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

[Pop23]

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.

Oh you didn't write:

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

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Straw man fallacy.

 

[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.

"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.

The lord does choose the foolish things and many now are becoming fully aware that this international cabal of media moguls cannot be trusted. I think its rather funny myself. How about those nice stories telling the poor gullible pregnant women they should get vaccinated that came out in USA today recently? Cool huh. The media has became a joke. What goes around does come around and if the media promoted lies well perhaps lies (if that is what they are) are a lil' justice in the making.

 

[dcbl]

Straw man fallacy.

 

[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.

The lord does choose the foolish things and many now are becoming fully aware that this international cabal of media moguls cannot be trusted. I think its rather funny myself. How about those nice stories telling the poor gullible pregnant women they should get vaccinated that came out in USA today recently? Cool huh. The media has became a joke. What goes around does come around and if the media promoted lies well perhaps lies (if that is what they are) are a lil' justice in the making.

No idea where this inchoate word salad of "lords" and "pregnant women" was supposed to go but here's the other crucial part of your previous post I neglected:

there used to be laws that insured truth in reporting.

Oh by all means cite these "laws that insured (I think you mean ensured) truth in reporting"l HOW would such a law work? WHO would decide what the "truth" is? Some "truth court"?

No Virginia, there are laws against reporting a hoax --- for instance you can't say there was a terrorist attack in Bowling Green if you don't have a reasonable cause to believe there was. And there are laws against libel/slander, which involve known fabrications directed at an individual for the purpose of harming their reputation. But there is no "truth court" that decides what reality is, nice as that might be if it could be.

Once you establish that, then that "truth court" could decide what's news and what isn't. Meaning if it would be inconvenient truth, it would be zapped out of existence and no one would see it. That's exactly what Rump is advocating in that video, his weapon of choice being the Lawsuit.

Again, if he were to accomplish that as a means of eliminating criticism, then he would have done so without any involvement of the Second Amendment, which in turn destroys the fantasy put forth by the first several gun-cult posts that imagine some kind of "dependency". If the 1A depended on the 2A, then the 1A would have been unnecessary, wouldn't it.

Now I have to go --- it seems I've used up my allotment of free expression and am now obligated to go shoot something so I can get more. Or so fantasizes the Gun Cult.

 

[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.

"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.

The lord does choose the foolish things and many now are becoming fully aware that this international cabal of media moguls cannot be trusted. I think its rather funny myself. How about those nice stories telling the poor gullible pregnant women they should get vaccinated that came out in USA today recently? Cool huh. The media has became a joke. What goes around does come around and if the media promoted lies well perhaps lies (if that is what they are) are a lil' justice in the making.

No idea where this inchoate word salad of "lords" and "pregnant women" was supposed to go but here's the other crucial part of your previous post I neglected:

there used to be laws that insured truth in reporting.

Oh by all means cite these "laws that insured (I think you mean ensured) truth in reporting"l HOW would such a law work? WHO would decide what the "truth" is? Some "truth court"?

No Virginia, there are laws against reporting a hoax --- for instance you can't say there was a terrorist attack in Bowling Green if you don't have a reasonable cause to believe there was. And there are laws against libel/slander, which involve known fabrications directed at an individual for the purpose of harming their reputation. But there is no "truth court" that decides what reality is, nice as that might be if it could be.

Once you establish that, then that "truth court" could decide what's news and what isn't. Meaning if it would be inconvenient truth, it would be zapped out of existence and no one would see it. That's exactly what Rump is advocating in that video, his weapon of choice being the Lawsuit.

Again, if he were to accomplish that as a means of eliminating criticism, then he would have done so without any involvement of the Second Amendment, which in turn destroys the fantasy put forth by the first several gun-cult posts that imagine some kind of "dependency". If the 1A depended on the 2A, then the 1A would have been unnecessary, wouldn't it.

Now I have to go --- it seems I've used up my allotment of free expression and am now obligated to go shoot something so I can get more. Or so fantasizes the Gun Cult.

Express all you desire as I'm not here to interfere with that. Just don't try to tell me that media didn't take a full plunge down the toilet when the 'fairness doctrine' was abolished and foreign interest started getting heavy into the ownership of our media outlets.

The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the FCC's view—honest, equitable, and balanced. It was abolished in 1987.

 

[Pogo]

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.

The lord does choose the foolish things and many now are becoming fully aware that this international cabal of media moguls cannot be trusted. I think its rather funny myself. How about those nice stories telling the poor gullible pregnant women they should get vaccinated that came out in USA today recently? Cool huh. The media has became a joke. What goes around does come around and if the media promoted lies well perhaps lies (if that is what they are) are a lil' justice in the making.

No idea where this inchoate word salad of "lords" and "pregnant women" was supposed to go but here's the other crucial part of your previous post I neglected:

there used to be laws that insured truth in reporting.

Oh by all means cite these "laws that insured (I think you mean ensured) truth in reporting"l HOW would such a law work? WHO would decide what the "truth" is? Some "truth court"?

No Virginia, there are laws against reporting a hoax --- for instance you can't say there was a terrorist attack in Bowling Green if you don't have a reasonable cause to believe there was. And there are laws against libel/slander, which involve known fabrications directed at an individual for the purpose of harming their reputation. But there is no "truth court" that decides what reality is, nice as that might be if it could be.

Once you establish that, then that "truth court" could decide what's news and what isn't. Meaning if it would be inconvenient truth, it would be zapped out of existence and no one would see it. That's exactly what Rump is advocating in that video, his weapon of choice being the Lawsuit.

Again, if he were to accomplish that as a means of eliminating criticism, then he would have done so without any involvement of the Second Amendment, which in turn destroys the fantasy put forth by the first several gun-cult posts that imagine some kind of "dependency". If the 1A depended on the 2A, then the 1A would have been unnecessary, wouldn't it.

Now I have to go --- it seems I've used up my allotment of free expression and am now obligated to go shoot something so I can get more. Or so fantasizes the Gun Cult.

Express all you desire as I'm not here to interfere with that. Just don't try to tell me that media didn't take a full plunge down the toilet when the 'fairness doctrine' was abolished and foreign interest started getting heavy into the ownership of our media outlets.

The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the FCC's view—honest, equitable, and balanced. It was abolished in 1987.

Oh hell I wouldn't take that position. I had a career in broadcasting both during and after the FD. It was in fact directly after that date that Lush Rimjob erupted on the ass of radio, to be followed by countless ranting clones. That was Plunge One.

Plunges Two and Three came together in the same year (1996) when (a) the infamous TelComm 96 got signed into law by sleazeball Bull Clinton and begat the Clear Channel syndrome, and (b) an Australian publisher of sensationalist gossip rags founded Fox Noise, which dispensed with the idea of going out to scour actual news, which is expensive, and instead sat gossipmongers down to whine about the news, and about people rather than policy, while pounding on the desk, all the while displaying the word "news" amid the suggestive chyrons, in the naked pursuit of profit over credibility. And the CNNs to their discredit followed them down the Fox hole, and here we are swimming in a sea of irrelevant shit, because it $ells.