The Left's Willingness to Tolerate Violence Should Frighten All Americans

[occupied]

Apply your feelings about the second amendment to the first amendment and you will have your explanation.

Violence is not free speech.

Now, apply your feelings about the first to the second.

LOL Arming up for some glorious politically motivated battle against other Americans is not responsible gun ownership.

Arming up to stop a communist revolution is not only responsible gun ownership, it is the DUTY of all Americans.

Kill a commie for mommy.

Making terrorist threats is irresponsible use of the first amendment and the second amendment.

 

[occupied]

Apply your feelings about the second amendment to the first amendment and you will have your explanation.

Violence is not free speech.

Now, apply your feelings about the first to the second.

LOL Arming up for some glorious politically motivated battle against other Americans is not responsible gun ownership.

Arming up for a battle against politically motivated people who have already armed up and proceeded to throw bricks and explosives at police in an attempt to achieve their political goals through the threat of force, on the other hand, is precisely what responsible gun ownership means in an American context.

You do the second amendment a great disservice by acting the part of a potentially violent terrorist.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Apply your feelings about the second amendment to the first amendment and you will have your explanation.

Violence is not free speech.

Now, apply your feelings about the first to the second.

LOL Arming up for some glorious politically motivated battle against other Americans is not responsible gun ownership.

Arming up to stop a communist revolution is not only responsible gun ownership, it is the DUTY of all Americans.

Kill a commie for mommy.

Making terrorist threats is irresponsible use of the first amendment and the second amendment.

Telling a fucking commie who is trying to overthrow our government on American soil that he better not try that shit around us is NOT a terrorist threat!!!

Burning cities to start a communist revolution IS THE VERY DEFINITION of terrorism.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Apply your feelings about the second amendment to the first amendment and you will have your explanation.

Violence is not free speech.

Now, apply your feelings about the first to the second.

LOL Arming up for some glorious politically motivated battle against other Americans is not responsible gun ownership.

Arming up for a battle against politically motivated people who have already armed up and proceeded to throw bricks and explosives at police in an attempt to achieve their political goals through the threat of force, on the other hand, is precisely what responsible gun ownership means in an American context.

You do the second amendment a great disservice by acting the part of a potentially violent terrorist.

You do the first amendment a great disservice by calling violence and rioting "free speech" and acting like we have no right to defend ourselves against it.

 

[basquebromance]

the left are acting like violence is normal. well, this normal would lead to catastrophe, but Trump will save us from this catastrophe, my friends

 

[initforme]

This stuff is happening far away from me. Scared? Surely you jest.

 

[occupied]

Apply your feelings about the second amendment to the first amendment and you will have your explanation.

Sorry, burning and stealing are not "Free Speech".

People getting shot by mass shooters is not responsible gun ownership yet you do not think it rises to the importance to infringe on gun ownership by crazy people.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Apply your feelings about the second amendment to the first amendment and you will have your explanation.

Violence is not free speech.

Now, apply your feelings about the first to the second.

LOL Arming up for some glorious politically motivated battle against other Americans is not responsible gun ownership.

Arming up for a battle against politically motivated people who have already armed up and proceeded to throw bricks and explosives at police in an attempt to achieve their political goals through the threat of force, on the other hand, is precisely what responsible gun ownership means in an American context.

You do the second amendment a great disservice by acting the part of a potentially violent terrorist.

Declaring that responding to force with force is what the 2nd Amendment is about, is NOT terrorism. Only by willfully and obviously mischaracterizing what I've said can you come to such a dipshit conclusion.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Apply your feelings about the second amendment to the first amendment and you will have your explanation.

Sorry, burning and stealing are not "Free Speech".

People getting shot by mass shooters is not responsible gun ownership yet you do not think it rises to the importance to infringe on gun ownership by crazy people.

Nobody said that. We just believe in the concept of due process.

We also believe in the concept of not punishing the law abiding in the failed effort to stop criminals.

We also believe that more laws do not cause less crime.

We also believe that the best, most effective form of security is that which one provides for him/herself.

We also believe that commie gun grabbers will abuse the FUCKING FUCK out of any power they get to take guns from ANYONE!!!

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Apply your feelings about the second amendment to the first amendment and you will have your explanation.

Sorry, burning and stealing are not "Free Speech".

People getting shot by mass shooters is not responsible gun ownership yet you do not think it rises to the importance to infringe on gun ownership by crazy people.

These aren't equivalent concepts.

Nobody on the right is looking to restrict the 1st Amendment because of rioters. We only want to see the rioters arrested and charged.

The equivalent of that, in regard to the 2nd Amendment, is if the left didn't want to restrict the rights of law abiding gun owners, but simply wanted to see the mass shooters prosecuted.

So when you say treat the 1st like the 2nd, most conservatives do: We want to see both of them upheld, fully.

In fact, I care so much about freedom of speech that, not only do I want the government to be barred from restricting it, but I don't even want online platforms to censor people (except where law applies, i.e. threats and libel). All of the mainstream social media platforms just simultaneously deplatformed that press conference of doctors that Breitbart covered the other day, and the mainstream left fucking CHEERED for this action on the grounds that they don't agree with what those doctors were saying! When you lefties start speaking out in defense of people with whom you disagree when the censors shut them down, then I might start taking you seriously when you claim to be the champions of the 1st Amendment. Quite frankly, though, you're lookin pretty full of shit from where I'm sitting.

 

[JustAGuy1]

Apply your feelings about the second amendment to the first amendment and you will have your explanation.

Sorry, burning and stealing are not "Free Speech".

People getting shot by mass shooters is not responsible gun ownership yet you do not think it rises to the importance to infringe on gun ownership by crazy people.

Stop deflecting, it won't work with me. Burning and stealing is not "free speech". Start a thread on gun control if you want to talk about it.

 

[mascale]

The response to the Minnesota police action drew worldwide protests, and racially diverse: Of no particular group. Then in Los Angeles--wherein federal agents have not been sent--the protests created a police protection easily noticed to the Southern California, multi-generational gangs subcultures. The pricey neighborhoods were far away from the protests. Looters capitalized on the diversion.

Seattle has a history, even of International Workers of the World, called "The Wobblies." That history is local, locally likely relatively usual. Federal Contractor, Boeing was not attacked. An urban homeless encampment was created: An urban visual often created in many neighborhoods.

That perpetration is Directly AG Barr, the Trump-ed Up administration inclusive, so Acting Secretary, Illiterate Chad Wolfe included. The Federal Agents sent in to "Occupy Portland:" Created yet another Homeless Camp. The campers were dressed up like Right Wing Militia, even speeding around town in rented cars. A riot was instigated.

Now the feds are reducing their presence. What is left in the neighborhoods of millions: Is maybe a half-dozen blocks nationwide: As some nature of revolution(?)!

Soon there will be Joe, who can show that widespread violence has not been process on every street corner, USA!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(So the Martians, when they land: Will be able to conclude from Deut 23: 19-20: That earth is not inhabitable!)

 

[occupied]

Apply your feelings about the second amendment to the first amendment and you will have your explanation.

Violence is not free speech.

Now, apply your feelings about the first to the second.

LOL Arming up for some glorious politically motivated battle against other Americans is not responsible gun ownership.

Arming up for a battle against politically motivated people who have already armed up and proceeded to throw bricks and explosives at police in an attempt to achieve their political goals through the threat of force, on the other hand, is precisely what responsible gun ownership means in an American context.

You do the second amendment a great disservice by acting the part of a potentially violent terrorist.

You do the first amendment a great disservice by calling violence and rioting "free speech" and acting like we have no right to defend ourselves against it.

Who said I'm defending violence and rioting? I was not. I was making the point that you people accept wayyy more violence for the sake of gun ownership than is going on with the protests.

 

[occupied]

Apply your feelings about the second amendment to the first amendment and you will have your explanation.

Sorry, burning and stealing are not "Free Speech".

People getting shot by mass shooters is not responsible gun ownership yet you do not think it rises to the importance to infringe on gun ownership by crazy people.

Stop deflecting, it won't work with me. Burning and stealing is not "free speech". Start a thread on gun control if you want to talk about it.

Just trying to make the point that you people accept a body count in the thousands for the sake of the second amendment. A few store windows get broke and you are willing to infringe the fuck out of the first amendment.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Apply your feelings about the second amendment to the first amendment and you will have your explanation.

Violence is not free speech.

Now, apply your feelings about the first to the second.

LOL Arming up for some glorious politically motivated battle against other Americans is not responsible gun ownership.

Arming up for a battle against politically motivated people who have already armed up and proceeded to throw bricks and explosives at police in an attempt to achieve their political goals through the threat of force, on the other hand, is precisely what responsible gun ownership means in an American context.

You do the second amendment a great disservice by acting the part of a potentially violent terrorist.

You do the first amendment a great disservice by calling violence and rioting "free speech" and acting like we have no right to defend ourselves against it.

Who said I'm defending violence and rioting? I was not. I was making the point that you people accept wayyy more violence for the sake of gun ownership than is going on with the protests.

But, we are not trying to infringe on free speech. See the difference?

 

[JustAGuy1]

Apply your feelings about the second amendment to the first amendment and you will have your explanation.

Sorry, burning and stealing are not "Free Speech".

People getting shot by mass shooters is not responsible gun ownership yet you do not think it rises to the importance to infringe on gun ownership by crazy people.

Stop deflecting, it won't work with me. Burning and stealing is not "free speech". Start a thread on gun control if you want to talk about it.

Just trying to make the point that you people accept a body count in the thousands for the sake of the second amendment. A few store windows get broke and you are willing to infringe the fuck out of the first amendment.

The First Amenrdment does not extend to stealing and burning. You DO know that right?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Apply your feelings about the second amendment to the first amendment and you will have your explanation.

Sorry, burning and stealing are not "Free Speech".

People getting shot by mass shooters is not responsible gun ownership yet you do not think it rises to the importance to infringe on gun ownership by crazy people.

Stop deflecting, it won't work with me. Burning and stealing is not "free speech". Start a thread on gun control if you want to talk about it.

Just trying to make the point that you people accept a body count in the thousands for the sake of the second amendment. A few store windows get broke and you are willing to infringe the fuck out of the first amendment.

WHO IS TRYING TO INFRINGE ON THE FIRST AMENDMENT????

 

[JustAGuy1]

Apply your feelings about the second amendment to the first amendment and you will have your explanation.

Sorry, burning and stealing are not "Free Speech".

People getting shot by mass shooters is not responsible gun ownership yet you do not think it rises to the importance to infringe on gun ownership by crazy people.

Stop deflecting, it won't work with me. Burning and stealing is not "free speech". Start a thread on gun control if you want to talk about it.

Just trying to make the point that you people accept a body count in the thousands for the sake of the second amendment. A few store windows get broke and you are willing to infringe the fuck out of the first amendment.

WHO IS TRYING TO INFRINGE ON THE FIRST AMENDMENT????

He's a fucking dunce

 

[occupied]

Apply your feelings about the second amendment to the first amendment and you will have your explanation.

Violence is not free speech.

Now, apply your feelings about the first to the second.

LOL Arming up for some glorious politically motivated battle against other Americans is not responsible gun ownership.

Arming up for a battle against politically motivated people who have already armed up and proceeded to throw bricks and explosives at police in an attempt to achieve their political goals through the threat of force, on the other hand, is precisely what responsible gun ownership means in an American context.

You do the second amendment a great disservice by acting the part of a potentially violent terrorist.

You do the first amendment a great disservice by calling violence and rioting "free speech" and acting like we have no right to defend ourselves against it.

Who said I'm defending violence and rioting? I was not. I was making the point that you people accept wayyy more violence for the sake of gun ownership than is going on with the protests.

But, we are not trying to infringe on free speech. See the difference?

Nope. Your president attacking peaceful protesters just so he could walk across the park makes you a liar.

 

[JustAGuy1]

Apply your feelings about the second amendment to the first amendment and you will have your explanation.

Violence is not free speech.

Now, apply your feelings about the first to the second.

LOL Arming up for some glorious politically motivated battle against other Americans is not responsible gun ownership.

Arming up for a battle against politically motivated people who have already armed up and proceeded to throw bricks and explosives at police in an attempt to achieve their political goals through the threat of force, on the other hand, is precisely what responsible gun ownership means in an American context.

You do the second amendment a great disservice by acting the part of a potentially violent terrorist.

You do the first amendment a great disservice by calling violence and rioting "free speech" and acting like we have no right to defend ourselves against it.

Who said I'm defending violence and rioting? I was not. I was making the point that you people accept wayyy more violence for the sake of gun ownership than is going on with the protests.

But, we are not trying to infringe on free speech. See the difference?

Nope. Your president attacking peaceful protesters just so he could walk across the park makes you a liar.

What the fuck is wrong with you?
Is STEALING and BURNING covered by the first amendment?