatbody.

Or that the catering industry is responsible for Rosie O'Donnell looking like a hefalump.

Ridiculous fatbody. I'll have to use that!

KenpoProfessor
11-28-2007, 4:03 AM
Na, you can't reveal state secrets and becovered under the 1st amendment. That's called treason.

What he's saying is that you most certainly can yell "fire" in a crowded room (especially if it really is on fire:D), and sell state secrets in a time of war, just that you'll face the consequences of those actions. Everyone has the freedom to do as they wish, but there are constraints as to what's legal or not, but that's usually qualified or justified by a jury.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

aileron
11-28-2007, 6:40 AM
The ultimate truth is:

"No matter what, there is no restrictions on actions."

We can make all the laws we want, but it will not prevent someone from taking actions they can take.

As Jack Sparrow said.

"The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man canít do. "

Its why criminals do what they do, we cannot prevent their actions.

fairfaxjim
11-28-2007, 8:38 AM
For what its worth, the "prior restraint" doctrine is being pushed to even greater absurdity as we speak. The San Francisco planning commission is considering a recommendation (I believe it came from the SFPD, one of their SGT's was hyping it on the news) to BAN pizza sales in North Beach after 2:00 am. Seems that when the drunks pile out of the bars and clubs they are hungry and go for pizza. The SFPD says "having pizza parlors open gives them an EXCUSE for hangning around later. In the same statement, the Sgt. also said that there wasn't any drug or violent crime problem, just "inebriants."

So lets see, the cure for inebriation is - BAN PIZZA! Never mind that the Pizza guy who makes the most money out there from midnight to 3 am is getting slammed. Never mind that the bars and clubs sold the booze to get these people inebriated aren't being tasked with the problem. Never mind that the problem isn't PIZZA, it's drunk people. Bandemonium has become ok as a way to "fix" a problem by shifting it to another arena.

If pizza is fair game, I really don't think anything is safe from the current crop of self appointed do gooders. This stuff has to be stopped at all levels or we are all doomed to a "nanny" style government.

hoffmang
11-28-2007, 11:29 AM
There are time, place, and manner restrictions on the right to bear arms that I expect would withstand pretty high scrutiny. I'm not saying I think all of these are the right policy, but some certainly are good policy.

Brandishing - One shouldn't be able to threaten people with a weapon absent a need.

Carrying under the influence.

Carrying in an establishment that serves alcohol.

Open carry at a school w/o permission - scaring children serves no purpose if you could just CCW.

CCW w/o a permit assuming permits are shall issue.

Carrying into a prison w/o permission.

-Gene

bohoki
11-28-2007, 11:41 AM
the analogy is correct if it is explained logically

everyone has the right to have a mouth and sorry to say that some people may use their mouths for evil but that doesnt mean that every one should have their mouths taken away from them

pnkssbtz
11-28-2007, 12:01 PM
Since they connected the two with "and" rather than "or" they must have only wanted to protect that one specific type of assembly.

"And" can be inclusive or exclusive depending on the context. Usually with the english language without the context limiting the parameters of "and" it defaults to inclusive/exclusive. Making it an And/Or logic operator.


Exmaple:

Would you like cream and sugar with your tea?

In this sentence, the possible correct answers are:

1.) Cream
2.) Sugar
3.) Cream and Sugar

Glock22Fan
11-28-2007, 12:25 PM
Carrying in an establishment that serves alcohol.

Gene, I usually respect your opinion, but must beg to differ here. It isn't being in the presence of alcohol that should be banned, it is being under the influence of alcohol. Having a bottle of booze near me doesn't make me unsafe, unless I drink it.

LIke a designated driver doesn't drink, but may have car keys in a bar, a CCW holder should be allowed to be armed in a bar, providing that he or she is not under the influence.

I like the Utah model, where the CCW holder is subject to the same alcohol levels as a car driver. You may drink, but if you are legally above the limits for driving, you shouldn't be carrying either.

FreedomIsNotFree
11-28-2007, 12:27 PM
I'll register my gun when the fools in the media register their tongues and fingers...

Wait....my handguns are registered....darn.

hoffmang
11-28-2007, 12:46 PM
I'm not saying I think all of these are the right policy, but some certainly are good policy.


Glock22,

I tend to agree with you about the no CCW in bars. That would be one that falls in the "not saying I think all of these are the right policy," category. I'm however saying that should a legislature choose that, I think it will pass scrutiny. Of course I agree with you that the under the influence model ala driving is a much better policy.

-Gene

dfletcher
11-28-2007, 4:30 PM
Closing pizza shops or banning pizza sales after 0200 hrs? I can't even begin to count the ways a business can dodge this one. As in they're not a pizza joint, they're a grocery store. Is a pizza pie the same as a pizza? Will I be able to buy an OLP?

Typical liberal response - don't require people to behave properly, ban what ails them.

Maybe they'd rescind the rule if they learned the poor homeless will be negatively impacted by the shortage of drunks handing out "spare change?" after they leave the strip clubs?

subdjoe
11-28-2007, 6:05 PM
"And" can be inclusive or exclusive depending on the context. Usually with the english language without the context limiting the parameters of "and" it defaults to inclusive/exclusive. Making it an And/Or logic operator.


Exmaple:

Would you like cream and sugar with your tea?

In this sentence, the possible correct answers are:

1.) Cream
2.) Sugar
3.) Cream and Sugar

But look at the rest of the 1st: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The use of "or" to separate the various individual rights enumerated in it suggest that the "and" is meant to make assemble/petition as a single right.

Just trying for consistancy. And to get the antis to sputter and bluster.

anothergunnut
11-29-2007, 7:04 PM
Wouldn't it make sense to encourage pizza sales? The people are already drunk so they have two choices; drive home or walk to the nearby pizza place. If they walk to a pizza place (or even a short drive), the rest of us are better off than if they drove straight home. Having a pizza means they are burning through the alcohol and are going to be more sober when they do drive home.

dfletcher
11-29-2007, 8:36 PM
Wouldn't it make sense to encourage pizza sales? The people are already drunk so they have two choices; drive home or walk to the nearby pizza place. If they walk to a pizza place (or even a short drive), the rest of us are better off than if they drove straight home. Having a pizza means they are burning through the alcohol and are going to be more sober when they do drive home.

Hell no - how can you eat pizza without having a beer? :rolleyes:

anothergunnut
11-29-2007, 9:49 PM
There will be no beer served; remember that the premise is that the bars are already closed and these people have the munchies (I thought it was marijuana, not beer that caused that).