# 2013 Federal Assault Weapons Ban **URL:** \ **Category:** Shift518 Off Topic\ **Created:** [December 27, 2012, 7:15pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2013-federal-assault-weapons-ban/265858 "2012-12-27T19:15:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 60
**Author:** ![toomanycamaros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@toomanycamaros](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/toomanycamaros)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2013, 7:38pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2013-federal-assault-weapons-ban/265858/60 "2013-01-06T19:38:50Z")
> [@The wife wants a BOAT. Boat people come in.](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/the-wife-wants-a-boat-boat-people-come-in/51408/14): > > My original comment was that the constitution has a lot of gray area, I never said anything about banning weapons, so I’m not sure what your talking about. The entire thread is about a proposed ban of a certain kind of weapon. While there is a slight amount of leway with the 2 examples you used only one is about an infringement on a citizens rights. The speedy trial bit is so that somebody can’t be arrested charged and then sit in jail for years with no trial scheduled. The part about not screaming fire in a movie threatre is about not inciting panic in a crowd where somebody could be hurt as a result. Both are logical changes and neither should be used to try and draw a parallel to whether or not this stupid proposed ban should be enacted. --- _[View the full topic](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2013-federal-assault-weapons-ban/265858)._