[Kamehameha34]

That's what the debate is about.

You skipped the argument part, went to the point, and then just asserted the opposite..?

This is not self-evident. You'll have to back this one up if you want me to accept it as true. Some kind of statistic that clearly states that, as you wrote, visible guns prevent more violence than it causes.

The relevance was self evident..

And wasn't it you who used "experience" to support your assertion that there are asses all over the place brandishing guns at eachother?

Addressed in post #38.

Employing a post which was debunked in post #37.

Yes, actually it is. Opening fire on a burglar in your home who is trying to leave with your television means, legally, that you thought he was a threat to your life. Remember, the 2nd Amendment states that you have a right to bear arms in defense of yourself. How is killing someone who is not threatening you with deadly force a defense of yourself?

He has broken into my home. He doesn't get the benefit of the doubt. If I shoot him before he has a chance to pull a gun on me, there's less of a chance I'll die. That is the point of self defense.

The problem is you think the law is bogus. But in doing so, you are acknowledging that that law exists. I explained this in post #38 as to what the problem is with "disturbing the peace" and how it relates to OC a fun.

Once again, constitution > law.

Any law that infringes upon constitutionally given rights is unconstitutional.

That whole "fire in a movietheatre" bit shouldn't be illegal, either. Someone who does shout it is responsible for any damage caused, and prevention of it should be a social matter.

You can freely distribute pamphlets stating that a nuclear bomb will be detonated in New York City the day after Election Day. If you incite a mass panic, it doesn't matter if you were advertising for Season One of Heroes coming out on DVD. What matters is that you exercised (not upheld) your right to free speech in a way that disturbed the peace.

You do not have the right to peace.

The government is trying to protect your "peace", which you have no right to, at the expense of my constitutional rights. Once again, constitution > law.

Now, if the panic I incited somehow infringed upon someone's rights, then I'd be accountable for violating them. Inciting panic is not a constitutional offense on its own.