o Fascism: 20 Us states about to ban protesting

[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?

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?

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 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 cons utional 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

[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

[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 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.

Show me.

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

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.

[DMC]

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.

[Pavlov]

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

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.

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.

[DMC]

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

[DeadlyDynasty]

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