That is a bad example. "fire in a crowded theatre was overturned 40 years ago or longer.
Oliver Wendell Holmes made the analogy during a controversial Supreme Court case that was overturned more than 40 years ago.
www.theatlantic.com
In 1969, the Supreme Court's decision in
Brandenburg v. Ohio effectively overturned
Schenck and any authority the case still carried. There, the Court held that inflammatory speech--and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan--is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action
and is likely to incite or produce such action" (emphasis mine).
I agree that there are certain people that should not own guns.
THis is just common sense, However owning a gun is a right.
If you want to take away the rights of someone then the government needs to prove it's case before a court of law.
I also do believe that it doesn't matter what kind of gun you can own. I have no issue in people owning automatic weapons.
why? because 99% of the people that own them now are law abiding citizens. I think if you want to own an automatic weapon that
you must pass the same background check that it takes now but there is no reason that someone shouldn't be able to own an M16.
I also agree that you suffer the penalty for misuse of the weapon or if you lose it.
The government has a duty to protect the rights of it's citizens not take them away.
that is also why we have the courts to stop the government from abusing the rights of the people.
unfortunately our court system has failed in this regard 100%.