<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Nickles: New Gun Brief &#8220;Gold Standard&#8221;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2008/03/05/nickles-new-gun-brief-gold-standard/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2008/03/05/nickles-new-gun-brief-gold-standard/</link>
	<description>D.C. News, Politics, Media, Arts, and More</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:34:09 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Bruce</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2008/03/05/nickles-new-gun-brief-gold-standard/comment-page-1/#comment-106026</link>
		<dc:creator>Bruce</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Mar 2008 01:40:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2008/03/05/nickles-new-gun-brief-gold-standard/#comment-106026</guid>
		<description>This &#039;shouting &quot;Fire!&quot;&#039; argument has vexed us long enough and needs to finally be put in realistic perspective.

You most certainly do have the Right to shout &quot;Fire!&quot; in a crowded theater - to suggest we do not is absurd. The First Amendment absolutely does guarantee this Right. And, in spite of the fact I might not consider saving your life truly meaningful, my morality would insist I raise such alarm anytime it may be warranted.

What you are (obviously, and very poorly) attempting to state is that your Right to shout &quot;Fire!&quot; does not in any way absolve you from any criminal charges that may arise from such action (such as in the case where there is no fire - and you knew this fact when you raised the alarm).

Nevertheless, in spite of your poor analogy, I think equating your Second Amendment Right with your First Amendment Right of &#039;Free speech&#039; would be an excellent comparison.

the Right of the people to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms (all weapons) shall not be infringed.

Those who would equate this Right (or any First Amendment Right, for that matter) to shouting &quot;Fire!&quot; would be implying that somehow *owning* and *carrying* &quot;mysteriously translates&quot; (in their minds) to &quot;shooting wildly into crowds&quot; or &quot;taking random pot-shots at passersby&#039;s&quot;. There is simply no implication anywhere in the Second Amendment that protects anyone to simply shoot firearms without regard for other people. There are plenty of laws that forbid murder, intimidation and assault - none of them are negated by the Second Amendment being left un-infringed.

Just because your Rights as protected by the First Amendment do not absolve you from criminal charges resulting from criminal behavior (like shouting &quot;Fire!&quot; in a crowded theater where no fire exists), your Right as protected by the Second Amendment does not absolve you from criminal charges either (such as randomly shooting innocent people). Now - this statement I will not argue with.

But to suggest we should bar citizens from owning and carrying arms because we don&#039;t them to commit crimes with arms is the equivalent of stating we should bar people from speaking (altogether) just in case they suddenly have the uncontrollable urge to shout &quot;Fire!&quot; at an inappropriate (potentially criminally negligent) time. Such logic is nonsensical.

-Bruce</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This 'shouting "Fire!"' argument has vexed us long enough and needs to finally be put in realistic perspective.</p>
<p>You most certainly do have the Right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater - to suggest we do not is absurd. The First Amendment absolutely does guarantee this Right. And, in spite of the fact I might not consider saving your life truly meaningful, my morality would insist I raise such alarm anytime it may be warranted.</p>
<p>What you are (obviously, and very poorly) attempting to state is that your Right to shout "Fire!" does not in any way absolve you from any criminal charges that may arise from such action (such as in the case where there is no fire - and you knew this fact when you raised the alarm).</p>
<p>Nevertheless, in spite of your poor analogy, I think equating your Second Amendment Right with your First Amendment Right of 'Free speech' would be an excellent comparison.</p>
<p>the Right of the people to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms (all weapons) shall not be infringed.</p>
<p>Those who would equate this Right (or any First Amendment Right, for that matter) to shouting "Fire!" would be implying that somehow *owning* and *carrying* "mysteriously translates" (in their minds) to "shooting wildly into crowds" or "taking random pot-shots at passersby's". There is simply no implication anywhere in the Second Amendment that protects anyone to simply shoot firearms without regard for other people. There are plenty of laws that forbid murder, intimidation and assault - none of them are negated by the Second Amendment being left un-infringed.</p>
<p>Just because your Rights as protected by the First Amendment do not absolve you from criminal charges resulting from criminal behavior (like shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater where no fire exists), your Right as protected by the Second Amendment does not absolve you from criminal charges either (such as randomly shooting innocent people). Now - this statement I will not argue with.</p>
<p>But to suggest we should bar citizens from owning and carrying arms because we don't them to commit crimes with arms is the equivalent of stating we should bar people from speaking (altogether) just in case they suddenly have the uncontrollable urge to shout "Fire!" at an inappropriate (potentially criminally negligent) time. Such logic is nonsensical.</p>
<p>-Bruce</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
