Which Constitutional Amendment are our friends on the left most anxious to diminish???

[Some Guy]

You must be new here.

Again --- wrong. (a) I've always freely expressed, and (b) I've never had to shoot anybody to do it. Amazingly, I can also drive without eating artichokes. Same thing.

I never said you have to shoot things. But if you truly value your ability to continue freely expressing yourself how you want, you'd value an american population being armed. But, if you value an oppressive government telling people what they can and can't say under threat of imprisonment/death because you agree with said oppressive government anyway. Well hey, then i guess that's your right... for now.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Again --- wrong. (a) I've always freely expressed, and (b) I've never had to shoot anybody to do it. Amazingly, I can also drive without eating artichokes. Same thing.

You're missing the point.

You can freely do those things because others are willing to arm themselves, which keeps government in check.

You're welcome.

 

[Pogo]

You must be new here.

Again --- wrong. (a) I've always freely expressed, and (b) I've never had to shoot anybody to do it. Amazingly, I can also drive without eating artichokes. Same thing.

I never said you have to shoot things. But if you truly values your ability to continue freely expressing yourself how you want, you'd value an american population being armed.

I don't. I'd prefer to get far the **** away from them.

But, if you value an oppressive government telling people what they can and can't say because you agree with said oppressive government anyway. Well hey, then i guess that's your right... for now.

Again -- I don't. If there's oppression going on I'll express against it. I do it here every day, and (again) it requires no 'shooting'. You just ******* DO it.

Sorry, I've just never bought into this fantasy of blood and gore and conquest and juvenile "might makes right" vanquishing bullshit. It's abjectly silly and I left it behind in childhood with the comic books.

 

[Pogo]

Again --- wrong. (a) I've always freely expressed, and (b) I've never had to shoot anybody to do it. Amazingly, I can also drive without eating artichokes. Same thing.

You're missing the point.

You can freely do those things because others are willing to arm themselves, which keeps government in check.

You're welcome.

Go ahead and try to prove that.

As I said --- I don't buy bullshit just because somebody lists it on eBay.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Go ahead and try to prove that.

As I said --- I don't buy bullshit just because it shows up on eBay.

I guess we will never know, because you're not getting a single bit of "common sense" gun control. In fact, because you gun-hating commie clowns couldn't leave well enough alone, it is going the opposite direction (rightfully so) and before you know it, we will be free-toting belt-fed machine guns down Broadway in NYC.

 

[Some Guy]

Again -- I don't. If there's oppression going on I'll express against it. I do it here every day, and (again) it requires no 'shooting'. You just ******* DO it.

Sorry, I've just never bought into this fantasy of blood and gore and conquest and juvenile "might makes right" vanquishing bullshit. It's abjectly silly and I left it behind in childhood with the comic books.

Would you agree or disagree that an oppressive, totalitarian government's first step in the playbook is to confiscate people's guns/armaments?

If you disagree, then you're denying history. It's as simple as that.

 

[Pogo]

I feel like statists want the 1st gone first.
But i feel like they know they must get rid of the second for that to happen.

Obviously that condition does not exist.

Here's a guy directly threatening the First Amendment, while making no noises whatsoever about threatening the Second ---

​

Obviously he can't do that directly (yet) but he's already underway trying to do it indirectly by demonizing discourse --- and yet he has no need to dismantle the Second Amendment to do so. Doesn't even need to shoot the New York Times on Fifth Avenue; he just uses that, you know, 'liberal media'.

Kind of shoots that theory in the foot, doncha think?

 

[TNHarley]

I feel like statists want the 1st gone first.
But i feel like they know they must get rid of the second for that to happen.

Obviously that condition does not exist.

Here's a guy directly threatening the First Amendment, while making no noises whatsoever about threatening the Second ---

​

Obviously he can't do that directly (yet) but he's already underway trying to do it indirectly by demonizing discourse --- and yet he has no need to dismantle the Second Amendment to do so. Doesn't even need to shoot the New York Times on Fifth Avenue; he just uses that, you know, 'liberal media'.

Kind of shoots that theory in the foot, doncha think?

Lol what?

 

[Pogo]

Again -- I don't. If there's oppression going on I'll express against it. I do it here every day, and (again) it requires no 'shooting'. You just ******* DO it.

Sorry, I've just never bought into this fantasy of blood and gore and conquest and juvenile "might makes right" vanquishing bullshit. It's abjectly silly and I left it behind in childhood with the comic books.

Would you agree or disagree that an oppressive, totalitarian government's first step in the playbook is to confiscate people's guns/armaments?

If you disagree, then you're denying history. It's as simple as that.

No, I don't. And your ipse dixit Ultimatum Fallacy is not an argument.

 

[RodISHI]

I feel like statists want the 1st gone first.
But i feel like they know they must get rid of the second for that to happen.

Obviously that condition does not exist.

Here's a guy directly threatening the First Amendment, while making no noises whatsoever about threatening the Second ---

​

Obviously he can't do that directly (yet) but he's already underway trying to do it indirectly by demonizing discourse --- and yet he has no need to dismantle the Second Amendment to do so. Doesn't even need to shoot the New York Times on Fifth Avenue; he just uses that, you know, 'liberal media'.

Kind of shoots that theory in the foot, doncha think?

Propaganda to push agendas and indoctrinate are not news and there used to be laws that insured truth in reporting.

 

[Pogo]

I feel like statists want the 1st gone first.
But i feel like they know they must get rid of the second for that to happen.

Obviously that condition does not exist.

Here's a guy directly threatening the First Amendment, while making no noises whatsoever about threatening the Second ---

​

Obviously he can't do that directly (yet) but he's already underway trying to do it indirectly by demonizing discourse --- and yet he has no need to dismantle the Second Amendment to do so. Doesn't even need to shoot the New York Times on Fifth Avenue; he just uses that, you know, 'liberal media'.

Kind of shoots that theory in the foot, doncha think?

Lol what?

Yeah. Exactly. QED.

 

[Some Guy]

No, I don't. And your ipse dixit Ultimatum Fallacy is not an argument.

Here in reality it is. But hey, i'm a live and let live kinda guy. If fantasy is more comfortable for you then i won't stop you.

 

[Pop23]

You must be new here.

Again --- wrong. (a) I've always freely expressed, and (b) I've never had to shoot anybody to do it. Amazingly, I can also drive without eating artichokes. Same thing.

I never said you have to shoot things. But if you truly values your ability to continue freely expressing yourself how you want, you'd value an american population being armed.

I don't. I'd prefer to get far the **** away from them.

But, if you value an oppressive government telling people what they can and can't say because you agree with said oppressive government anyway. Well hey, then i guess that's your right... for now.

Again -- I don't. If there's oppression going on I'll express against it. I do it here every day, and (again) it requires no 'shooting'. You just ******* DO it.

Sorry, I've just never bought into this fantasy of blood and gore and conquest and juvenile "might makes right" vanquishing bullshit. It's abjectly silly and I left it behind in childhood with the comic books.

Yet, you do it anonymously, again, you can thank us for protecting that right as well.

 

[mudwhistle]

I mean, we all know that mainstream leftists are afraid of the 2nd Amendment; seems they used to be content with chipping away at citizens rights to bear arms with restrictions on what type of firearms people can buy and own

But now, many of them have come out of the proverbial closet and are outright calling for a repeal

But despite their longstanding attacks on gun rights, I have to say that they are even more anxious to destroy the 1st Amendment

we all see it; they shout down and attempt to shame anyone that they disagree with or that offends their little fee fees...

They are also consistently push for laws that would silence voices on the right; especially talk radio. The attacks on freedom of speech and press go far beyond strong arm tactics to prevent opposing voices to be heard on college campuses

sure, there are a few on the left that still champion those rights (Maher, Dershowitz); but those voices are few and far between, and they get ostracized frequently

so, as much as they hate the 2nd; their attacks on the 1st are even more dangerous and important to them

The 1st.

But they need to get rid of the 2nd to get rid of the 1st

 

[Pogo]

Go ahead and try to prove that.

As I said --- I don't buy bullshit just because it shows up on eBay.

I guess we will never know, because you're not getting a single bit of "common sense" gun control. In fact, because you gun-hating commie clowns couldn't leave well enough alone, it is going the opposite direction (rightfully so) and before you know it, we will be free-toting belt-fed machine guns down Broadway in NYC.

"Oops" is right. You can't prove it. Tender all the shoot-em-up gun fantasies by Mattel you like, your argument has no basis. Which is what I pointed out in the first place.

 

[Pop23]

Again --- wrong. (a) I've always freely expressed, and (b) I've never had to shoot anybody to do it. Amazingly, I can also drive without eating artichokes. Same thing.

You're missing the point.

You can freely do those things because others are willing to arm themselves, which keeps government in check.

You're welcome.

Go ahead and try to prove that.

As I said --- I don't buy bullshit just because somebody lists it on eBay.

Ask the German Jews of the 40's and get back to us.

 

[Pogo]

You must be new here.

Again --- wrong. (a) I've always freely expressed, and (b) I've never had to shoot anybody to do it. Amazingly, I can also drive without eating artichokes. Same thing.

I never said you have to shoot things. But if you truly values your ability to continue freely expressing yourself how you want, you'd value an american population being armed.

I don't. I'd prefer to get far the **** away from them.

But, if you value an oppressive government telling people what they can and can't say because you agree with said oppressive government anyway. Well hey, then i guess that's your right... for now.

Again -- I don't. If there's oppression going on I'll express against it. I do it here every day, and (again) it requires no 'shooting'. You just ******* DO it.

Sorry, I've just never bought into this fantasy of blood and gore and conquest and juvenile "might makes right" vanquishing bullshit. It's abjectly silly and I left it behind in childhood with the comic books.

Yet, you do it anonymously, again, you can thank us for protecting that right as well.

I have zero need of your "protection" I fend for myself. You might grow a pair and try it out.

 

[Pop23]

You must be new here.

Again --- wrong. (a) I've always freely expressed, and (b) I've never had to shoot anybody to do it. Amazingly, I can also drive without eating artichokes. Same thing.

I never said you have to shoot things. But if you truly values your ability to continue freely expressing yourself how you want, you'd value an american population being armed.

I don't. I'd prefer to get far the **** away from them.

But, if you value an oppressive government telling people what they can and can't say because you agree with said oppressive government anyway. Well hey, then i guess that's your right... for now.

Again -- I don't. If there's oppression going on I'll express against it. I do it here every day, and (again) it requires no 'shooting'. You just ******* DO it.

Sorry, I've just never bought into this fantasy of blood and gore and conquest and juvenile "might makes right" vanquishing bullshit. It's abjectly silly and I left it behind in childhood with the comic books.

Yet, you do it anonymously, again, you can thank us for protecting that right as well.

I have zero need of your "protection" I fend for myself. You might grow a pair and try it out.

I have no problem defending myself, with or without a gun. I kinda like those weaker than myself to have the ability to level the playing field. I do however understand why those like you don't much agree with the concept.

 

[Pogo]

I feel like statists want the 1st gone first.
But i feel like they know they must get rid of the second for that to happen.

Obviously that condition does not exist.

Here's a guy directly threatening the First Amendment, while making no noises whatsoever about threatening the Second ---

​

Obviously he can't do that directly (yet) but he's already underway trying to do it indirectly by demonizing discourse --- and yet he has no need to dismantle the Second Amendment to do so. Doesn't even need to shoot the New York Times on Fifth Avenue; he just uses that, you know, 'liberal media'.

Kind of shoots that theory in the foot, doncha think?

Propaganda to push agendas and indoctrinate are not news and there used to be laws that insured truth in reporting.

"Propaganda to push agendas and indoctrinate" are not in play there. All he says is "a hit piece which is a disgrace", which is intentionally vague and simply means a narcissist who can't take criticism. He's fantasizing about shutting down those critical voices and he's not doing it through anything to do with "firearms" --- he's advocating doing it by abusing the court system.

Which, again, demonstrates that the First does not "depend on" the Second. For in this scenario the Second remains untouched.

This ain't rocket surgery.

 

[Pogo]

You must be new here.

Again --- wrong. (a) I've always freely expressed, and (b) I've never had to shoot anybody to do it. Amazingly, I can also drive without eating artichokes. Same thing.

I never said you have to shoot things. But if you truly values your ability to continue freely expressing yourself how you want, you'd value an american population being armed.

I don't. I'd prefer to get far the **** away from them.

But, if you value an oppressive government telling people what they can and can't say because you agree with said oppressive government anyway. Well hey, then i guess that's your right... for now.

Again -- I don't. If there's oppression going on I'll express against it. I do it here every day, and (again) it requires no 'shooting'. You just ******* DO it.

Sorry, I've just never bought into this fantasy of blood and gore and conquest and juvenile "might makes right" vanquishing bullshit. It's abjectly silly and I left it behind in childhood with the comic books.

Yet, you do it anonymously, again, you can thank us for protecting that right as well.

I have zero need of your "protection" I fend for myself. You might grow a pair and try it out.

I have no problem defending myself, with or without a gun. I kinda like those weaker than myself to have the ability to level the playing field. I do however understand why those like you don't much agree with the concept.

Nobody has even brought up the concept.