What legal purpose could anyone have to buy lots of books?

[Stormy Daniels]

How many books do you really need to read? How about you read one or two books a year, and you just wait? Let's be honest, you don't really need to know whatever is in those books. Too much knowledge can be dangerous.

How many books do you really need to publish? I know, you have free speech rights. That's cool and all, but is it really necessary to print 5,000 copies of your book? How about you print 100 copies, say what you want to say, and you pass those same 100 copies around until everyone whose willing to listen has read them?

Why do you need billboards? How much speech do you need? How many people do you need to reach? What are trying to do, raise an insurrection against the government? Start a cult? Those things are very dangerous and the public needs to be protected.

See, the problem with trying to quantify the exercise of rights into legal and illegal volumes is that you are only creating an illusion. This is what liberals want to do with gun rights. But what will stop them from using the same principle against any other rights?

 

[1srelluc]

Get shed of the internet....Make books great again.

Of course they claim that there is a paper shortage now so hold off till they catch up.

 

[JWBooth]

You must register your political opinions with the state. All writings must be pre cleared.

 

[beagle9]

You must register your political opinions with the state. All writings must be pre cleared.

Sounds Russia enough to me, but these days sadly you could be right, because we have failed at being a free people anymore, now the state will move in to complete it's agenda in which over the year's it had worked very hard (crisis after crisis), to get us to this point.

 

[petro]

How many books do you really need to read? How about you read one or two books a year, and you just wait? Let's be honest, you don't really need to know whatever is in those books. Too much knowledge can be dangerous.

How many books do you really need to publish? I know, you have free speech rights. That's cool and all, but is it really necessary to print 5,000 copies of your book? How about you print 100 copies, say what you want to say, and you pass those same 100 copies around until everyone whose willing to listen has read them?

Why do you need billboards? How much speech do you need? How many people do you need to reach? What are trying to do, raise an insurrection against the government? Start a cult? Those things are very dangerous and the public needs to be protected.

See, the problem with trying to quantify the exercise of rights into legal and illegal volumes is that you are only creating an illusion. This is what liberals want to do with gun rights. But what will stop them from using the same principle against any other rights?

To go a step further with that.


Our founders couldn't imagine that technology would be so advanced that books and information, and deranged human behavior could be available in mass quantity on the internet with a simple swipe of the finger and no waiting period.

They wrote the First Amendment with only a simple printing press involved, not the rapid fire assault of the internet.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Too much knowledge can be dangerous.

You are one extremely safe and benign member of the hive mind, Stormy.

 

[Likkmee]

How many books do you really need to read? How about you read one or two books a year, and you just wait? Let's be honest, you don't really need to know whatever is in those books. Too much knowledge can be dangerous.

How many books do you really need to publish? I know, you have free speech rights. That's cool and all, but is it really necessary to print 5,000 copies of your book? How about you print 100 copies, say what you want to say, and you pass those same 100 copies around until everyone whose willing to listen has read them?

Why do you need billboards? How much speech do you need? How many people do you need to reach? What are trying to do, raise an insurrection against the government? Start a cult? Those things are very dangerous and the public needs to be protected.

See, the problem with trying to quantify the exercise of rights into legal and illegal volumes is that you are only creating an illusion. This is what liberals want to do with gun rights. But what will stop them from using the same principle against any other rights?

Amazon product

 

[bigrebnc1775]

How many books do you really need to read? How about you read one or two books a year, and you just wait? Let's be honest, you don't really need to know whatever is in those books. Too much knowledge can be dangerous.

How many books do you really need to publish? I know, you have free speech rights. That's cool and all, but is it really necessary to print 5,000 copies of your book? How about you print 100 copies, say what you want to say, and you pass those same 100 copies around until everyone whose willing to listen has read them?

Why do you need billboards? How much speech do you need? How many people do you need to reach? What are trying to do, raise an insurrection against the government? Start a cult? Those things are very dangerous and the public needs to be protected.

See, the problem with trying to quantify the exercise of rights into legal and illegal volumes is that you are only creating an illusion. This is what liberals want to do with gun rights. But what will stop them from using the same principle against any other rights?

 

[1srelluc]

Ever notice that even though we have the information of the ages at our fingertips the average under 40 person is dumber than a bag of hammers from a practical standpoint? They retain nothing.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Four YEARS Of Warning

The more time that goes on the worse it gets.Just like Parkland eh?When are the American people going to stop with the 'hero worship' and burn all of those 'blue line' flags?The shooter was arrested four years ago for threatening to do exactly what he did, when he did it. O

market-ticker.org

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Reading is knowledge... just be careful what you read

 

[DigitalDrifter]

When the First Amendment was written, a quill and parchment along with copies produced by hand cranked printers were the only form of the printed word.
Likewise, an orator never had the luxury of amplified voiced speech, or recorded speech that can be used over and over and over.

The Founders never intended for the freedom of speech to be used as it is today. They never intended for speech that can be instantly loaded and displayed at the speed it is today. They never intended that there should be the private use of modern word processors that can display thousands of words per minute. One word at a time hand written, was their intent, not the 'automatic' rat a tat tat sounds coming from keyboards, where the user can fire off dozens of words a minute.

The Founders would be horrified by the bastardization of the First Amendment. In essence, they only intended for a well-regulated group of newspapermen to master it's use.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

By the way, I think some of you have missed the brilliant point the OP is making.

 

[2aguy]

How many books do you really need to read? How about you read one or two books a year, and you just wait? Let's be honest, you don't really need to know whatever is in those books. Too much knowledge can be dangerous.

How many books do you really need to publish? I know, you have free speech rights. That's cool and all, but is it really necessary to print 5,000 copies of your book? How about you print 100 copies, say what you want to say, and you pass those same 100 copies around until everyone whose willing to listen has read them?

Why do you need billboards? How much speech do you need? How many people do you need to reach? What are trying to do, raise an insurrection against the government? Start a cult? Those things are very dangerous and the public needs to be protected.

See, the problem with trying to quantify the exercise of rights into legal and illegal volumes is that you are only creating an illusion. This is what liberals want to do with gun rights. But what will stop them from using the same principle against any other rights?

Yep......writers, journalists really need to be licensed by the government........and writers of all kinds should be limited in the number of words and pages they can print.........ideas are dangerous....just look at the 200 million people murdered because of socialist writers....

 

[2aguy]

To go a step further with that.


Our founders couldn't imagine that technology would be so advanced that books and information, and deranged human behavior could be available in mass quantity on the internet with a simple swipe of the finger and no waiting period.

They wrote the First Amendment with only a simple printing press involved, not the rapid fire assault of the internet.

Yep....only the government needs to have access to the internet.........the internet could not have been forseen by the Founders, therefore it is no protected by the 1st Amendment.......you want to look something up....go to the card catalog of your library, for books created on manual printing presses...

 

[surada]

How many books do you really need to read? How about you read one or two books a year, and you just wait? Let's be honest, you don't really need to know whatever is in those books. Too much knowledge can be dangerous.

How many books do you really need to publish? I know, you have free speech rights. That's cool and all, but is it really necessary to print 5,000 copies of your book? How about you print 100 copies, say what you want to say, and you pass those same 100 copies around until everyone whose willing to listen has read them?

Why do you need billboards? How much speech do you need? How many people do you need to reach? What are trying to do, raise an insurrection against the government? Start a cult? Those things are very dangerous and the public needs to be protected.

See, the problem with trying to quantify the exercise of rights into legal and illegal volumes is that you are only creating an illusion. This is what liberals want to do with gun rights. But what will stop them from using the same principle against any other rights?

What a bullshit argument.

 

[whitehall]

I'll go through a Lee Child Jack Reacher book about every couple of weeks but I noticed that my grandsons, while they are smart, do not read for enjoyment. I guess video games and the internet replaced books in a couple of generations and only old farts read for enjoyment. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[2aguy]

By the way, I think some of you have missed the brilliant point the OP is making.

Yep....the leftists here are reading this, and just as they think "1984," "Animal Farm," and "Brave New World," are instruction manuals....they read this thread thinking......yep, exactly, time to set up the concentration and death camps....and where is my shovel, those mass graves don't dig themselves...the victims we plan on putting in them need to dig them...

Leftists are vile.

 

[2aguy]

What a bullshit argument.

And.....you missed it....

Just a clue....this is the exact argument we have seen from morons like you.....

 

[LordBrownTrout]

We dont need books. The govt feeds us everything we need to know. They love us very much.