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

There were no laws against abortion until late in US history. Too many young mothers died in childbirth or from repeated miscarriages. You can visit any old cemeteries and see the young wives and newborns buried there.
Thanks to modern technology that issue is way in the US and almost all civilized nations.
 
Hold on.........the Bible? You need to register that book on multiple aspects of the 1st amendment .....you can't just ....own and read.....that book......who gave you permission....did you register yourself and your religious choice with your local government over sight board?

It is grandfathered. Well in this case, grandmothered since it was her Good Book. According to it, the Word is all I need, so screw them guns and shat.
 
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?
Librarians buy books
So do BOOKSTOREA
 
Arguably the internet and social media are the most dangerous weapons ever conceived so both should be outlawed.
The content, and the activities taking place upon the internet and/or the bad usage of it is the problem, but not necessarily the concept or Internet itself. It being unregulated and open to just about anything is a major problem.

We have many modern day usages for
the internet, otherwise that makes it a super valuable thing, but one wonder's if it has gotten to the point where the bad might start outweighing the good or has the bad become the driving force behind it all now ?
 
The content, and the activities taking place upon the internet and/or the bad usage of it is the problem, but not necessarily the concept or Internet itself. It being unregulated and open to just about anything is a major problem.

We have many modern day usages for
the internet, otherwise that makes it a super valuable thing, but one wonder's if it has gotten to the point where the bad might start outweighing the good or has the bad become the driving force behind it all now ?
The same is true of firearms which are not in and of themselves a danger to anyone.
 
Just as we should take away their access to the internet, social media and the ballot box.

Let's start tomorrow!
Uhhhh, we'll have to wait till the right people get back in charge, then hopefully the weeding will be successful in order to allow for the good crop's to grow.

Right now wouldn't be a good time for weeding, because the good plants will be mistaken as just weeds by the Democrat's, and therefore the good plants would be pulled because the Democrat's have no idea upon what a good plant is or a bad weed is anymore.
 
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.
Any individual who was educated rather than indoctrinated would know it's treason to mention "well regulated" and "newspapermen" to be put anywhere in proximity to one another. And besides, that "newspapermen" is sexist.
What country in Hell do you live in? Or just indoctrinated exclusively in government "schools".
 

Forum List

Back
Top