Hello Fascism: 20 Us states about to ban protesting

[hater]

:lol 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

[Joseph Kony]

trump fellators: "hell yeah! less gubmit! MAGA!"

[cd021]

Ain't this some shit.

A cop could shoot an unarmed person and the protestors get punished more than the officer does.:lol

[Chris]

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.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

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.

[boutons_deux]

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.

[boutons_deux]

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://i1.wp.com/thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/bernstine.jpg?resize=1280%2C720px&ssl=1

https://i1.wp.com/thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/1.jpg?w=1247&crop=0%2C0px%2C100%2C737px&ssl=1

https://thinkprogress.org/aaron-bernstine-pennsylvania-protesters-highways-8da527bc0a49/

His murdering protesters with a lethal weapon is now fully pre-meditated.

[boutons_deux]

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.

http://www.alternet.org/sites/default/files/styles/story_image/public/story_images/rebelutionary_z.jpg?itok=Ig3bC0QZ

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

[koriwhat]

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. fuck 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 bitchass hipsters.

[DMC]

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 fucking baseball bats, burning shit and breaking windows.

Again, you'll lose your 1st amendment rights before I lose my 2nd. How fucking ironic is that?

[Pavlov]

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 fucking baseball bats, burning shit and breaking windows.

Again, you'll lose your 1st amendment rights before I lose my 2nd. How fucking 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.

[DMC]

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 fuck 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.

[Pavlov]

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 fuck 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 shit about gun control, but if you don't care about freedom of speech, ok.

[DMC]

I don't really give much of a shit 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?

[Pavlov]

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?

[DMC]

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.

[Pavlov]

I won't need to, just like we won't need to nuke North Korea. The threat is enough.Your gun collection is enough to keep the government from taking away your first amendment freedoms?

[DMC]

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.

[Pavlov]

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 constitutional freedoms intact?

[DMC]

I have neither, but that wasn't my question. Do you seriously think your personal arsenal is what's keeping your constitutional freedoms intact?

"I'm a neutral observer, but let me throw some strawmen at you to see how long you'll keep responding"

[Pavlov]

"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.

[DMC]

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 constitutional rights?

[Pavlov]

What do you think keeps us from losing any of our constitutional rights?Honestly, I don't think it's your personal arsenal.

Do you seriously think your personal arsenal is what's keeping your constitutional freedoms intact?

[DMC]

Honestly, I don't think it's your personal arsenal.

Do you seriously think your personal arsenal is what's keeping your constitutional freedoms intact?

The personal arsenal is your strawman. You can joust it all you like.

So you don't know what protects our constitutional freedoms but you don't think it's "We the People".

[Pavlov]

The personal arsenal is your strawman. You can joust it all you like.

So you don't know what protects our constitutional 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.

[DMC]

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.

You're the only one in this thread who has mentioned a personal arsenal.

We the People have always had guns, so they are one and the same. You cannot separate "We the People" into groups, even though you'd like to.

[Pavlov]

You're the only one in this thread who has mentioned a personal arsenal.

We the People have always had guns, so they are one and the same. You cannot separate "We the People" into groups, even though you'd like to.OK, so even people without guns are "We the People."

What is the deterrent as far as the government is concerned? The people themselves? Not the guns? The people, some of whom have guns?

[DMC]

Seeing as its Republicans who want to take away the 1st while preserving and expanding the 2nd, I don't see the irony.


OK, so even people without guns are "We the People."

What is the deterrent as far as the government is concerned? The people themselves? Not the guns? The people, some of whom have guns?

Let's get back to your initial retort and away from your trolling attempt.

So you think Republicans want to remove the freedom of religion? Or do you mean only the "free speech" aspect? Aren't they both part of the 1st Amendment? If you can control and limit the right to keep and bear arms, why can't we also control and limit the right to free speech? After all, aren't both infringements merely doing what's best for society?

You can keep and bear arms, but you cannot keep and bear a fully automatic without jumping though these hoops... and we want registrations.. and background checks..

You can speak freely, but you cannot speak freely here, at this time, with these people.. without jumping through hoops, and we want registrations and background checks.

[Spurminator]

If you can control and limit the right to keep and bear arms, why can't we also control and limit the right to free speech?

We do.

[DMC]

We do.

Then what's the problem?

[Pavlov]

Let's get back to your initial retort and away from your trolling attempt.

So you think Republicans want to remove the freedom of religion? Or do you mean only the "free speech" aspect? Aren't they both part of the 1st Amendment?Speech. They only want to protect certain religions, not religion.
If you can control and limit the right to keep and bear arms, why can't we also control and limit the right to free speech? After all, aren't both infringements merely doing what's best for society?But they already control and limit both.

And I really want to know how you think this all works. What is the deterrent as far as the government is concerned? The people themselves? Not the guns? The people, some of whom have guns?

[DMC]

Speech. They only want to protect certain religions, not religion.But they already control and limit both.

So then not the 1st Amendment but a portion of the 1st Amendment, but it's really nothing new?


And I really want to know how you think this all works. What is the deterrent as far as the government is concerned? The people themselves? Not the guns? The people, some of whom have guns?
Ask the government. I guess they are all just great people who wouldn't ever take advantage of us.

Either way, armed populace vs unarmed populace. Which would be the better deterrent against tyranny?

[Pavlov]

So then not the 1st Amendment but a portion of the 1st Amendment, but it's really nothing new? Attempts to curtail speech? No, nothing new. Neither are attempts to control guns.


Ask the government. I guess they are all just great people who wouldn't ever take advantage of us.No, you already said its a deterrent. This is your theory. Own it. What is the deterrent as far as the government is concerned? The people themselves? Not the guns? The people, some of whom have guns?

[UNT Eagles 2016]

once-a-slave-state-always-a-slave state Missouri, again


I wish I owned some slaves. Would be nice. Eight strong black guys to work on my flip homes, another to mow my lawn and keep my yard spiffy, a 40s-50s something female for cooking and maid service, and her 20s something daughter for unlimited no strings attached sex. The life of the party.

[DMC]

Attempts to curtail speech? No, nothing new. Neither are attempts to control guns.

No, you already said its a deterrent. This is your theory. Own it. What is the deterrent as far as the government is concerned? The people themselves? Not the guns? The people, some of whom have guns?

Theory? :lol

You call your narrative my theory? I said I'd take my guns over your face mask and purple hair. You then threw in the "personal arsenal" strawman while proclaiming you don't have a dog in the race.

Armed vs unarmed. History has given us the answer.

[Pavlov]

Theory? :lol

You call your narrative my theory? I said I'd take my guns over your face mask and purple hair. You then threw in the "personal arsenal" strawman while proclaiming you don't have a dog in the race.I am part of "We the People" unless you have some other definition. You never answered.


Armed vs unarmed. History has given us the answer.Yeah, you say your being armed is a deterrence to the government -- or you're at least strongly implying it since you just stopped giving straight answers for some reason. What exactly are they afraid of when it comes to you?

[DMC]

I am part of "We the People" unless you have some other definition. You never answered.

The definition exists already. I don't need a customized version for sake of argument.


Yeah, you say your being armed is a deterrence to the government -- or you're at least strongly implying it since you just stopped giving straight answers for some reason. What exactly are they afraid of when it comes to you?
So did I say it or did I strongly imply it? Which is it?

Does the government know who is and who isn't armed? No, that would require a national firearms database, which we've debated here before. That means "We the People" are, for intents and purposes, and armed populace.

I know you want to divide this into a "me vs them" debate but I won't let you.

[DMC]

I don't really give much of a shit 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 have neither, but that wasn't my question. Do you seriously think your personal arsenal is what's keeping your constitutional freedoms intact?


I'll put my gun against your black face mask and purple hair any day of the week as far as effective deterrent goes.


It's clear that you're taking liberties with narrative and trying to take the topic into your own entertaining direction but I didn't let you.

My point stands. It's ironic that the group of people who have spent decades trying to erode the 2nd Amendment are losing the 1st Amendment rights while the 2nd is stronger than when they first started :lol

[Pavlov]

The definition exists already. I don't need a customized version for sake of argument.Great, so just everyone regardless of guns. That's a definition.


So did I say it or did I strongly imply it? Which is it?You've brought it up many times for no reason at all, so I gave both options.


Does the government know who is and who isn't armed? No, that would require a national firearms database, which we've debated here before. That means "We the People" are, for intents and purposes, and armed populace.Oh, a different definition. This is why I asked. Thanks for actually saying something.


I know you want to divide this into a "me vs them" debate but I won't let you.I'm asking what your part in it is. You're a guy with a gun and government is deterred by an indeterminate number of people who may have guns?

[DMC]

Great, so just everyone regardless of guns. That's a definition.

That's actually not the definition, just a footnote by you. It's the same as saying "so just everyone, with or without the freedom of speech".


You've brought it up many times for no reason at all, so I gave both options.

I calculated you'd say this so I have already shown I did not bring it up, you did... many times.


Oh, a different definition. This is why I asked. Thanks for actually saying something.

Only if you don't know what a definition is. I didn't define "We the People" by saying "are an armed populace" any more than saying "are an educated group" defines "College graduates".

Did you take English 101?


I'm asking what your part in it is. You're a guy with a gun and government is deterred by an indeterminate number of people who may have guns?
It doesn't matter what my part in it is. It has no bearing on the point I made.

Which drop of water caused the flood in Houston?

[Pavlov]

That's actually not the definition, just a footnote by you. It's the same as saying "so just everyone, with or without the freedom of speech". OK, what is it?


I calculated you'd say this so I have already shown I did not bring it up, you did... many times.Nope, you've brought up your guns and second amendment more than once.


Only if you don't know what a definition is. I didn't define "We the People" by saying "are an armed populace" any more than saying "are an educated group" defines "College graduates".OK, let me know when you want to say what it means.


Did you take English 101?Sure. It looks pretty ridiculous when it's put that way. That's why I'm asking you how you think this all works. If you just want to shut down and not say anything further, that's fine. I don't think it would look any better if you did find the wherewithal to spell it out.

[Pavlov]

It doesn't matter what my part in it is. It has no bearing on the point I made.What point? I'm asking you straight up what your role is.


Which drop of water caused the flood in Houston?You're a raindrop? That's a warm snowflake.

[Axl Rose]

No other amendments without the 2nd imho

[DMC]

OK, what is it?

Do your homework.


Nope, you've brought up your guns and second amendment more than once.

Show me.


OK, let me know when you want to say what it means.

I don't care to debate custom definitions. The term has existed for hundreds of years. Go look it up.


Sure. It looks pretty ridiculous when it's put that way. That's why I'm asking you how you think this all works. If you just want to shut down and not say anything further, that's fine. I don't think it would look any better if you did find the wherewithal to spell it out.
No, you're trying to troll me into playing your semantics game :lol

[DMC]

What point? I'm asking you straight up what your role is.



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 fuck 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.

That point.

You're trying to introduce another red herring.


You're a raindrop? That's a warm snowflake.
This is you waving the white flag.

[Pavlov]

Do your homework. :lol


Show me.:lol more homework. If you say you've never ever posted about guns or the 2nd amendment, that's pretty funny.


I don't care to debate custom definitions. The term has existed for hundreds of years. Go look it up.White property owners? Slaves? They were all included?


No, you're trying to troll me into playing your semantics game :lolNope. I genuinely wanted to know what you thought your part was in the deterrence of government from taking your rights when they try to limit or curtail them all the time. "We the People" must not have had enough guns.

[DMC]

:lol

:lol more homework. If you say you've never ever posted about guns or the 2nd amendment, that's pretty funny.

So you cannot show me in this thread where I posted about my guns multiple times in this thread.


White property owners? Slaves? They were all included?

You'll read all about it once you stop posting here and expand your learning a bit.


Nope. I genuinely wanted to know what you thought your part was in the deterrence of government from taking your rights when they try to limit or curtail them all the time. "We the People" must not have had enough guns.
You wanted to create a narrative and see it grow. :lol

[Pavlov]

So you cannot show me in this thread where I posted about my guns multiple times in this thread.:lol You're already moving the goalposts.


You'll read all about it once you stop posting here and expand your learning a bit.Well, you certainly aren't going to say anything else.


You wanted to create a narrative and see it grow. :lolNope, it went pretty much the way the truther stuff goes, etc. People are really loathe to say what they think on an anonymous message board. I was thinking you of all people wouldn't be the same.

[DMC]

:lol You're already moving the goalposts.

Well, you certainly aren't going to say anything else.

Nope, it went pretty much the way the truther stuff goes, etc. People are really loathe to say what they think on an anonymous message board. I was thinking you of all people wouldn't be the same.

Sure :lol

[DeadlyDynasty]

:lolmah man, there ain't gonna be immunity for running over protesters. Rolling coal is the best "legal" way to fuck with them though

[Th'Pusher]

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.

If there were only some mechanism to challenge unconstitutional laws. Unfortunately all we have are our guns!

You're a fucking idiot.

[Pavlov]

The left's rights aren't his according to him. :lol "We the People"

[Th'Pusher]

The left's rights aren't his according to him. :lol "We the People"

It's one of the stupidest statements I've read on this board and that idiot thinks he made a good point.

[CosmicCowboy]

Illegally blocking public streets,looting stores and burning cars is not protected by the first amendment.

[Pavlov]

Illegally blocking public streets,looting stores and burning cars is not protected by the first amendment.You would've shot lunch counter protesters for loitering.

[CosmicCowboy]

You would've shot lunch counter protesters for loitering.

You would have sucked MLK's dick. Any dick, actually.

[Pavlov]

You would have sucked MLK's dick. Any dick, actually.

You celebrated his death. And :lol childhood insults from a 90 year old.

[CosmicCowboy]

Nope

[CosmicCowboy]

Illegally blocking public streets,looting stores and burning cars is not protected by the first amendment.

[Th'Pusher]

Illegally blocking public streets,looting stores and burning cars is not protected by the first amendment.

Who is arguing that they are?

[boutons_deux]

Who is arguing that they are?

nobody. CC sliming all protesters with crimes of a few

[Pavlov]

MLK blocked traffic on his marches so he deserved to die, right?

[CosmicCowboy]

MLK blocked traffic on his marches so he deserved to die, right?

Who said anything about dying except you, chump?

[Pavlov]

Who said anything about dying except you, chump?
One of the linked articles.

[DMC]

One of the linked articles.

That Hillary loss really fucked you up.

[DMC]

If there were only some mechanism to challenge unconstitutional laws. Unfortunately all we have are our guns!

You're a fucking idiot.

:lol as if rules prevent rule violations

[Th'Pusher]

:lol as if rules prevent rule violations

Yes. The right to bear arms is the ONLY thing that will prevent the government from stripping us of our first amendment rights. Brilliant and thought provoking!

You're a fucking idiot.

[DMC]

Yes. The right to bear arms is the ONLY thing that will prevent the government from stripping us of our first amendment rights. Brilliant and thought provoking!

You're a fucking idiot.

Only an idiot thinks any right means anything without the ability to enforce it.

[Th'Pusher]

Only an idiot thinks any right means anything without the ability to enforce it.

Are guns the only mechanism to ensure that a right is secured?

[DMC]

Are guns the only mechanism to ensure that a right is secured?

Bombs work too.

[Th'Pusher]

Bombs work too.

So no law has been declared unconstitutional or overwritten without enforcement through guns or bombs?

You're a fucking idiot.

[Spurminator]

Running list of things DMC wants to make sure we know about him:

- He has account info for every ST poster
- He has never had a flu shot and never had the flu
- He will take on the entire government with his arsenal if they infringe on his rights

This guy is Superman.

[DMC]

So no law has been declared unconstitutional or overwritten without enforcement through guns or bombs?

You're a fucking idiot.

You can declare all you like. What good does that do? When human rights are being infringed upon in places like Kosovo, did we go in with lawyers and declarations or bombs and guns? Sure they get overruled, people like me insist on it.

I've covered all this already, JP. Do try to keep up.

[DMC]

Running list of things DMC wants to make sure we know about him:

- He has account info for every ST poster
- He has never had a flu shot and never had the flu
- He will take on the entire government with his arsenal if they infringe on his rights

This guy is Superman.

I did split your hole wide open though, didn't I?

:lol

[Th'Pusher]

You can declare all you like. What good does that do? When human rights are being infringed upon in places like Kosovo, did we go in with lawyers and declarations or bombs and guns? Sure they get overruled, people like me insist on it.

I've covered all this already, JP. Do try to keep up.

This isn't Kosovo motherfucker. This is the USA and we have a constitution. We're a nation of laws.

[boutons_deux]

"We're a nation of laws."

:lol just one of the HUGE myths that Americans lie to themselves with.

[Pavlov]

That Hillary loss really fucked you up.
All you have is *ding*?

:lol

[Pavlov]

Bombs work too.

"We the maybe bomb posessing people."

[DMC]

This isn't Kosovo motherfucker. This is the USA and we have a constitution. We're a nation of laws.

means nothing without enforcement

[Mark Celibate]

This isn't Kosovo motherfucker. This is the USA and we have a constitution. We're a nation of laws.


Gotta have teeth behind it, can't just have laws and hope no one ever decides to break them imho

[Th'Pusher]

means nothing without enforcement


Gotta have teeth behind it, can't just have laws and hope no one ever decides to break them imho

No shit. And who is responsible for enforcing laws in th US, at any level?

I'll give you a hint. It's not DMC with his personal aresonal.

So let's all acknowledge that his claim that the only thing protecting the first amendment is the second amendment was a stupid emotional statement from a gun fanboy.

[DMC]

No shit. And who is responsible for enforcing laws in th US, at any level?

I'll give you a hint. It's not DMC with his personal aresonal.

So let's all acknowledge that his claim that the only thing protecting the first amendment is the second amendment was a stupid emotional statement from a gun fanboy.

That was a strawman from Chump that you latched onto. I never made such a claim.

You cannot protect your own rights. If the rest of the country fell into step with your thinking, we'd all be toothless, like you. 2nd Amendment folks protect the 1st Amendment rights.

[DMC]

"We the maybe bomb posessing people."

Worked in Kosovo and in Germany, didn't it?

If it weren't for guns and bombs, you'd be speaking Japanese or German.

[Pavlov]

That was a strawman from Chump that you latched onto. I never made such a claim.

You cannot protect your own rights. If the rest of the country fell into step with your thinking, we'd all be toothless, like you. 2nd Amendment folks protect the 1st Amendment rights.Not you but people like you with personal arsenals protect 1st amendment rights although those rights are constantly being modified and restricted with the personal arsenal crowd (not you, of course) doing nothing about it.

[Pavlov]

Worked in Kosovo and in Germany, didn't it?

If it weren't for guns and bombs, you'd be speaking Japanese or German.Government armed forces?

OK.

[DMC]

Not you but people like you with personal arsenals protect 1st amendment rights although those rights are constantly being modified and restricted with the personal arsenal crowd (not you, of course) doing nothing about it.

No I established it was your strawman. There's no reason to continue to flog it.

[DMC]

Government armed forces?

OK.

Same concept.

[Pavlov]

Same concept.Not at all.

[Pavlov]

No I established it was your strawman. There's no reason to continue to flog it.So what are you going on about being some 2nd amendment hero then?

[Th'Pusher]

That was a strawman from Chump that you latched onto. I never made such a claim.

Oh really? Your words. Not chump's


Now here you are about to lose the 1st and the only thing that will prevent it is the fact that the 2nd exists.

This is complete and utter bullshit. The second amendment is not the only thing protecting my first amendment rights. It's an emotional argument from a gun boy.

[Blake]

2nd Amendment folks protect the 1st Amendment rights.




If it weren't for guns and bombs, you'd be speaking Japanese or German.

So you 2nd amendment folks are are saying the 2nd amendment allows the right to bear bombs.

[Mark Celibate]

Oh really? Your words. Not chump's



This is complete and utter bullshit. The second amendment is not the only thing protecting my first amendment rights. It's an emotional argument from a gun boy.
T. Domesticated cuck

[DMC]

Oh really? Your words. Not chump's



This is complete and utter bullshit. The second amendment is not the only thing protecting my first amendment rights. It's an emotional argument from a gun boy.

Where does it say that I even own a firearm?

[DMC]

So you 2nd amendment folks are are saying the 2nd amendment allows the right to bear bombs.

Sure Cuck, taking two statements not even related to each other and putting them together works for your MSM, why not jump on board, right?

[DMC]

Some of you have memories as short as your cocks.

Who is responsible for search and rescue, emergency response and such in the US? Who actually did most of the rescues in Houston after the local "responsible party" couldn't?

We the fucking People.

Any of you cucks get your kayaks out there and rescue people? Would your Prius make it through that water? Is the Cajun Navy a bunch of Antifa folks?

Even during the LA riots, where was the law enforcement? That's small potatoes compared to what could happen, and these rights you pretend to have would be just cute little talking points for you and your family. You'd probably go looking for someone who supports the 2nd Amendment to defend you.

[Pavlov]

Some of you have memories as short as your cocks.

Who is responsible for search and rescue, emergency response and such in the US? Who actually did most of the rescues in Houston after the local "responsible party" couldn't?

We the fucking People.

Any of you cucks get your kayaks out there and rescue people? Would your Prius make it through that water? Is the Cajun Navy a bunch of Antifa folks?

Even during the LA riots, where was the law enforcement? That's small potatoes compared to what could happen, and these rights you pretend to have would be just cute little talking points for you and your family. You'd probably go looking for someone who supports the 2nd Amendment to defend you.:lol meltdown

[DMC]

:lol meltdown

Says the guy who was afraid to go over 100K posts because of the "what a fucking loser" light it shone on him, so he started using another account.

[Pavlov]

Says the guy who was afraid to go over 100K posts because of the "what a fucking loser" light it shone on him, so he started using another account.:lol further meltdown
:lol documentation
:lol dossiers

[Blake]

Sure Cuck, taking two statements not even related to each other and putting them together works for your MSM, why not jump on board, right?

Fine, just take the one (two) statements you made that say "bombs".


You're implying the 2nd amendment provides the right to bear bombs.

But hey do more ad hominem blustering. That'll teach me

[DMC]

:lol further meltdown

Rapid editing much? :lol

[Pavlov]

Fine, just take the one (two) statements you made that say "bombs".


You're saying the 2nd amendment provides the right to bear bombs.

I'm not asking if that's what you're implying. I'm saying that's what you're implying.

But hey do more ad hominem blustering. That'll teach mePersonal info incoming.

[DMC]

:lol further meltdown
:lol documentation
:lol dossiers

[Pavlov]

Rapid editing much? :lolTake notes much? :lol

[DMC]

Fine, just take the one (two) statements you made that say "bombs".


You're implying the 2nd amendment provides the right to bear bombs.

But hey do more ad hominem blustering. That'll teach me

Wrong again.

I said rights don't enforce themselves. Otherwise countries like Kosovo where human rights were being trampled on wouldn't need outside help.

It doesn't matter what you're saying. You're a tool for the left, and a cuck. This we know.

[DMC]

Take notes much? :lol

Not a single note

[Pavlov]

Not a single noteMental notes are notes. And you've collected a library's worth.

[DMC]

Personal info incoming.

I don't divulge personal information.

[DMC]

Mental notes are notes. And you've collected a library's worth.

No they aren't :lol


You said "documentation" not "notes".

You're one dishonest motherfucker aren't ya?

[Pavlov]

I don't divulge personal information.Sure you don't. Just collect it and vaguely threaten.

[Pavlov]

No they aren't :lolThey're called mental notes.

[DMC]

They're called mental notes.

note
nōt/Submit
noun
plural noun: notes
1.
a brief record of facts, topics, or thoughts, written down as an aid to memory.
"I'll make a note in my diary"
synonyms: record, entry, item, notation, jotting, memorandum, reminder, aide-mémoire; More
2.
a short informal letter or written message.
"I left her a note explaining where I was going"
synonyms: message, communication, letter, line; More


:lol

[Pavlov]

note
nōt/Submit
noun
plural noun: notes
1.
a brief record of facts, topics, or thoughts, written down as an aid to memory.
"I'll make a note in my diary"
synonyms: record, entry, item, notation, jotting, memorandum, reminder, aide-mémoire; More
2.
a short informal letter or written message.
"I left her a note explaining where I was going"
synonyms: message, communication, letter, line; More


:lolmental note
noun UK ​ /ˌmen.təl ˈnəʊt/ US ​ /ˌmen.t̬əl ˈnoʊt/
make a mental note of sth
​
to make an effort to remember something:
I made a mental note of her address.

:lol


"notes, but mental"

[DMC]

Sure you don't. Just collect it and vaguely threaten.

I don't collect anything.

[Pavlov]

I don't collect anything.:lmao

[DMC]

mental note
noun UK ​ /ˌmen.təl ˈnəʊt/ US ​ /ˌmen.t̬əl ˈnoʊt/
make a mental note of sth
​
to make an effort to remember something:
I made a mental note of her address.

:lol


"notes, but mental"

So if I make a monkey out of you, that's the same as a monkey.

Interesting you even find it worthwhile to pursue this obvious fallacy.

:lol not understanding idioms

Calling a "mental note" documentation.

[Pavlov]

So if I make a monkey out of you, that's the same as a monkey.If you make an effort to remember something about posters here, you make an effort to remember something about posters here.

[DMC]

If you make an effort to remember something about posters here, you make an effort to remember something about posters here.

You said

:lol documentation
:lol dossier

Which of those are memories?

[Pavlov]

You said

:lol documentation
:lol dossier

Which of those are memories?Do you want me to retract these terms and just say you make an effort to remember things about posters here?

Would that make it all better for you?

[DMC]

That's what I thought.

You don't know whether to shit or go blind.

"ding"

[Pavlov]

That's what I thought.

You don't know whether to shit or go blind.

"ding":lmao was there a time limit on my response?

[DMC]

Do you want me to retract these terms and just say you make an effort to remember things about posters here?

Would that make it all better for you?

Why does it matter, you said it. Your retraction means about as much as your initial statement. No one here gives a shit about it either way. Just accept you're triggered and move on.

[Pavlov]

Why does it matter, you said it. Your retraction means about as much as your initial statement. No one here gives a shit about it either way. Just accept you're triggered and move on.I'll stick with :lol meltdown.

[Blake]

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.



So you don't know what protects our constitutional freedoms but you don't think it's "We the People".


Are guns the only mechanism to ensure that a right is secured?


Bombs work too.

[Blake]

So if I make a monkey out of you, that's the same as a monkey.

Interesting you even find it worthwhile to pursue this obvious fallacy.

:lol not understanding idioms

Calling a "mental note" documentation.

Wow. You're seriously crying over a trivial definition

[DMC]

^^They worked in Kosovo, did they not?

You lack even rudimentary thinking skills.

[Blake]

^They worked in Kosovo, did they not?

You lack even rudimentary thinking skills.

Will they work for "we the people"?

[DMC]

Will they work for "we the people"?

They did work for We the People. How do you think the Civil War was fought if not by guns and bombs? What, did they have a debate?

[Pavlov]

They did work for We the People. How do you think the Civil War was fought if not by guns and bombs? What, did they have a debate?Which army was "We the People" in the Civil War?

[DMC]

Which army was "We the People" in the Civil War?

The one that didn't attempt to secede, ergo "more perfect union". Hard to have a union when you secede from it.

[Pavlov]

The one that didn't attempt to secede, ergo "more perfect union". Hard to have a union when you secede from it."We the People" is government armed forces now?

OK. Don't know what the 2nd amendment heroes are all going on about then if they aren't "We the People."

[DMC]

"We the People" is government armed forces now?

OK. Don't know what the 2nd amendment heroes are all going on about then if they aren't "We the People."

:lol

The framers who wrote that were government workers, dipshit.

[Pavlov]

:lol

The framers who wrote that were government workers, dipshit.So "We the People" now means just government employees?

[DMC]

^:lol false dichotomy

[Pavlov]

^:lol false dichotomy:lol 2nd amendment hero

[Blake]

^:lol false dichotomy

Lolwut.

Make up your mind who we the people is referring to.

[DMC]

Wut

"just"

[Blake]

Edited.

Make up your mind

[Th'Pusher]

Some of you have memories as short as your cocks.

Who is responsible for search and rescue, emergency response and such in the US? Who actually did most of the rescues in Houston after the local "responsible party" couldn't?

We the fucking People.

Any of you cucks get your kayaks out there and rescue people? Would your Prius make it through that water? Is the Cajun Navy a bunch of Antifa folks?

Even during the LA riots, where was the law enforcement? That's small potatoes compared to what could happen, and these rights you pretend to have would be just cute little talking points for you and your family. You'd probably go looking for someone who supports the 2nd Amendment to defend you.

This is equivalent to Col. Jessep's meltdown in A Few Good Men.

"You need me on that wall"

You're a fucking idiot.

[DMC]

This is equivalent to Col. Jessep's meltdown in A Few Good Men.

"You need me on that wall"

You're a fucking idiot.
Nathan was right.

You're triggered.

[Blake]

Nathan was right.

You're triggered.

Lol says guy with a few good walls of text

[DMC]

Edited.

Make up your mind

It refers to everyone under the sovereignty of the US government. That includes members of the armed forces and government employees.

[DMC]

Lol says guy with a few good walls of text

Your old lady had a few good men.

[Blake]

It refers to everyone under the sovereignty of the US government. That includes members of the armed forces and government employees.

So you think we need an armed government to keep our freedom of speech.

What happens when the armed government suppresses free speech? Does the 2nd amendment then kick in for civilians too?

[Blake]

Your old lady had a few good men.

I'm sure you've made a few illustrated mental notes about it.

[DMC]

So you think we need an armed government to keep our freedom of speech.

What happens when the armed government suppresses free speech? Does the 2nd amendment then kick in for civilians too?

You just used another false dichotomy. We the People include the group I mentioned, not just the government, not just the people, not just the armed forces. Most if not all of these people serve dual role, they are also citizens or at least under the sovereignty of the US government.

I know you like to be Chumpdumper lite, but you're really not doing a good job.

[DMC]

I'm sure you've made a few illustrated mental notes about it.

The entire forum did when you poured your problems out for the world to see.

[Blake]

The entire forum did when you poured your problems out for the world to see.


Yeah, plenty of them even imagined multiple black guys going at it all on their own. One even actually made a real picture of it.

Pretty sure you imagined black guys in there too. It's hilarious.

[Blake]

You just used another false dichotomy. We the People include the group I mentioned, not just the government, not just the people, not just the armed forces. Most if not all of these people serve dual role, they are also citizens or at least under the sovereignty of the US government.

I know you like to be Chumpdumper lite, but you're really not doing a good job.

Oh. more ad hominems. That's teaching me.

I'm not using a false dichotomy. I'm asking you a question to try to sort through your garbled mess.

[Th'Pusher]

Some of you have memories as short as your cocks.

Who is responsible for search and rescue, emergency response and such in the US? Who actually did most of the rescues in Houston after the local "responsible party" couldn't?

We the fucking People.

Any of you cucks get your kayaks out there and rescue people? Would your Prius make it through that water? Is the Cajun Navy a bunch of Antifa folks?

Even during the LA riots, where was the law enforcement? That's small potatoes compared to what could happen, and these rights you pretend to have would be just cute little talking points for you and your family. You'd probably go looking for someone who supports the 2nd Amendment to defend you.

Btw - state and federal government came to the rescue during the LA Riots.

Order was only restored after members of the California Army National Guard, the 7th Infantry Division, and the 1st Marine Division were called in to stop the rioting when local police could not control the situation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots

Pretty sure that doesn't bolster whatever ridiculous argument you've moved onto.

[DMC]

Yeah, plenty of them even imagined multiple black guys going at it all on their own. One even actually made a real picture of it.

Pretty sure you imagined black guys in there too. It's hilarious.

It doesn't matter. You're a forum cuck. This is well established.

[DMC]

Oh. more ad hominems. That's teaching me.

I'm not using a false dichotomy. I'm asking you a question to try to sort through your garbled mess.

No, you told me what I think then began to address your narrative.

Blake News

[DMC]

Btw - state and federal government came to the rescue during the LA Riots.

Order was only restored after members of the California Army National Guard, the 7th Infantry Division, and the 1st Marine Division were called in to stop the rioting when local police could not control the situation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots

Pretty sure that doesn't bolster whatever ridiculous argument you've moved onto.

I suppose the military blogged the rioters into submission? Oh wait, they have guns... and bombs.

[Th'Pusher]

I suppose the military blogged the rioters into submission? Oh wait, they have guns... and bombs.

So what was your point about local law enforcement failing during the LARiots and who is it that you are afraid is going to come take your guns?

[CosmicCowboy]

The one that didn't attempt to secede, ergo "more perfect union". Hard to have a union when you secede from it.

Pretty stupid definition. By your definition the usa as founded in 1776 wasnt "we the people".

[CosmicCowboy]

Simple fact is since the beginning of mans ability to draw on cave walls, the winner gets to write the history.

[Blake]

It doesn't matter. You're a forum cuck. This is well established.

Name calling wins the debate every time huh

[Blake]

No, you told me what I think then began to address your narrative.

Blake News

The question is still there. It's the one with the question mark at the end.

[DMC]

Pretty stupid definition. By your definition the usa as founded in 1776 wasnt "we the people".

That doesn't make any sense.

[DMC]

The question is still there. It's the one with the question mark at the end.

It's based on the false narrative you created.

[Blake]

It's based on the false narrative you created.

:lol trying to flip blame

it's your claim everyone is making fun of here, not mine. Sorry you don't understand how retarded it is.

[DMC]

So you think we need an armed government to keep our freedom of speech.

What happens when the armed government suppresses free speech? Does the 2nd amendment then kick in for civilians too?


:lol trying to flip blame

it's your claim everyone is making fun of here, not mine. Sorry you don't understand how retarded it is.

Keep flailing cuck boy

[Blake]

Bombs work too.

This is you posting. Not me.

You're all over

[DMC]

This is you posting. Not me.

You're all over

Are guns the only mechanism to ensure that a right is secured?


Bombs work too.

More Chumpdumper JV debate team from cuck boy

[CosmicCowboy]

That doesn't make any sense.

By your definition the founding fathers were all traitors. Tories were "we the people"

[DMC]

By your definition the founding fathers were all traitors. Tories were "we the people"

The confederate states had their own constitution. The term "We the People" came about after 1776. Once you leave and form your own government, you're not part of this specific "We the People". They had their own "We the People of the confederate states" which differentiates them from the prior "We the People" with whom they once belonged.

"We, the people of the Confederate States, each state acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity — invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God — do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America."[1]

Prior agreements did not contain the phrase "We the People".

Granted, the states never actually left, but they tried to. So given the choice between two armies (as I was), the union army was comprised of folks who did not intentionally separate themselves from the rest.

[Blake]

More Chumpdumper JV debate team from cuck boy

You're saying bombs are OK under the 2nd amendment.

do civilians have a right to bear bombs?

[Blake]

The confederate states had their own constitution. The term "We the People" came about after 1776. Once you leave and form your own government, you're not part of this specific "We the People". They had their own "We the People of the confederate states" which differentiates them from the prior "We the People" with whom they once belonged.

"We, the people of the Confederate States, each state acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity — invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God — do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America."[1]

Prior agreements did not contain the phrase "We the People".

Granted, the states never actually left, but they tried to. So given the choice between two armies (as I was), the union army was comprised of folks who did not intentionally separate themselves from the rest.

Did the confederate states have the right to bear bombs?

[DMC]

You're saying bombs are OK under the 2nd amendment.

do civilians have a right to bear bombs?
Follow the conversation, cuck.

:lol JV Chump

I don't dance for you.

[DMC]

Did the confederate states have the right to bear bombs?

Your ex bared both her bombs for everyone tbh

[Blake]

Follow the conversation, cuck.

:lol JV Chump

I don't dance for you.

I'm asking my own questions.

I don't really care who you are dancing for. I don't understand why you'd rather dance than answer the simple questions

[Blake]

.

[DMC]

I'm asking my own questions.

I don't really care who you are dancing for. I don't understand why you'd rather dance than answer the simple questions


.

You have your answer, Chump lite.

[Blake]

You have your answer, Chump lite.

K, I'm fine just laughing at you trying to bully your way out of your retarded 2ND amendment claims.

Lol.