Anyone notice some of the strongly Anti-RKBA people are also very anti-free speech in GD.

[NutmegYankee]

I mean, who could have foreseen THAT? Authoritarianism is as Authoritarianism does!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

1. who'd a thunkit?

[upaloopa]

2. Funny there is an OP saying just the opposite.

Maybe we will have battling OP's and who ever gets the most replies wins.

[NutmegYankee]

5. The standard talking past each other.

A goodly number of RKBA people in the USA care only about freedom of speech when it suits them, but they are mainly on the right wing of the political spectrum. Left wing gun owners like myself tend to be civil libertarians or egalitarians and care about rights for ALL people.

[Starboard Tack]

3. I noticed a lot of anti-hate speech posts

What happened in Garland was not about constitutional rights. It was about hating and baiting and using firearms for conflict resolution. A royal fuckup, Texas style.

[NutmegYankee]

4. Violence in response to speech is never justified.

Even hate speech.

[Starboard Tack]

10. Very true!

However, violence in response to hate mongering is to be expected. This event was designed to incite violence and it succeeded.

[NutmegYankee]

11. Drawing cartoons does not incite violence.

The terrorists were just looking for an excuse to attack someone to further their authoritarian agenda.

[Starboard Tack]

17. I can only wonder which planet you live on if you truly believe that

Maybe you missed the Danish cartoons, Charlie Hebdo etc..

[NutmegYankee]

20. The terrorists were looking for a reason to attack for their ideology -

Just like Zimmerman was looking for a reason to shoot someone. No incitement was needed nor required - those individuals had already made the decision. Terrorists have attacked blaming cartoons because they want submission to their faith, whereas mockery implies freedom from obedience to faith. Once again, the cartoons do not incite violence the ideology drives it.

[Starboard Tack]

63. The ideology may drive it, but the islamophobes provide the opportunity

We are dealing with extremists on both sides of this issue and both extremes want to draw those in the middle to their particular side.
The cartoon thing was purely a facade to make it look as though they represent freedom, but the truh is that Geller and Wilders are leaders of far right extremist groups that are just as insidious as ISIS. Look at the pathetic individuals who represented ISIS in this situation compared to the money and backing that Pamela Geller and her American Freedom Defense Initiative has.

Both sides are equally disgusting. And equally authoritarian.

[cherokeeprogressive]

82. How many cartoons did the Idiot Boys who died in Dallas actually see?

NONE.

[Starboard Tack]

32. "to further their authoritarian agenda"

Who are you referring to here? What "authoritarian agenda"?

[NutmegYankee]

61. I'm referring to ISIS, took responsibility for the attack

And religious fundamentalists in general - the viewpoint is strictly authoritarian. But in this instance, I was referring to ISIS, which wants to establish a Caliphate form of government, essentially a theocracy.

[Eleanors38]

7. Pamela Geller may have gotten her oats in a most peculiar manner...

...but it is free speech. Maybe her name will come up under topics of: Agent Procateur, Hate, Monger, Vicarious Snuff Porno, and I hope she gets some royal stink drifting her way, but it is protected speech.

[Starboard Tack]

12. This apparently was not an example of "free" speech.

It came with a price tag. There are laws against incitement to violence.

[Eleanors38]

13. An incitement charge will be shit-canned by any competentcompetent court.

[Starboard Tack]

18. I agree.

Maybe the law needs to be broadened a tad. Free speech is a bit of an oxymoron, and all freedoms come with a price tag.

[gejohnston]

21. would you say the same about

Andres Serrano or Lawrence O'Donnell? Granted, there were no violent Catholics or Mormons, but what if there were? Would you want them to be charged with inciting violence or hate speech? If not why not?

[blueridge3210]

24. Cartoons incite violence

to the same degree that short skirts or dresses "incite" rape. Both events require bad actors to carry out horrific crimes. Amazing how some here cannot comprehend this.

[DonP]

25. They have short memories

They think the Feds should be the arbiters of what is and isn't "hate speech" and where that fuzzy line between free speech and hate speech cross.

They forget that the next person making that decision might be the moral and mental "godchild" of Dick Cheney and his buddies.

I wonder how the responses would be if Bush/Cheney were still in the picture?

[friendly_iconoclast]

33. The 'shield' they want would become a sword in right-wing hands...

...and anyone who thinks they'd hesitate for a moment to use it has forgotten their history

[friendly_iconoclast]

64. And so it has become, less than a week later. From the CBC:

Ottawa cites hate crime laws when asked about its 'zero tolerance' for Israel boycotters

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ottawa-cites-hate-crime-laws-when-asked-about-its-zero-tolerance-for-israel-boycotters-1.3067497

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026656591

The Harper government is signalling its intention to use hate crime laws against Canadian advocacy groups that encourage boycotts of Israel.

Such a move could target a range of civil society organizations, from the United Church of Canada and the Canadian Quakers to campus protest groups and labour unions.

If carried out, it would be a remarkably aggressive tactic, and another measure of the Conservative government's lockstep support for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

While the federal government certainly has the authority to assign priorities, such as pursuing certain types of hate speech, to the RCMP, any resulting prosecution would require an assent from a provincial attorney general.

[Starboard Tack]

35. No. Catholics and Mormons got over this kind of shit a while back

Most muslims are not reactionary zealots either, or we'd be in a helluva worse mess than this. Point is, this was a hate convention organized by RW islamophobic zealot Pam Geller and prince of darkness Wilders. They wanted this to happen and it did.
It has zero to do with 1A or 2A, just sayin'

[gejohnston]

36. Mormons never murdered people

who made jokes about Joe Smith, or drew pictures of him. Baptizing people after they are dead is nowhere as heinous as ISIS' policy of "convert or die" to Arab Christians and the Armenian genocide was a lot more recent than the Crusades (never mind Muslims "converted or die" missionary work snuffed out indigenous religions in the ME and N Africa like the Roman Church in Europe. Sorry, false equivalence. It is hypocritical to condemn these people, as loathsome as they might be, while calling the piss Christ "art".

My Mormon relatives (my parents were mixed marriage) told me the best Mormon jokes. They did, however, wipe out a wagon train. Attacks by aboriginals were rare.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_massacre

they might be zealots, but the 1A is meant to protect views we don't like. Calls for "hate speech laws" and blasphemy laws like Canada is a 1A issue, illiberal and unAmerican.

True, it isn't a 2A issue, but it is a 1A issue.

[Starboard Tack]

38. I'll give you that it is "unamerican" to call for hate speech laws

We have very different ideas concerning freedom. But that's OK.

I'm sure that people of all religions have murdered people, at one time or another, for all kinds of reasons. ISIS is as representative of Islam as the KKK is representative of Christianity, or the NRA is representative of a progressive society.

The US has a lot of growing up to do, especially in terms of what it perceives as "freedom". There is nothing liberal about capital punishment. There is nothing liberal about supporting theocratic dictatorships like Saudi Arabia. There is nothing liberal about the "rendition" of individuals on foreign soil and handing them over to torturers. There is nothing liberal about Gitmo. There is nothing liberal about spreading fear and encouraging the populace to arm against "thugs".

And there is nothing liberal about defending fascist hate mongers like Pam Geller and Geert Wilders

[gejohnston]

44. agree but one thing

And there is nothing liberal about defending fascist hate mongers like Pam Geller and Geert Wilders

Defending their rights is not the same as agreeing with them. Defending their right to free speech is liberal. It is the liberalism that this country was founded on, best exemplified by John Adams.
Otherwise you are saying that the ACLU is not liberal. As much as Jerrry Falwell bitched about the ACLU, they helped his causes too.

True, the country strayed and fell to the lure of empire and we have agencies that are above the law, but should not be. Fortunately, there are forces across the spectrum in the US who would like it to stop. Unfortunately, they don't have the influence.

[Starboard Tack]

46. Defending the right to free speech is fine.

The spewing of hate speech with the sole intent being to create civil unrest and incite violence should be subject to legal consequences.
This event had nothing to do with Constitutional rights. Had everything to do with fomenting hatred and violence toward Muslims.

[gejohnston]

50. I don't know anything about these people

The spewing of hate speech with the sole intent being to create civil unrest and incite violence should be subject to legal consequences.

You would have to prove that in court, and I doubt a case could be proven. Of course, it works both ways. I could argue that progressives were inciting violence against Mormons during the last election. Once the law is applied, it applies to the politically correct as well as those who don't. In some places simply reporting the fact that ISIS murdered people for being Christians is "hate speech". I have a problem with that.

This event had nothing to do with Constitutional rights. Had everything to do with fomenting hatred and violence toward Muslims.

How did they do this? They were certainly disrespectful. What they did was, as Charlie Weekly did, incited violence against themselves by Muslims. That is just stupid.

[virginia mountainman]

29. You really belive that?!

Simply drawing a picture of a person, is an incitement to violence?!

What about this?



Is that "Approved" even though it could be said to incite some to violence??

Or does freedom of speech, only depend on the message given??

[friendly_iconoclast]

34. Some are bound and determined to conform to Ronald Reagan's definition of a liberal

[Starboard Tack]

40. Did I say that drawing an image was incitement to violence?

Thought not.
Freedom of speech is a concept. Do you think there should be no legal limits?

[blueridge3210]

41. *sigh*

Of course there are legal limits on freedom of speech. That's why there are laws regarding libel and slander. You cannot claim a First Amendment right to conspire to commit a crime. You cannot incite a crowd to go commit a crime against another and claim freedom of speech because you did not personally commit a violent act.

Holding a meeting where people draw pictures of the prophet Mohammed is not incitement to violence. No one who participated was committing an act of violence or other criminal act against another.

Freedom of speech is more than a concept. It is a fundamental right in this country.

[Starboard Tack]

48. Did you hear the speeches of Geller and Wilders?

Have you followed them over the years? Do you think this event was about art and 1A? Seriously.
This had nothing to do with 1A

[blueridge3210]

49. It doesn't matter what their motivation was.

The speech and/or expression by drawing cartoons is protected by the 1st Amendment.

[Starboard Tack]

53. We know that.

Doesn't mean we cannot talk about their motives. Doesn't mean that 1A maybe needs some fine tuning. You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, unless there is a fire. There are restrictions on 1A.

[blueridge3210]

54. The First Amendment is just fine as is.

It was designed to protect unpopular speech, as popular speech required no protection.

I have to wonder if people would be as "bothered" by protecting speech if the shooters had been Christians upset about a pro gay marriage rally or Mormons upset about a presentation of the Book of Mormon musical or Jews upset about a presentation of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?

[virginia mountainman]

57. Yes, their is a law..

But it is enforced AFTER you yell fire....


You're free to say whatever you want, but you better be ready to deal with the consequences..

Do you wish to INSIST on sewing people's mouths shut when they enter a theater, just because they "MAY" yell "FIRE!"?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

59. That type of law regarding speech...

...is called prior restraint:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint

Censorship is never a good thing.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

65. "Doesn't mean we cannot talk about their motives."

Except you seem to want to do more than just talk when you write, as you did in Post #46, that there, "should be subject to legal consequences."

"legal consequences"? For offending terrorists?

[Starboard Tack]

69. No! Legal consequences for inciting violence.

See the difference?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

70. The only ones inciting violence are those preaching that "blasphemers" should be killed.

[Starboard Tack]

74. No, they are not inciting violence. They are promising violence.

Assholes like Geller use asshole extremists to push their own extremism. This event had nothing to do with 1A or freedom of speech. It had everything to do with trying to get reasonable people to become haters of Islam. Geller and her ilk are as insidious as ISIS in terms of their goals.
There are all intent on drowning out the voices of reason.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

76. Only one side is using violence. If the terrorists weren't killing people over cartoons

the cartoon exhibits and drawings would stop. You don't see movies, magazines and exhibits about Buddhists.

[Starboard Tack]

84. Only one side is using violence?

Are you kidding? Do you think these idiots died of heart attacks?
Geller and company use LE to do their killing for them. And those who support this are using the constitution to promote violence.

[blueridge3210]

85. Only one side is using illegal violence.

The "other side" exercised lawful self defense.

[Starboard Tack]

87. Nice distinction

When you live in a society that still has the death penalty, you lose a lot of credibility in the area of "illegal violence". Not to mention that Texas and many states approve shooting people over property.

[blueridge3210]

88. A distinction with a vital difference.

Legal use of violence in defense of self or another is very different from using violence to commit a crime. It is the difference between a surgeon using a scalpel to remove a tumor and a mugger using a knife to commit a robbery. Whether or not one approves of the death penalty there is no escaping the fact that the sentence is imposed following due process of law; there was no due process used by the two deceased assailants who decided to attack the exhibit.

Texas' law allowing shooting over property is a throwback to times when the state was sparsely populated and it was not possible to report a crime of that nature to the police in time to prevent or address the theft. IIRC the law stipulates that use of force must be the only way to prevent the theft.

Your proposal to hold those engaged in legal speech responsible for the criminal actions of those who do not approve of the speech still amounts to a murderer's veto, allowing abrogation of rights by making a credible threat of violence.

[Starboard Tack]

89. I do not propose anyone be held accountable for legal acts

I propose that certain acts be made illegal, including hate speech, capital punishment and lethal defense of property. All these are "throwbacks" to an earlier time, as is the Second Amendment.
Who do you think should approve of islamophobia and other bigotry?

[blueridge3210]

90. "Hate Speech"

A meaningless term, like "Assault Weapon" that has no definition other than "speech" I don't like or "firearm" I don't want someone to own.

You want to end capital punishment? Start a movement and lobby the government to change the law. It's how the process is designed to work. End lethal defense of property? Do the same.

I don't know of anyone who "approves" of "Islamophobia" or other bigotry; the people I know simply accept that as the cost of living in a free society. I don't "approve" of burning the flag in protest; I would defend your right to express your outrage at some perceived injustice by engaging in that form of expression.

[Starboard Tack]

91. No, it is not meaningless.

When people act in such a way that others are encouraged to act violently, then sanctions are in order. When one's actions, including speech, places the lives of others and the public at large in danger, then they should be held accountable and let a jury decide.
"Free society" is a concept. There is no such thing in reality. We are as free as we treat others. Society, by definition, means compromising individual freedoms. Every society is a subject to a system of laws.

Personally, I choose not to live in a country that still has the death penalty, or where individuals walk the streets carrying concealed firearms. Lobbying your government is for others and I wish them luck.

We have enough problems in this world without spreading hatred, or supporting the right of others to spread hatred. We all have the freedom to believe anything, no matter how absurd or vile that belief may be, but once we translate thoughts into actions, then we become accountable, in one way or another.

[blueridge3210]

92. Boil that word salad down and the result is

that you are holding people who say things that other people don't like responsible for the violent criminal acts of the people who dislike the speech. Fuck that noise. If someone doesn't like what someone else says, they can walk away. If they choose to respond with violence the responsibility is theirs alone. Otherwise, you're saying the girl who is raped is responsible because she wore provocative clothes.

If you have a problem with a government policy but are not willing to work to change it then you are also part of the problem. You, by your inaction, are agreeing to continue the policy with no change.

Engaging in speech that others do no like is not "translating thoughts into actions". Trying to murder people who are drawing cartoons you do not like is "translating thoughts into actions". Defending oneself from a violent life threatening assault is in no way the equivalent of the initial assault.

[Starboard Tack]

95. No, I am not holding anyone responsible for the actions of others.

I hold each person responsible for ther own actions, and nothing more.
It is not my job to work to change YOUR government. That, my friend, is up to you and your fellow citizens. All I can do is talk to people and express my opinion.

[blueridge3210]

96. Sorry, no.

Your position throughout this OP has been the Pamela Gellar is responsible for two lunatics that attacked her event; that people who say things that result in people committing criminal assaults are responsible for causing those acts; that such speech should be criminalized and categorized as "Hate Speech". You have done nothing but hold people responsible for the criminal acts committed by others.

It's probably best that you do not reside here; the challenge of living in a free society obviously exceeds your capabilities.

[Starboard Tack]

97. Sory, but you are wrong

I have never said that Pamela Geller is responsible for the actions of anyone but herself.
I am a strong believer in individual responsibility.
I do believe that any action, including speech, that is intended to incite violence should be legislated against, and let a court decide.
Let me be clear. In no way is violent response justified or mitigated by hate speech or the drawing of cartoons.
It is definitely best for me not to reside in the US, but not because of the "challenges of living in a free society". I love the US, but prefer living elsewhere for a multitude of reasons, both cultural and socio-economical.
Freedom of speech is not unique to the US. It is the foundation stone of democracy.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

93. In your previous post you described the things you don't like as a throwback and here you

dismiss society as merely a concept. And all said without the slightest hint of irony.

Everything you claim to believe in is just a concept and really nothing more than your personal preference. It places no obligation on me or anyone else. We are here to live our lives, not assuage your phobias. That you would see your preferred throwback concepts carry the (armed) force of law only deepens the hypocrisy.

[Starboard Tack]

94. I did not "dismiss" society as merely a concept

I said that a "free society" is nothing but a concept. Big difference. Society is a very real thing, while the idea of it being free is highly subjective.
I have no expectations regarding your behavior and neither do I suffer from any phobia. Are you incapable of having a civil conversation without resorting to such snide remarks?
I don't judge you for your opinions. This is a discussion board.
I have no idea what your last sentence is about.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

86. Not only are you victim-blaming those who were attacked you're making victims of the attackers.

Just when I think the Controllers couldn't get any lower they start drilling through the bedrock.

[blueridge3210]

72. The difference is that Gellar did not "incite" violence.

She conducted a legal exercise that is protected by the First Amendment. Your position amounts to a "murderer veto" where rights can be abrogated by a credible threat of violence and the behavior of law abiding persons criminalized by the threat of violence of others.

[Starboard Tack]

73. That is why the First Amendment needs adjustment

along with the Second. Hate speech that incites people to commit violence should, imo, be subject to legal sanction, where the onus gets placed on the perpetrator of the speech to prove that there was no intent to provoke a violent confrontation.
Americans have a wonderful constitution, but it needs some serious updating.

[beevul]

75. Nice double down.

Last edited Fri May 15, 2015, 04:21 AM - Edit history (1)

You think the "violence veto" ought to be codified in the constitution.

Good luck with that.

Hate speech that incites people to commit violence should, imo, be subject to legal sanction, where the onus gets placed on the perpetrator of the speech to prove that there was no intent to provoke a violent confrontation.

I wonder how that might be applied, when anti-gun clowns demonstrate and start calling faceless large numbers of "other" people "gun humper" or "gun nut".

Both are every bit as insulting as drawing the prophet, and could be considered attempted incitement.

But I'm guessing you want to be the one to decide what qualifies, right?


On edit: I have two words for anyone that thinks amendment 1 needs to be "fixed" "adjusted" or the like.

1 begins with the letter 'F' and the other begins with the letter 'Y', and both are commonly found before the phrase "and the horse you rode in on".

[Nuclear Unicorn]

77. Would you defend the right of a person of color to march through the midst of a KKK rally?

[gejohnston]

79. no it does not need updating

the rest of the world needs to get off the "State/Crown/Church knows better and is parents" and join in true liberalism of the Enlightenment. What you propose is not a step forward, but simply a step back to before the Enlightenment.

So do you advocate the heckler’s veto on a grand scale, as in “threaten violence against the speaker, and the speaker is obligated to shut up, because it inconveniences the democracy’s government that is obligated to protect our rights” “Her program invited an incendiary reaction,” you say? So did the Lincoln-Douglas debates, gay pride marches, labor rallies in the 1890s, and abolition rallies. Who taught you that speech had a duty to avoid angry dissent? “She picked my community, which does not support in any shape, passion or form, her ideology,” you say? So I guess demonstrations for integrated schools and allowing blacks to vote should have only been allowed in the communities that already supported them, right?

http://ethicsalarms.com/2015/05/07/the-garland-texas-shooting-free-speech-and-ethics/

Edit to add: it is the State's obligation to prove intent, not for anyone to prove their innocence.

[blueridge3210]

80. Sorry, but you're wrong.

Following your example; the marchers at the Edmund Pettus bridge should have been arrested because their behavior "incited" the police to respond with dogs and fire hoses.

Following your example MLK Jr. should have been arrested for inciting violence by the person who assassinated Medgar Evars.

We don't ask people in this country to prove "no intent"; the government exists to serve the citizens, not the other way around. The government must prove a compelling interest to restrict rights.

[beevul]

81. Furthermore...

You and those who believe as you do and even more so on the gun issue, often state that we who are pro-gun want a world that is "frightening", or live in a world of "fear".


I'll tell you, I can think of few things more frightening, than the world that would certainly be the end result of your suggestion, taken to its logical conclusion.

I'm pretty sure theres little to no doubt amongst most posters here, that your suggestion being taken to its logical conclusion, is exactly what would happen.

Your suggestion utterly fails the "how will this be used by the opposition when my party is out of power" test. Then again, You never applied that test to your suggestion, did you. I suggest you do, so you can see the fail that everyone else but you sees due to it being glaringly obvious.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

30. Brandenburg v Ohio

"the mere abstract teaching of the moral propriety or even moral necessity for a resort to force and violence, is not the same as preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action."

[NaturalHigh]

6. I guess if someone wants to disregard the 2nd Amendment...

the 1st Amendment doesn't mean much either.

Something I've noticed through the years is that a lot of people only believe in free speech if they agree with that speech.

[Eleanors38]

8. Perhaps more disregarded is the 5th's Due Process clause.

[ileus]

9. We're only progressive when it's something we like/agree with it seems.

[Starboard Tack]

16. Did you just realize that?

There are some who see an armed society as a progressive society and others who see it as a failed society.
Go figure

[DonP]

14. Simple test: How many times has anti RKBA demanded the Gungeon be shut down in ATA or Meta?

Then ask; how many times have RKBA supporters have demanded that Castle Bansalot be shut down?

IIRC, it's about 7 to 0.

But I'm old and the memory is going, so I probably forgot a few demands.

Plus Skinner wisely stopped leaving those demands open for anyone to see since they just pissed people off on both sides.

[ileus]

15. META was a lot of fun back when it was wide open.

[DonP]

19. IMNSHO, the true irony is the anti RKBA think they are the "tolerant" ones

In their world, demanding that your opposition on an issue be shut down and banned is perfectly "progressive", reasonable and tolerant.

After all, everything we say is judged "hate speech" if it differs from their doctrine, and we're so stupid and right wing anyway.

Yup, Meta was usually a fun read (unlike Skinner, thankfully we didn't have to try and referee it) but it brought out and encouraged the worst in the bullies and the crazed ideologues.

On the plus side, it got a bunch of them dumped for good from DU, enough rope etc.

[Puha Ekapi]

22. Meta was..

...a real circus, and likely responsible for the rise in popcorn stock price when it was open. Great place to laugh and point.

[virginia mountainman]

23. I have long noticed

That the strongly Anti-2nd amendment types, are as a rule, generally anti-bill of rights in general.

You can tell by the way and amount of times they use the term "but" when discussing it.

But at least they are consistent.

[petronius]

26. Not particularly, no. I've often noticed that individual DUer may take positions that

seem contradictory, and people that I agree with in one area I may disagree with somewhere else, but I'd say that sweeping assessments of any Group or subset of DUers will always be too selective and generalized to have much meaning.

On my list of the Fundamental Laws of DU, in fact, the Second Law is "All characterizations of groups of DUers (this group, that group, those DUers, you people, DUers like them, DUers like you, etc) should be taken with a briquette of salt and for entertainment purposes only..."

[beevul]

27. I did.

In fact, quite a number of times reading the current/previous threads on this fiasco, I noted just that correlation.

It would be pretty easy to list a number of examples, but I wont.

I'm not in the habit of giving out free hides these days.

[uncleverusername]

28. Guns/being pro-gun are/is antithesis to liberalism.

Free speech is not.

Wanting sane gun control laws != being anti-free speech.

Just like being a bigoted racist does not guarantee you the right to spew your hate wherever you see fit.

[MicaelS]

37. Really? Why don't you read what George Orwell said.

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer’s cottage is the symbol of democracy.

It is our job to see that it stays there.

George Orwell, sergeant in Home Guard

I don't think his Liberal credentials can be challenged.

[uncleverusername]

43. Don't know who a George Orwell is or why I should care

But people can say things all they want, doesn't make it true.

Sounds to be like a gun nut trying to rationalise his lunacy. It's really no different than what you hear from the teabaggers.

[sarisataka]

47. O M G!!!

I like starting the day with a good laugh.

The recipe for perpetual ignorance is: Be satisfied with your opinions and content with your knowledge. Elbert Hubbard

[uncleverusername]

55. I'd laugh at the teabagger gun nuts too....

If it wasn't so sad they were trying to pass themselves off as liberal.

[virginia mountainman]

58. Ahh, they know so little..

Ahh, the root of liberal, is Liberty... sort of goes against "ban" and "restriction" don't it?

And you probably hate rednecks too.

[sarisataka]

60. Many hate filled bigots

claim to be liberals. Trying to separate them from teabaggers is like trying to separate zebras into which are white with black stripes vs black with white stripes

but they are all zebras

[MicaelS]

62. You must be really be naive.

George Orwell was the writer of a the classic novel 1984. If you don't know what THAT novel is about, then you're a very naive person.

[sarisataka]

45. You have an insurmountable obstacle

[beevul]

39. Nonsense. In fact, you're 180 degrees off.

Guns/being pro-gun are/is antithesis to liberalism.

Nonsense. In fact, you're 180 degrees off.

Right from merriam Webster:

Full Definition of LIBERALISM

1: the quality or state of being liberal


2

a: often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity

b: a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard

c: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties; specifically : such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (as those involving race, gender, or class)

d capitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberalism


Guns/being pro-gun meshes perfectly with the above (bolded and underlined for your benefit) relevant parts of the text.


Being anti-gun/anti-gun-owner on the other hand... Well, that doesn't mesh so well with belief of 'the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual', and being anti-gun takes a huge shit on the idea of protecting 'civil liberties' by being actively and venomously against this particular one.


It was a cute assertion, but it doesn't mesh well with reality.

"Wanting sane gun control laws != being anti-free speech."

Why would anyone trust your definition of 'sane' when you can't even seem to get 'liberal' right?

[uncleverusername]

42. None of that applies to gun ownership, except in your warped sense of mind.

Lunatic racist gun owners are not liberal... period.

You cannot be a liberal when you advocate for tools used for murder.

[beevul]

56. Nonsense.

None of that applies to gun ownership, except in your warped sense of mind.

Heres a free hint:

When you make a nonsensical post in an exchange with another poster, doubling down on stupid by doing it a second time really just doesn't win the exchange for you.

Owning guns is a right.

The supreme court has rules as much. President Obama has said as much, as well. You are on the wrong side of the issue, and on the wrong side of history.

Lunatic racist gun owners are not liberal... period.

Did someone say they were?

Now, unless you want to claim here in front of the adults, that most gun owners, or even a statistically significant portion of gun owners are "lunatic racists", and back up that claim with empirical evidence, You really haven't a leg to stand on.


We have a right to own guns.

Gun ownership is one of the most liberal concepts in existence.

Neither of the above is going to change.


Get over it.

Or don't.

[Lizzie Poppet]

66. You fail, utterly, to comprehend what liberalism actually is.

Get thee to a library...

[friendly_iconoclast]

31. I call them "Ronald Reagan liberals":

"I have come to realize that a great many so-called liberals aren't liberal — they will defend to the death your right to agree with them.- Where's The Rest Of Me?

[CBGLuthier]

51. not me. I am rabidly opposed to those who limit free speech and yet

I would happily deny every one of you the right to a gun tomorrow.

[sarisataka]

52. And the 1st allows you to say that

I support all ten amendments in the BoR

You are willing to abrogate at least three

[hack89]

67. You support an al carte Bill of Rights?

whoever has the power gets to decide which rights are ok and which will be suppressed? Ok.

[virginia mountainman]

68. I am rabidly opposed to those who limit rights..

.....PERIOD.....

Our rights, are not like a cheap Chinese buffet, for those in power to pick over, what they like and don't like.

[MicaelS]

71. For some people "The Greater Good", "The Group", "The Commons", "Society" is all that matters.

They are willing to sacrifice nearly anything on those altars. The Individual really does not matter.

[tularetom]

78. Don't you know the Bill of Rights consists of Amendments 3 through 10

Amendments 1 and 2 are of course fungible in the opinion of some of these folks. They will be the arbiters of what is a right and what isn't.

[cherokeeprogressive]

83. Scratch the 10th. It gives the states too much power and limits the fed too much according to some.