I prefer to yell FUEGO!
This is a discussion on Yes, you CAN yell FIRE in a crowded theater... within the General Firearm Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; I've been thinking about a point that's often made when discussing gun control, comparing limits to the 2nd amendment to limits on the first amendment ...
I've been thinking about a point that's often made when discussing gun control, comparing limits to the 2nd amendment to limits on the first amendment such as you can't yell FIRE! in a crowded theater. Well, it occurred to me that that simply isn't true. You very well CAN yell FIRE! in a crowded theater. It just better be on fire.
But what a lot of gun control laws try to do is akin to banning yelling FIRE! under any circumstances, even if the metaphorical theater is, in fact, on fire. And somehow they think they're making people safer.
Anyway, just thought I would share my minor epiphany.
I prefer to yell FUEGO!
"To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic." Ted Nugent
But can you yell movie in a crowded fire house?!?!?!?
I prefer to yell, "Fire," over my shoulder as I exit. No sense getting trampled in the rush.
Retired USAF E-8. Lighten up and enjoy life because:
Paranoia strikes deep, into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... Buffalo Springfield - For What It's Worth
The Vice President of GrassRoots GunRights SC had this to say on the subject once...I saved it because I thought it was a great point to an oft touted and flawed argument...
"So, what am I supposed to yell if I discover a raging fire in a theater -
The exercise of free speech does indeed encompass shouting "fire" in a
The anti gunners frequently use this
example as a way to legitimize revoking our right to keep and bear arms, but
the example is virtually never used properly.
If the example was used properly, we pro gun folks would point out that
there is nothing done to physically stop a person from yelling "fire" in a
theater because yelling "fire" in a theater is exactly the proper thing to
do if there is a fire in the theater. Doing so might well save lives.
If a person yells "fire" in a theater when there is no fire - and it is not
part of the theatrical performance, then the person will be subject to
punishment AFTER the fact.
We do NOT muzzle or gag patrons of the theater prior to entering the theater
to ensure that someone does not yell "fire" inappropriately. Rather, we
allow patrons to enter the theater with full capacity to yell "fire" if they
so desire. Then, we reserve the power to punish if one acts improperly. We
do NOT engage in prior restraint with regards to the ability to yell "fire."
Yet, the anti gun folks try to use the yelling of "fire" in a theater as a
way to legitimize prior restraint of our right to keep and bear arms. We
must not allow them to get away with such nonsense. So, the next time
someone tries to defend disarming everyone so as to try to stop someone from
doing wrong by using the yelling "fire" in a theater example, use the above
as a template to frame your argument that yelling "fire" might well be a
proper thing to yell, and that public safety demands that no prior restraint
be used to stop someone from yelling "fire" if there is a fire in the
theater. Likewise, an armed good guy may well be the only thing that can
stop an armed bad guy from increasing the body count in a killing rampage."
Kimber Tactical Ultra II, Kahr PM45, Kahr PM9, Kahr P380
I would rather die with good men than hide with cowards
If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."
M&Pc .357sig, 2340Sigpro .357sig
I am happy that I have read this. So simple... yet so overlooked.