[El Gato]

They would then have the option of defining the AWB as similar to the prohibiting the shouting of fire in a crowded theatre.

If they were intellectually dishonest that is. In reality they are no way similar. Laws that have existed since before the Consitution, laws against murder, rape, robbery, etc, are similar to prohibiting shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. There is no prior restraint on exercise of one's freedom of speech involved, only upon the misue of that freedom. To be similar to the AWB, or any other "gun control", the laws would have to specify that you must undergo a background check before entering the theater, and to have your mouth duct taped shut while watching the movie. The former to "ensure" that you aren't the type that might shout "FIRE" when there is no fire, and the tape to "ensure" that you don't get a "wild hair" and do it anyway.

[harpseal]

Since when has the court system most especially the ninth circuit been concerned with being intellectually honest.

Now clearlt IMHO if the Supreme Court were to rule there is no individual right to keep and bear arms then I would state that armed resistance to the government was a moral response for someif not many. In short such a ruling by the Supreme Court would be grounds for a Civil War.

[El Gato]

the tape to "ensure" that you don't get a "wild hair" and do it anyway.

And the analogy to "gun control" goes farther. Not only could you not shout "FIRE" if there were no fire, you couldn't shout "FIRE" if there was a fire, with the attendent undesirable consequences.

[lotus]

I've never seen a law that you cant yell fire in a crowded theatre. That would be nonsense because if there were a fire someone should shout it.... However to shout fire and cause a disturbence with no fire in its self would be illegal, not the word fire.....

[RogueIsland]

Laws that have existed since before the Consitution, laws against murder, rape, robbery, etc, are similar to prohibiting shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. There is no prior restraint on exercise of one's freedom of speech involved, only upon the misue of that freedom.

Thank you. I get tired of having to point that simple fact out everytime someone trots out that idiotic "Fire" argument.