Reply With Quote
trump fellators: " yeah! less gubmit! MAGA!"
damn this is pretty big. Too bad cnn is too busy on russiagate to report this
20 states about to enact some of these laws:
- states can sue individuals that protested and cost states money to secure the protest. Basically if you protest you can lose everything in civil court
- immunization to drivers that drive over protesters on a street
- illegal for demonstrators to cover their faces
- criminalize heckling politicians
- felony to block a major road
We are approaching Berlin circa 1930s
trump fellators: " yeah! less gubmit! MAGA!"
Ain't this some .
A cop could shoot an unarmed person and the protestors get punished more than the officer does.
It should be the State's decision. I don't see the part about a ban though. Seems more like guidelines for peaceful protesting due to the violent nature of ANTIFA and BLM setting the precedents.
There were a few articles about 18 states considering such laws this winter but I have not seen anything about them all being imminent.
People at this point should know better than to accept Haters claims at face value.
the bills been written, and certainly up for a vote this year. They are nearly all red/slave Repug states, or at least a Repug legislature.
Republican lawmaker vows to run over protesters who block highways
Pennsylvania Rep. Aaron Bernstine says he "won't be assaulted in name of 'free speech."
https://thinkprogress.org/aaron-bern...-8da527bc0a49/
His murdering protesters with a lethal weapon is now fully pre-meditated.
once-a-slave-state-always-a-slave state Missouri, again
WATCH: Driver Speeds Through St. Louis Anti-Police Brutality Protestors Minutes After Speaking With Cops
The protest was for Anthony Lamar Smith, an African American man shot by former police officer Jason Stockley.
a white man driving a large SUV plowed through a group of Black Lives Matter protesters only moments after talking to a police officer.
At the beginning of the video, the SUV can be seen hurtling toward the protesters in the street, with the horn blasting and people frantically scrambling to get out of the way.
After breaking through, the car stops after being hit by thrown items, before
the driver speeds off — with no police in pursuit
Watch the video below, uploaded to YouTube by “Rebelutionary_Z”:
http://www.alternet.org/activism/watch-driver-speeds-through-st-louis-anti-police-brutality-protestors-minutes-after
20 us states ABOUT to ban protesting? doubt it... but possibly about to designate certain groups who claim to be protesters as gangs or domestic terrorists. antifa, blm, and the like. i get blm message but they have a corrupt core of leaders and antifa are just a bunch of little ass hipsters.
Is the purpose of groups like Antifa simply to create chaos and anarchy? Isn't that banned already? I cannot see any state intentionally violating the rights of people to peacefully assemble, even in protest. I can see them outlawing mob mentality with ing baseball bats, burning and breaking windows.
Again, you'll lose your 1st amendment rights before I lose my 2nd. How ing ironic is that?
Seeing as its Republicans who want to take away the 1st while preserving and expanding the 2nd, I don't see the irony.
The irony is that the left has been harping and trolling on "muh guns" for quite some time. Every time you do, gun sales increase and the net effect is more guns per household. At the same time, you value the out of the 1st amendment and consider it sacred while the 2nd is just antiquated and misinterpreted.
Now here you are about to lose the 1st and the only thing that will prevent it is the fact that the 2nd exists. The left can't defend their own rights, they've insisted on it.
I don't really give much of a about gun control, but if you don't care about freedom of speech, ok.
I do care about the 1st amendment, that's why I support the 2nd.
Did that go over your head or somehow escape the gravity of your narrative?
Practically what does that mean?
At what point are you taking up arms against the government to fight for 1st amendment rights?
I won't need to, just like we won't need to nuke North Korea. The threat is enough.
Notice though how you've created a tangent from the irony I mentioned to my dedication to the 1st.
Your gun collection is enough to keep the government from taking away your first amendment freedoms?
I'll put my gun against your black face mask and purple hair any day of the week as far as effective deterrent goes.
I have neither, but that wasn't my question. Do you seriously think your personal arsenal is what's keeping your cons utional freedoms intact?
"I'm a neutral observer, but let me throw some strawmen at you to see how long you'll keep responding"
I'm just asking you a question since you've brought up "your" 2nd amendment several times. I want to know what you really mean when you talk about deterrence.
What do you think keeps us from losing any of our cons utional rights?
Honestly, I don't think it's your personal arsenal.
Do you seriously think your personal arsenal is what's keeping your cons utional freedoms intact?
The personal arsenal is your strawman. You can joust it all you like.
So you don't know what protects our cons utional freedoms but you don't think it's "We the People".
I said I don't think it's your personal arsenal. Now when you say it's "We the People" do you just mean the people with guns? Are you in a militia or something? Help me understand what you're talking about here.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
