I don't think I have ever seen locked forums before yesterday, and now I see at least five.  What the hell is going on?

Puberty.

The stifleing of independent thought and speech.

[img]http://www.geocities.com/kilrath_ac/freemcuzi.txt[/img]

Edited for g-man

A Troll was on the loose. He was pretending to be me because I pissed him off or something. The stuff he was posting was really bad. They didn't just lock threads they took stuff off the board it was so bad. I hope it cools off for a while.
Gary

That's odd....

I don't recall anyone being forbidden to think anything.

[/quote]

That's odd....

I don't recall anyone being forbidden to think anything.
[/quote]

You are splitting hairs g-man. You know what I mean and are one of the biggest pushers of restrictive posts. No flame, just a personal observation.

You are right - I don't interpret that as a flame.

I just happen to value technical accuracy in the words we choose to use. For instance, I'm of the opinion that First Amendment protected "speech" ONLY involves WORDS, not putting crosses in bottles of urine, or deficating on symbols other people groups consider sacred.

I'm willing to open the defintion of "words / speech" to include ANY representation of lucid, rational, intelligent thought. Whether it be pics, mathematical equations, words or whatever.

I also tend to think the FF were leaning heavily toward POLITICAL speech in the First Amendment, not the obscenities we seem to think of as protected speech today.

To me, you shouldn't claim someone is atempting to prohibit "thought" when you mean "speech." It borders on a false accusation, as about the ONLY groups that REALLY want to limit thought these days are the Communists / Marxists. The mods SHOULD NOT be innacurately lumped in with them.

And yes, I am about the biggest proponent of restrictive posts - ESPECIALLY for people INCAPABLE of controlling themselves. I far and away prefer that people exercise self-control. But when they REFUSE to, they leave NO CHOICE but to have a hammer administered to their thick skulls.

To me, free speech has more to do with a duty of self-control, self-regulation and the exercising of courtesy and discretion than it has to do with the unrestrained babbling of whatever is on your mind.

We obviously disagree on many subjects. I find most of the things you dislike to be either humorous or thought provoking. My world is not as rigid as yours seems to be. I like Monty Python, you probably think the "Grail" is sacreligious. I support Federal money for the arts. I thought Maplethorpe was gross, but I can't say it wasn't art. I'd take Larry Flint over Jerry Fallwell anyday. I know whats right for me, I don't know whats right for you & I'll never try to impose my views on you.

The FF had no idea where the 1st might lead anymore than they knew where the 2nd might lead. The Anti's will tell you the FF's had no Idea there would be AR-15's & they aren't protected. I say they had no idea there would be newspaper presses spiting out at 90,000 per hour, or CNN or the internet. The 1st was & is for any type of speach. The second is for any type of firearm. You can't have just some of it. You need to take it all. If your interpretation was accurate & it was for political speech, then we could shut down Falwells cable system & put Watchtower out of print couldn't we.
Scott

[img]http://www.geocities.com/kilrath_ac/freemcuzi.txt[/img]

My post indicated that I believe the FF were PRIMARIILY leaning toward political speech, NOT EXCLUSIVELY leaning toward political speech.

I see a pattern here.

You indicate that someone was resticting thought, when no one was.

You imply that I believe that the First is ONLY about political speech, when I don't.

THese innacuracies are more than can be winked at, or excused as inconsequential.

You say teh FF had no idea where the First Amend might lead. Come on. That's laughable on its face.

The Amendments were created SPECIFICALLY to address the issues that those who were AGAINST a centralized federal gov't feared might lead into a re-creation of teh English monarchy in America.

They knew EXACLY where the First would lead - AWAY FROM a dictatorial monarchy, TOWARD a political climate where people where free to speak against overbearing gov't. THAT is my basis for saying the FF were PRIMARILY (or HEAVILY) leaning toward POLITICAL speech in my earlier post.

In fact, at the time, much of the obscenties we allow for today were already codified as illegal, and there is NO indication in ANY of the FF writings, the Federalist Papers or anywhere that they intended the First to loosen up those restraints.

In fact, if you've done ANY reading of the FF at all, you'd see that they were VERY MUCH in favor of Biblical restraints that individuals would administer upon themselves.


FWIW, I happened to think the Search for the Holy Grail was hilarious. Have seen it numerous times.

The only problem with that statement is that the 1st Amendment considers "speech" as freedom of expression. Freedom of expression is putting crosses in bottles of urine...etc.The 1st Amendment is what it is and not what you would like it to be...


John

G-man, I implied nothing about your views on the first. I took what you said & showed it as flawed. I can see that we are going to have to agree to disagree. Your interpretations of anything will be bible based & therefore that's all you will accept or see. Your basis that many of the words used today were codified as illegal is rediculous. Slavery was codified as legal. There were things accepted then that are not acceptable now. You are undoubtably a fine man, but I believe you are a bit dated in your views.
Scott

CORRECTION

The Supreme Court considers freedom of expression to be covered under freedom of speech. Just cuz some liberal activist judges twisted the words of teh First Amendment to mean something other than what it actually SAYS don't make it so.

"Speech" involves WORDS - the intelligent communication of ideas either orally, or in print, or in some handwritten fashion. Look it up. THAT is what "speech" means, as in "Freedom of Speech."

If freedom of expression were TRULY gauranteed by teh First, I should have been allowed to take a massive shytte on Clintons desk, and it be protected "expression." After all, that would be an accurate "exporession" of my feelings for the man.

You're NOT the first one to come to that conclusion. But oddly, ONLY people who disagree with me say that.

[:D]

Duh!!!  [rolleyes]

Well that answers the question of why there have been so many locked and deleted posts.

We the people of AR-15.com need a constitution!

Then we can debate every fine point forever, that is what we are here for anyway :).  

Long live AR15.com!  I hope the jack booted thug Ar15.com internet police don't see this, lest I be censured too

I don't even know McUzi.  But let him be free(d)

Even racists usually have some redeeming qualities.

is it [bouce] or [bounce] testing testing

The POINT was that people generally use that "dated thinking" line as an excuse to free themselves of the arguments I make when they can't prove me wrong.

Its logically fallacious to say that someone is wrong because what tehy believe has been believed for more than 100 years.

Forgive me for not spelling it out.

Right on garandman!



Which is where I must add a cool quote I saw recently (pardon if it's old hat to you all):

You are a real piece of work. You dance around an entire post, pick the last sentence & then claim victory? You have been proved wrong on the 1st amendment over & over again. You just want to see what you want to believe.

I hardly think the 1st amendment applies to a privately owned forum like AR15.com

So the 1st has nothing to do with locking threads.  Seems to me most of the threads are locked for the same reason that teachers shush-up students - obnoxious, annoying, and crude remarks.  It's all just not necessary for civil speech, and diminishes the whole board.  And somewhat justifies the "those backward gun-owners" stereotypes.

What he said!