Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 168 of 168

Thread: Free speech under siege

  1. #101

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    You're making stuff up. I never said that free speech requires guns.
    Hahaha.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    People in free society - in order to stay free - need access to a "soap box", ballot box, then an ammo box.
    Giving less of a damn than everů Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  2. #102

    Default

    See? I never said that free speech requires guns. What a silly thing to claim!

  3. #103

    Default

    No, the Nazis did not tighten gun controls, they loosened them with one major exception. Some people here would simply cross out the word Jews and replace it with Muslims today and would claim, the same as the Nazis did, that it was for public safety.

    Fascists need a target, someone that they can label as the enemy. Then, they seek to empower their followers to go after them

    Fact-checking Ben Carson's claim that gun control laws allowed the Nazis to carry out Holocaust

    The Nazis adopted a new gun law in 1938. According to an analysis by Bernard Harcourt, a professor at Columbia University School of Law, it loosened gun ownership rules in several ways.


    It deregulated the buying and selling of rifles, shotguns and ammunition. It made handguns easier to own by allowing anyone with a hunting license to buy, sell or carry one at any time. (You didn’t need to be hunting.) It also extended the permit period from one year to three and gave local officials more discretion in letting people under 18 get a gun.


    The regulations to implement this law, rather than the law itself, did impose new limits on one group: Jews.


    On Nov. 11, 1938, the German minister of the interior issued "Regulations Against Jews Possession of Weapons." Not only were Jews forbidden to own guns and ammunition, they couldn’t own "truncheons or stabbing weapons."


    In addition to the restrictions, Ellerbrock said the Nazis had already been raiding Jewish homes and seizing weapons.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...son-nazi-guns/

  4. #104

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    And we're getting off topic - this thread is supposed to be about speech, not guns.
    You've made it clear you believe progress requires unfettered, unrestricted free speech & free speech requires guns.
    You're making stuff up. I never said that free speech requires guns.

    Here's what was said:

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    People in free society - in order to stay free - need access to a "soap box", ballot box, then an ammo box. Those are really the only weapons average people have against governments that try to become oppressive and controlling.

    Enforcing and oppressing people over what they can or cannot say is fascism. Pure and simple.
    I tend to take the view that widespread gun ownership wouldn't have much of an effect if a leadership wanted to seize power and overthrow a democracy. Whoever controls the the police and the military tends to control the country.

    As for free speech and gun ownership I think a dynamic middle ground can be found. What's hate speech should be somewhat allowed to change with the times and not entrenched.

    Nazi gun control theory - Wikipedia

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_gun_control_theory
    Last edited by KC; 23-08-2017 at 12:09 PM.

  5. #105

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Fascists need a target, someone that they can label as the enemy. Then, they seek to empower their followers to go after them

    Oh, you mean like how the left wing recently has labeled every single conservative a "racist" or a "nazi". No wonder the left is so hell-bent on public shaming and piling-on.

  6. #106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    And we're getting off topic - this thread is supposed to be about speech, not guns.
    You've made it clear you believe progress requires unfettered, unrestricted free speech & free speech requires guns.
    You're making stuff up. I never said that free speech requires guns.

    Here's what was said:

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    People in free society - in order to stay free - need access to a "soap box", ballot box, then an ammo box. Those are really the only weapons average people have against governments that try to become oppressive and controlling.

    Enforcing and oppressing people over what they can or cannot say is fascism. Pure and simple.
    Thank you.

    Guns aren't required for free speech (I would never say that). But guns, like free speech, are one of the very few weapons that citizens have to protect themselves or launch a successful revolution against oppressive governments.

    But free speech is the most important. Free speech is the only way opposing groups can ever have an honest dialogue, and the only way people can ever meet halfway on something.

  7. #107
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,081

    Default

    Anyone who is truly just a normal conservative (not racist, just fiscally and socially conservative, with an actual belief in small government) would not be supporting Trump at this point, unless they are ignorant to his actions and his words.

  8. #108

    Default

    ^ Wait here - let me get you a wider brush to paint with.

  9. #109

    Default

    Good luck using your hunting rifles against the US military.

  10. #110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    Anyone who is truly just a normal conservative (not racist, just fiscally and socially conservative, with an actual belief in small government) would not be supporting Trump at this point, unless they are ignorant to his actions and his words.
    I suspect that the problem is that there isn't a very identifiable "normal" out there. Not a normal conservative or a normal liberal but instead a whole lot of people with various degrees of extreme vs normal views on a whole lot of different spectrums. Plus they are in flux and can flip to an extreme on one or the other issue at the blink of an eye when unexpected events occur or their own circumstances suddenly change.
    Last edited by KC; 23-08-2017 at 12:17 PM.

  11. #111

    Default




    Oh those poor, unfree, oppressed Australians.

    https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index
    Giving less of a damn than everů Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  12. #112

    Default

    When the USA limited speech:


    Freedom of Expression - ACLU Position Paper | American Civil Liberties Union

    ...
    But in spite of its "preferred position" in our constitutional hierarchy, the nation's commitment to freedom of expression has been tested over and over again. Especially during times of national stress, like war abroad or social upheaval at home, people exercising their First Amendment rights have been censored, fined, even jailed. Those with unpopular political ideas have always borne the brunt of government repression. ...



    THE FIRST AMENDMENT IGNORED

    Early Americans enjoyed great freedom compared to citizens of other nations. Nevertheless, once in power, even the Constitution's framers were guilty of overstepping the First Amendment they had so recently adopted. In 1798, during the French-Indian War, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Act, which made it a crime for anyone to publish "any false, scandalous and malicious writing" against the government. It was used by the then-dominant Federalist Party to prosecute prominent Republican newspaper editors during the late 18th century.

    Throughout the 19th century, sedition, criminal anarchy and criminal conspiracy laws were used to suppress the speech of abolitionists, religious minorities, suffragists, labor organizers, and pacifists. In Virginia prior to the Civil War, for example, anyone who "by speaking or writing maintains that owners have no right of property in slaves" was subject to a one-year prison sentence.

    The early 20th century was not much better. In 1912, feminist Margaret Sanger was arrested for giving a lecture on birth control. Trade union meetings were banned and courts routinely granted injunctions prohibiting strikes and other labor protests. Violators were sentenced to prison. Peaceful protesters opposing U. S. entry into World War I were jailed for expressing their opinions. In the early 1920s, many states outlawed the display of red or black flags, symbols of communism and anarchism. In 1923, author Upton Sinclair was arrested for trying to read the text of the First Amendment at a union rally. Many people were arrested merely for membership in groups regarded as "radical" by the government. It was in response to the excesses of this period that the ACLU was founded in 1920.
    ...

    Finally, in 1969, in Brandenberg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court struck down the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan member, and established a new standard: Speech can be suppressed only if it is intended, and likely to produce, "imminent lawless action." Otherwise, even speech that advocates violence is protected. The Brandenberg standard prevails today.

    WHAT DOES "PROTECTED SPEECH" INCLUDE?
    ...

    https://www.aclu.org/other/freedom-e...position-paper

    Bolding was mine
    Last edited by KC; 23-08-2017 at 12:29 PM.

  13. #113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    See? I never said that free speech requires guns. What a silly thing to claim!
    When you refer to an ammo box, you are talking about guns. You are a complete denier of what you just posted.

    Therefore you lie and cannot be trusted with your racist, fascist and stupid ideas.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  14. #114

    Default

    Please learn to read. Please.

  15. #115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    And we're getting off topic - this thread is supposed to be about speech, not guns.
    You've made it clear you believe progress requires unfettered, unrestricted free speech & free speech requires guns.
    You're making stuff up. I never said that free speech requires guns.

    Here's what was said:

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    People in free society - in order to stay free - need access to a "soap box", ballot box, then an ammo box. Those are really the only weapons average people have against governments that try to become oppressive and controlling.

    Enforcing and oppressing people over what they can or cannot say is fascism. Pure and simple.
    Thank you.

    Guns aren't required for free speech (I would never say that). But guns, like free speech, are one of the very few weapons that citizens have to protect themselves or launch a successful revolution against oppressive governments.

    But free speech is the most important. Free speech is the only way opposing groups can ever have an honest dialogue, and the only way people can ever meet halfway on something.
    Just when I thought I've seen it all NRA arguments trumped in Canada. Screw off with this ****.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  16. #116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    See? I never said that free speech requires guns. What a silly thing to claim!
    When you refer to an ammo box, you are talking about guns. You are a complete denier of what you just posted.

    Therefore you lie and cannot be trusted with your racist, fascist and stupid ideas.
    Just incredible the lengths he will go to to say things that are quite clear, and then pretend he never stated them. Rinse, lather, repeat.

    He's trolling this **** endlessly here. All the while claiming to be misrepresented and wondering why everybody is on to it.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  17. #117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    See? I never said that free speech requires guns. What a silly thing to claim!
    When you refer to an ammo box, you are talking about guns. You are a complete denier of what you just posted.

    Therefore you lie and cannot be trusted with your racist, fascist and stupid ideas.
    Just incredible the lengths he will go to to say things that are quite clear, and then pretend he never stated them. Rinse, lather, repeat.

    He's trolling this **** endlessly here. All the while claiming to be misrepresented and wondering why everybody is on to it.
    I don't agree. Oilers said it pretty clearly and there's no need to put words in his mouth which mis-characterize his views. I've pieced together a sequence below.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    People in free society - in order to stay free - need access to a "soap box", ballot box, then an ammo box. Those are really the only weapons average people have against governments that try to become oppressive and controlling.

    Enforcing and oppressing people over what they can or cannot say is fascism. Pure and simple.



    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Yup. And that's why it ALL needs to be allowed. People will ALWAYS disagree on what types of language to censor, and whoever is in power at the time gets the final say.
    Ah the ol' slippery slope fallacy.

    How are numerous examples of government censorship to maintain power throughout history a "fallacy"?
    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Australia largely disarmed its citizens after Port Arthur & doesn't meet your standard for "free speech", yet hasn't devolved into some sort of oppressive terror state.
    But it easily can. And if it does, people have no way to regain their freedom.
    So you're telling me its a slippery slope?
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Nope - I'm saying it's a possibility, and more likely to happen in Australia, than in a country with better freedom laws and more armed populace (like Canada).

  18. #118

    Default

    Seems pretty clear that he means AND as opposed to OR

    People in free society - in order to stay free - need access to a "soap box", ballot box, then an ammo box.

  19. #119

    Default

    @ KC. how is this not clear?



    MrOilers: "Guns aren't required for free speech (I would never say that). But guns, like free speech, are one of the very few weapons that citizens have to protect themselves or launch a successful revolution against oppressive governments."


    That part in itself, comparing guns to free speech is highly offensive. As is justifying the weaponry for those trumped reasons. Really DISGUSTING comments. From a poster that is resolutely extreme right wing like his other book end around here.

    Understand that none of us in anycase are viewing these posts in isolation. Nor is the poster walking any kind of a line as they would seem to believe.

    Even in the parts you quoted Mroilers is justifying possession of weapons like any NRA backer would. Disgusting in itself.
    Last edited by Replacement; 23-08-2017 at 09:39 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  20. #120

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    @ KC. how is this not clear?



    MrOilers: "Guns aren't required for free speech (I would never say that). But guns, like free speech, are one of the very few weapons that citizens have to protect themselves or launch a successful revolution against oppressive governments."


    That part in itself, comparing guns to free speech is highly offensive. As is justifying the weaponry for those trumped reasons. Really DISGUSTING comments. From a poster that is resolutely extreme right wing like his other book end around here.

    Understand that none of us in anycase are viewing these posts in isolation. Nor is the poster walking any kind of a line as they would seem to believe.

    Even in the parts you quoted Mroilers is justifying possession of weapons like any NRA backer would. Disgusting in itself.
    Well, I read him as justifying both freedom of speech and a right to own guns to defend that right to free speech. And that it's not the slippery slope fallacy that "A" WILL lead to "B" but that it's a matter of possibilities.

    As an aside to the characterization that someone seeing a possible connection between guns and freedoms can only be a fanatical extremist thinker, I think it's interesting that the US leaders ("founding fathers") that chose to add a number of freedoms in their vision of government (amendment #1 adding religion, speech etc), then, as in at the same time, and in the very next amendment (#2) chose to add freedom for citizens to have guns. These guys weren't today's wacko gun owning nuts but instead pretty well balanced and well meaning politicians possibly considering means to entrench those first listed freedoms.

  21. #121

  22. #122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    That part in itself, comparing guns to free speech is highly offensive.
    You are way too sensitive.

  23. #123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Seems pretty clear that he means AND as opposed to OR

    People in free society - in order to stay free - need access to a "soap box", ballot box, then an ammo box.

    Yes, let's all stop discussing the actual topic of the conversation, and play the liberals' favorite party game, SEMANTICS (TM).



    The reason why, in the US Constitution, that Freedom of speech is the first amendment, and right to bear arms is the second, is because without those two things, the USA would never have won its independence from the English. The founding fathers of the USA recognized that those are the top-2 protections that society has against a government who tries to steal people's freedom and turn the nation into a dictatorship or an oppressive socialist/communist state. You may not like it, and a lot of Canadians may not like it, but the very existence of the USA was determined on the battlefield.

    If merely pointing out those simple facts makes you "disgusted" with me, well I think you need a gut check. Because facts exist whether you are "offended" by them or not.

  24. #124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    That part in itself, comparing guns to free speech is highly offensive.
    You are way too sensitive.
    Not at all. In regards to gun control I'm way too sensible to believe such tawdry NRA styled rationale for the public having guns. Or to ignore obvious shills for the same. As much as you THINK you are splitting hairs.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  25. #125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Seems pretty clear that he means AND as opposed to OR

    People in free society - in order to stay free - need access to a "soap box", ballot box, then an ammo box.

    Yes, let's all stop discussing the actual topic of the conversation, and play the liberals' favorite party game, SEMANTICS (TM).



    The reason why, in the US Constitution, that Freedom of speech is the first amendment, and right to bear arms is the second, is because without those two things, the USA would never have won its independence from the English. The founding fathers of the USA recognized that those are the top-2 protections that society has against a government who tries to steal people's freedom and turn the nation into a dictatorship or an oppressive socialist/communist state. You may not like it, and a lot of Canadians may not like it, but the very existence of the USA was determined on the battlefield.

    If merely pointing out those simple facts makes you "disgusted" with me, well I think you need a gut check. Because facts exist whether you are "offended" by them or not.
    If you can't detect the difference between preaching gun ownership now vs in uncivil times hundreds of years ago this discussion will not go anywhere. You have in this thread, made the argument at this time, that gun ownership is akin to free speech or society.

    If we're being honest about this, and you should, you are an opponent of gun control. in present day. Right?
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  26. #126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    In regards to gun control I'm way too sensible to believe such tawdry NRA styled rationale for the public having guns.

    Does the high number of armed citizens in Canada ever alarm you?

  27. #127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    You have in this thread, made the argument at this time, that gun ownership is akin to free speech or society.
    Nope, I never made that argument. They are different.

  28. #128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    In regards to gun control I'm way too sensible to believe such tawdry NRA styled rationale for the public having guns.

    Does the high number of armed citizens in Canada ever alarm you?
    What a ridiculous question. Why wouldn't it concern me, or any sensible person that comprehends that the increased ownership of handguns is correlated to the increased use of the same.
    Last edited by Replacement; 24-08-2017 at 09:39 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  29. #129

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    You have in this thread, made the argument at this time, that gun ownership is akin to free speech or society.
    Nope, I never made that argument. They are different.
    More splitting of hairs. Your intent was to state it exactly as you stated it and then deny.

    So tell me. Given that why should anybody even continue to try to have topical or political discussion with you? I won't. I will however rebuke your abhorrent attempts at spreading such message here.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  30. #130

    Default

    The second amendment was added to the US constitution to appease the southern, slave owning states. When it mentions "militias", in the south they were armed groups used to track down escaped slaves. Most people in the american colonies already owned muskets. They used them for hunting. The addition of "the right to bear arms" was just to give the southern states cover for slavery.

    In much the same way that blacks were counted as 3/5th of a person when determining population. The southern states had lower populations than the north. By counting slaves, albeit at a lower level than whites, it give them addition seats in congress.

  31. #131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    The reason why, in the US Constitution, that Freedom of speech is the first amendment, and right to bear arms is the second, is because without those two things, the USA would never have won its independence from the English. The founding fathers of the USA recognized that those are the top-2 protections that society has against a government who tries to steal people's freedom and turn the nation into a dictatorship or an oppressive socialist/communist state.

    Entirely wrong. You prove that you do not know history and give false facts to create a distorted alt-Reich revisionist history.

    Socialism and communism were not even in existence in 1776 and dI'd not develop as a political theory for 100 years afterwards.

    The real fear was powerful monarchies in Europe or a formation of a King in America who would become a dictator incarnate and not follow the Constitution or laws created by the People. They enshrined this by creating three equal branches of the government to balance power and to prevent it from being urcerpted.

    Now we have the alt-Reich wanting to create a white state that takes away rights and places a King in power that violates the laws and Constitution.

    That is exactly what is happening today and denying it is a the problem.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  32. #132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    You have in this thread, made the argument at this time, that gun ownership is akin to free speech or society.
    Nope, I never made that argument. They are different.
    Your intent was to state it exactly as you stated it and then deny.

    "I am going to choose to interpret your words that way. YOU BETTER EXPLAIN YOURSELF!"

    Ha ha

  33. #133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    The real fear was powerful monarchies in Europe or a formation of a King in America who would become a dictator incarnate and not follow the Constitution or laws created by the People.
    Same difference. And you are correct.

    The point is, they recognized that free speech is fundamental to remaining a free society. They also recognized that citizens being able to arm and protect themselves will help prevent oppression as well.

  34. #134

    Default

    ...


    Did Jefferson really say that? Why bogus quotations matter in gun debate - CNN
    ...
    "Stephen Halbrook, an attorney and author of the book "The Founders' Second Amendment," said he doesn't understand why someone would want to use a fake quotation.
    "For years I've seen bogus quotes on gun issues in the Internet," he said. "Since the Founding Fathers were so positive on Second Amendment rights, I couldn't understand why anyone would feel compelled to invent quotes."
    Halbrook said Jefferson was a big supporter of the right to own firearms.
    "Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, and served two terms as president," he said. "He personally possessed numerous firearms for hunting, target shooting, collecting, self-defense and defense against tyranny. He deemed being armed the mark of a true citizen. The American Revolution was won by an armed populace against the British standing army."
    The GunCite website includes quotations from the founding fathers, but has pages for debunked and reliable remarks. Site creator Howard Picard said the quotes help explain the Constitution's meaning.
    "There are politicians, scholars, jurists, and others who don't believe the Second Amendment was intended to preserve and guarantee an individual right to arms outside of active militia duty," Picard said. "Some go as far as to claim firearms ownership was solely a collective right."
    He said the quotes show that the Second Amendment was intended to protect not only a "vigorous individual right" but also "to serve as a check against an usurpation of our government."
    Saul Cornell, a professor at Fordham University, said some quotations may need context, especially those from the "losing side" of debates. He added that he believes both sides of the gun conversation tend to oversimplify the Founding Fathers' historical intent.
    "Without being too professorial about it," he said, "depending on what theory of the Constitution we use, you can get very different interpretations of the Second Amendment."
    Cornell, who is the Paul and Diane Guenther Chair in American History at the school, said the Constitution incorporates lessons learned while the nation was under the Articles of Confederation. He said the turmoil of Shays' Rebellion stirred up fears of mob rule among many leaders. ..."

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/11/opinio...ion/index.html

    GunCite-Second Amendment-Original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment

    Evidence of an Individual Right

    In his popular edition of Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803), St. George Tucker (see also), a lawyer, Revolutionary War militia officer, legal scholar, and later a U.S. District Court judge (appointed by James Madison in 1813), wrote of the Second Amendment:

    The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.
    In the appendix to the Commentaries, Tucker elaborates further:
    This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty... The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.
    Not only are Tucker's remarks solid evidence that the militia clause was not intended to restrict the right to keep arms to active militia members, but he speaks of a broad right – Tucker specifically mentions self-defense.
    "Because '[g]reat weight has always been attached, and very rightly attached, to contemporaneous exposition,' the Supreme Court has cited Tucker in over forty cases. One can find Tucker in the major cases of virtually every Supreme Court era." (Source: The Second Amendment in the Nineteenth Century)..."

    ..."Yet another jurist, Justice Story (appointed to the Supreme Court as an Associate Justice by James Madison in 1811), wrote a constitutional commentary in 1833 ("Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States"). Regarding the Second Amendment, he wrote (source):

    The next amendment is: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
    The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. ..."


    http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html
    Last edited by KC; 25-08-2017 at 07:44 AM.

  35. #135

    Default

    Further commentary on the US situation:


    A testing year for American tolerance — and it may get worse - The Washington Post
    April 7, 2016

    "Donald Trump tests the limits of campaign speech. He makes false statements and refuses to correct them. He attacks other ..."

    "... The Founding Fathers’ instructions were clear: The right to free speech includes bad speech; it means tolerance of ideas that many find obnoxious. First Amendment partisans (especially journalists, like me) avoid discussing hypothetical situations in which free speech becomes so recklessly defamatory that it no longer deserves protection. But we should recognize that in other countries suffering political decay and the popular rage that it engenders, free speech has indeed proved to be an instrument in the destruction of liberty.

    The Supreme Court has considered this problem on two recent occasions. Both times, the court ruled for protection of political speech, even when it’s false.

    In U.S. v. Alvarez, the court held in 2012 that making a false statement about having won a medal was protected speech, even though it might cheapen the heroism of those who’d actually been decorated. The ruling overturned the Stolen Valor Act, finding that this 2005 law, which had criminalized false claims about military honors, was unconstitutional.

    In a 2014 case, Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, the court found that an Ohio law that banned dissemination of false information about political candidates also violated the First Amendment. The case grew out of a claim by an Ohio legislator who said he had been falsely accused of backing “taxpayer-funded abortion” when he had voted for the Affordable Care Act. Even though such a statement might have been false, it was still protected.

    The court’s desire to safeguard political speech, despite the risks that its exercise may pose to democratic institutions, is perhaps clearest in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission , the 2010 Supreme Court casethat struck down limits on ...


    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.5214d7cba10b


  36. #136

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    The real fear was powerful monarchies in Europe or a formation of a King in America who would become a dictator incarnate and not follow the Constitution or laws created by the People.
    Same difference. And you are correct.

    The point is, they recognized that free speech is fundamental to remaining a free society. They also recognized that citizens being able to arm and protect themselves will help prevent oppression as well.
    The point is you demonstrated "same difference" cluelessness about facts as Donald Trump. Which is amusing to probably everybody here. Further reason its impossible to take your political stance seriously. Its founded on lies, misinformation, and frankly made up.
    If that's your base of knowledge you should seriously wonder about that foundation upon which your biases are built.

    Aside from that one would think that anybody that had just stated that the founding fathers drew up the US Constitution to protect against Communism and Socialism (which didn't exist at the time) would be too embarrassed to post further. But I'm sure that won't dissuade you albeit that increases the entertainment value here. Please do speak more about your understanding of history.
    Last edited by Replacement; 25-08-2017 at 09:35 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  37. #137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    The real fear was powerful monarchies in Europe or a formation of a King in America who would become a dictator incarnate and not follow the Constitution or laws created by the People.
    Same difference. And you are correct.

    The point is, they recognized that free speech is fundamental to remaining a free society. They also recognized that citizens being able to arm and protect themselves will help prevent oppression as well.
    The point is you demonstrated "same difference" cluelessness about facts as Donald Trump. Which is amusing to probably everybody here. Further reason its impossible to take your political stance seriously. Its founded on lies, misinformation, and frankly made up.
    if that's your base of knowledge you should seriously wonder about that foundation upon which your biases are built.

    Aside from that one would think that anybody that had just stated that the founding fathers drew up the US Constitution to protect against Communism and Socialism (which didn't exist at the time) would be too embarrassed to post further. But I'm sure that won't dissuade you albeit that increases the entertainment value here. Please do speak more about your understanding of history.
    Exactly

    As you notice, Mr.Flipflop pick's out a portion but ignores the issues.

    As I stated, "
    Now we have the alt-Reich wanting to create a white state that takes away rights and places a King in power that violates the laws and Constitution.

    That is exactly what is happening today and denying it is a the problem."

    There are people who want a fascist ruler in the USA that they can back and get privileges and oppress minorities. They are eager to make Trump their king.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  38. #138

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    You have in this thread, made the argument at this time, that gun ownership is akin to free speech or society.
    Nope, I never made that argument. They are different.
    Your intent was to state it exactly as you stated it and then deny.

    "I am going to choose to interpret your words that way. YOU BETTER EXPLAIN YOURSELF!"

    Ha ha
    Or myself and others are going to constantly repeat back to you that which YOU just stated to watch you further impale yourself, writhing on your statements of record, while seemingly immune to correction.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  39. #139

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    You have in this thread, made the argument at this time, that gun ownership is akin to free speech or society.
    Nope, I never made that argument. They are different.
    Your intent was to state it exactly as you stated it and then deny.

    "I am going to choose to interpret your words that way. YOU BETTER EXPLAIN YOURSELF!"

    Ha ha
    Or myself and others are going to constantly repeat back to you that which YOU just stated to watch you further impale yourself, writhing on your statements of record, while seemingly immune to correction.
    Guys, he said what he said and then you seem to be repeatedly restating and/or replacing his statement (which I read as a position of possibility) with a new statement implying certainty and oddly, equivalency.

    So a statement such as: A police officer needs to carry a weapon to ensure peace, is restated as: A police officer must use his weapon to maintain peace.* Possibility is replaced with certainty, and statements of certainty underpin 'the slippery slope fallacy' where flawed thinking is often proven when a position uses 'will' rather than 'might'.

    * in this case if I read it correctly, that 'weapons must be used to maintain freedom of speech', rather than saying weapons may provide insurance against a threat to such freedoms.

    "You've made it clear you believe progress requires unfettered, unrestricted free speech & free speech requires guns. " - noodle (same thread, page #1 post)

    As for "progress", I suppose that's a decent interpretation. I believe I read Mister O.'s position as being one of openness and transparency being preferred to suppression and secrecy - but I'd have to go back to re-read his actual words so I avoid mischaracterizing his position.
    Last edited by KC; 25-08-2017 at 10:15 AM.

  40. #140

    Default

    ^Interestingly almost every poster responding is recognizing that which MrOilers is actually stating. One could say you seem to be repeating an outlier view by not seeing that. Which is your prerogative but to suggest that everybody else is getting this wrong or that their responses have been characteristically odd is a bit obtuse. Nor am I going to play word by word semantics at this point in a context that has been extensively defined. Its quite clear what MrOilers believes in and is espousing. Its really to the point of being unequivocal, with all due respect KC.

    MrOilers has been doing this for a longtime here. Its a commonly observed dynamic. He posts something that could easily be taken as offensive, and that almost invariably is taken as offensive, and then responds, predictably (and I've seen this so many times its become boring) with;

    "See? I never said that (.......)What a silly thing to claim!"

    As if he's being grossly misinterpreted.

    He's not even engaging in it skillfully. He's observed posters adopting this tacit refuting approach and is trying it on for size without any of the sophistication required to enact such rope a dope defense.
    Last edited by Replacement; 25-08-2017 at 10:27 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  41. #141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    ^Interestingly almost every poster responding is recognizing that which MrOilers is actually stating. One could say you seem to be repeating an outlier view. Which is your prerogative but to suggest that everybody else is getting this wrong or that their responses have been characteristically odd is a bit obtuse. Its quite clear what MrOilers believes in and is espousing. Its really to the point of being unequivocal, with all due respect KC.

    Yes, "almost every poster". Does that make anything right or correct? If you were an "average" person it might reflect a well considered balanced representative view, but that isn't the case.

    When people decide that someone reflects views they don't agree with, or abhor, they quickly move to characterize and label that individual with the worst of the available stereotypical attributes. Racists do it, ideologues do it too. People aren't allowed nuanced views and they aren't allowed to have seemingly contradictory views ("contradictory" in the eye of the self appointed opponent).

    MrOilers has some views many here find appalling so at every opportunity all views are recast so that the enemy is fully tainted. It's always been the case that one doesn't speak ill of society's symbols, or speak good of society's enemies. (Priests molesting kids! Now, son, hush up with that talk! Same at the other end of the spectrum.)

    I believe MrOilers sees certain religions with inflexible fundamental positions, as threats to his preferred view of world. Thus any and all believers of that faith are all, under the right circumstances, potentially just warriors for / defenders of that belief. It's a highly simplistic view of people, that they aren't individual thinkers but instead are weak and have tendencies making them subject to becoming indoctrinated drones threatening our society.

    Interestingly, some people feel that unfettered free speech will do the same to other groups of people with other tendencies towards becoming indoctrinated drones for nazism, white supremacy, etc.


    I also agree that history sometimes has proven that people will blindly and even sometimes enthusiastically become followers of evil leaders. Also, that the lack of opposition at every turn can potentially enable evil to prevail. (It seems to be proven by many historical events.)
    Last edited by KC; 25-08-2017 at 10:56 AM.

  42. #142

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    ^Interestingly almost every poster responding is recognizing that which MrOilers is actually stating. One could say you seem to be repeating an outlier view. Which is your prerogative but to suggest that everybody else is getting this wrong or that their responses have been characteristically odd is a bit obtuse. Its quite clear what MrOilers believes in and is espousing. Its really to the point of being unequivocal, with all due respect KC.

    Yes, "almost every poster". Does that make anything right or correct? If you were an "average" person it might reflect a well considered balanced representative view, but that isn't the case.

    When people decide that someone reflects views they don't agree with, or abhor, they quickly move to characterize and label that individual with the worst of the available stereotypical attributes. Racists do it, ideologues do it too. People aren't allowed nuanced views and they aren't allowed to have seemingly contradictory views ("contradictory" in the eye of the self appointed opponent).
    I wasn't evoking plurality as irrevocable truth and I think that you would know that. I was denoting it as dynamic response which may cause you to further rethink your own isolated and tenuous support of the same. Which is an isolated view.

    As to the latter I take umbrage with the notion, which is perfectly appropriate for me to state at this point given the exchange, of you to characterize my response in this or other threads as attempts to stereotype, judge, or be an ideologue. (I realize you are probably not stating this to me in isolation, just that we are engaging in the sidebar) On the contrary my view has been established through the basis of approximately a decade of reading the posters political posts here. More often quietly and while taking mental notes and while limiting and even avoiding responding. Others have actually expressed that I've been patient to a fault and I've even found myself occasionally defending this poster in the past as I am less likely to do now and as you see yourself doing now.

    No, on the contrary to which you stated I've had ample information in what the poster writes to establish that which they are stating. I've actually worked very hard, and typically do, not to jump to any conclusion regarding this, or other posters.
    Last edited by Replacement; 25-08-2017 at 10:41 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  43. #143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    ^Interestingly almost every poster responding is recognizing that which MrOilers is actually stating. One could say you seem to be repeating an outlier view. Which is your prerogative but to suggest that everybody else is getting this wrong or that their responses have been characteristically odd is a bit obtuse. Its quite clear what MrOilers believes in and is espousing. Its really to the point of being unequivocal, with all due respect KC.

    Yes, "almost every poster". Does that make anything right or correct? If you were an "average" person it might reflect a well considered balanced representative view, but that isn't the case.

    When people decide that someone reflects views they don't agree with, or abhor, they quickly move to characterize and label that individual with the worst of the available stereotypical attributes. Racists do it, ideologues do it too. People aren't allowed nuanced views and they aren't allowed to have seemingly contradictory views ("contradictory" in the eye of the self appointed opponent).
    I wasn't evoking plurality as irrevocable truth and I think that you would know that. I was denoting it as dynamic response which may cause you to further rethink your own isolated and tenuous support of the same. Which is an isolated view.

    As to the latter I take umbrage with the notion, which is perfectly appropriate for me to state at this point given the exchange, of you to characterize my response in this or other threads as attempts to stereotype, judge, or be an ideologue. (I realize you are probably not stating this to me in isolation, just that we are engaging in the sidebar) On the contrary my view has been established through the basis of approximately a decade of reading the posters political posts here. More often quietly and while taking mental notes and while limiting and even avoiding responding. Others have actually expressed that I've been patient to a fault and I've even found myself occasionally defending this poster in the past as I am less likely to do now and as you see yourself doing now.

    No, on the contrary to which you stated I've had ample information in what the poster writes to establish that which they are stating. I've actually worked very hard, and typically do, not to jump to any conclusion regarding this, or other posters.
    More for me to ponder.

    Note that I continued to ramble on via added editing of my post.
    Last edited by KC; 25-08-2017 at 10:57 AM.

  44. #144

    Default

    We've both rambled on, heh. Don't think that I mind the feedback either, I don't, I'm open to exploration and continual re-evaluation which I think is a requirement to having fluid views. Albeit with all the polarity of views which humans are susceptible to. But which is why I continually reconsider and know in advance that when I am evaluating I am not meaning blanket summary of others. Just largely on their views in certain areas. Albeit in some instances, and depending on the topic at hand, and how thoroughly the chasm is, it tends to preclude dynamic discussion at all. At least moreso in present day, as we exist in continued polarized times. (Or hasn't it always been that way?)

    jk Aside I find myself generally able to disagree with a poster passionately in one discussion and to be able to heed their input in another. Which I think is fairly critical in social media or other discussion. Just to be clear.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  45. #145
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Strathcona - Mill Creek
    Posts
    5,282

    Default

    Maybe we can all agree that MrOilers is just a really, really bad communicator?

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    jk Aside I find myself generally able to disagree with a poster passionately in one discussion and to be able to heed their input in another. Which I think is fairly critical in social media or other discussion. Just to be clear.
    Yes, Replacement, you are good at that. We've certainly had heated debates in the past, but that hasn't carried over to other threads, something I appreciate about you.
    They're going to park their car over there. You're going to park your car over here. Get it?

  46. #146

    Default

    I think replacement is entirely correct.

    If Mr.Flamebaiter walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck and his mother and father were ducks, then it is obvious to conclude that Mr.Flamebaiter is a dick. err... a duck.

    Now I never said Mr.Oilers is a dick.

    See how that works?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  47. #147

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gord Lacey View Post
    Maybe we can all agree that MrOilers is just a really, really bad communicator
    Up to a point. But then you can argue, so is Trump.

    We can all forgive somebody who makes a communications error. Ignore an inappropriate statement. Not being clear with an opinion. Make a misquote. State something is false when there is evidence that their post is incorrect, if not downright false and misleading. We can also see the other side or a spin doctored reference.

    BUT when they do do repeatedly and do not apologize or even acknowledge their error, then a few days later repeat the same error again as truth when it is fiction, and then deny that they said something when we have proof by their own posts, you have a narcissist who lies just to make a failed argument and is intent in spoiling a debate and a forum by spreading disinformation and fake proganda with full knowledge of their actions while hypocritically calling out honest posters and truthful information as being wrong, lying or fake news.

    Repeat offenders should be censored.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  48. #148

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gord Lacey View Post
    Maybe we can all agree that MrOilers is just a really, really bad communicator?

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    jk Aside I find myself generally able to disagree with a poster passionately in one discussion and to be able to heed their input in another. Which I think is fairly critical in social media or other discussion. Just to be clear.
    Yes, Replacement, you are good at that. We've certainly had heated debates in the past, but that hasn't carried over to other threads, something I appreciate about you.
    I appreciate being able to move on from some of those disagreements and that you allowed that. Thanks.

    Thanks as well PRT for expanding on points raised in this and other threads.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  49. #149

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gord Lacey View Post
    Maybe we can all agree that MrOilers is just a really, really bad communicator
    Up to a point. But then you can argue, so is Trump.

    We can all forgive somebody who makes a communications error. Ignore an inappropriate statement. Not being clear with an opinion. Make a misquote. State something is false when there is evidence that their post is incorrect, if not downright false and misleading. We can also see the other side or a spin doctored reference.

    BUT when they do do repeatedly and do not apologize or even acknowledge their error, then a few days later repeat the same error again as truth when it is fiction, and then deny that they said something when we have proof by their own posts, you have a narcissist who lies just to make a failed argument and is intent in spoiling a debate and a forum by spreading disinformation and fake proganda with full knowledge of their actions while hypocritically calling out honest posters and truthful information as being wrong, lying or fake news.

    Repeat offenders should be censored.
    Indeed this is the parallel process that is so intoxicating. To the degree that if one was trying to cleverly mock Trump, and the alt Reich, they would purposely engage in a series of mistruths to the point of making the targeted position ridiculous, and through ample use of parody. That this is being offered unintendedly by pro Trump posters is divine entertainment.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  50. #150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    You have in this thread, made the argument at this time, that gun ownership is akin to free speech or society.
    Nope, I never made that argument. They are different.
    Your intent was to state it exactly as you stated it and then deny.

    "I am going to choose to interpret your words that way. YOU BETTER EXPLAIN YOURSELF!"

    Ha ha
    Or myself and others are going to constantly repeat back to you that which YOU just stated to watch you further impale yourself, writhing on your statements of record, while seemingly immune to correction.
    It's called piling on. Agreeing with a gang of people doesn't make you any more correct, it just makes you part of the mob.

  51. #151

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Aside from that one would think that anybody that had just stated that the founding fathers drew up the US Constitution to protect against Communism and Socialism (which didn't exist at the time)

    The subject (and main point) of my statement was "The founding fathers of the USA recognized that those are the top-2 protections that society has against a government who tries to steal people's freedom ..."

    Then the rest of the sentence provided examples that the first 2 amendments protect against today, such as a "dictatorship or an oppressive socialist/communist state".


    If you want to focus on the fact that socialism and communism didn't exist back then, go ahead. But the fact that socialism and communism exist today, and the first 2 amendments are still relevant because they "arm" citizens against them, doesn't make the subject of my sentence incorrect.

  52. #152
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,737

    Default

    I visit a communist country regularly. No one is allowed any weapons whatsoever except the police and the army. There are over four million soldiers and two million police in an area half the area of Alberta. When you stand in the middle of the block in the city you see 3 soldiers on one corner and 2 cops on the other. It's super hard to emigrate out of the country and people are jailed daily for trying to leave illegally (including my father-in-law). My son was born there and was named by me but upon registering his birth he was assigned a new name by the govt that was more to their liking. I can travel there but it's $300 for a visa and my passport must be taken to the police station immediately upon arrival by family or they get in trouble. I cannot travel within the country without first making my travels known, appropriate documentation etc. Just mind your peas and ques. Casinos and upscale bars do exist but only foreigners are allowed in, no locals. People work hard in the rice fields with no modern equipment. I could go on and on but I think you get my drift.

  53. #153

    Default

    An interesting look and the intertwining of gun rights and slavery.

    The Slave-State Origins of Modern Gun Rights
    The idea that citizens have an unfettered constitutional right to carry weapons in public originates in the antebellum South, and its culture of violence and honor.

    As early as 1840, antebellum historian Richard Hildreth observed that violence was frequently employed in the South both to subordinate slaves and to intimidate abolitionists. In the South, violence also was an approved way to avenge perceived insults to manhood and personal status. According to Hildreth, duels “appear but once an age” in the North, but “are of frequent and almost daily occurrence at the [S]outh.” Southern men thus carried weapons both “as a protection against the slaves” and also to be prepared for “quarrels between freemen.” Two of the most feared public-carry weapons in pre-Civil War America, the “Arkansas toothpick” and “Bowie knife,” were forged from this Southern heritage.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-south/407809/

  54. #154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gord Lacey View Post
    Maybe we can all agree that MrOilers is just a really, really bad communicator
    Up to a point. But then you can argue, so is Trump.

    We can all forgive somebody who makes a communications error. Ignore an inappropriate statement. Not being clear with an opinion. Make a misquote. State something is false when there is evidence that their post is incorrect, if not downright false and misleading. We can also see the other side or a spin doctored reference.

    BUT when they do do repeatedly and do not apologize or even acknowledge their error, then a few days later repeat the same error again as truth when it is fiction, and then deny that they said something when we have proof by their own posts, you have a narcissist who lies just to make a failed argument and is intent in spoiling a debate and a forum by spreading disinformation and fake proganda with full knowledge of their actions while hypocritically calling out honest posters and truthful information as being wrong, lying or fake news.

    Repeat offenders should be censored.
    Censored? Really??? That's a bit far. You might not like someone, or agree with what they say, but that doesn't mean that they should be censored. First you censor Mr.Oilers, but tomorrow? How about the day after that. No one should ever be censored, no matter how wrong they are. People will always abuse that, and just start censoring or silencing any views that disagree with their own, as is prevalent in today's society.

  55. #155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    You have in this thread, made the argument at this time, that gun ownership is akin to free speech or society.
    Nope, I never made that argument. They are different.
    Your intent was to state it exactly as you stated it and then deny.

    "I am going to choose to interpret your words that way. YOU BETTER EXPLAIN YOURSELF!"

    Ha ha
    Or myself and others are going to constantly repeat back to you that which YOU just stated to watch you further impale yourself, writhing on your statements of record, while seemingly immune to correction.
    It's called piling on. Agreeing with a gang of people doesn't make you any more correct, it just makes you part of the mob.
    I have to agree with Mr.Oilers. The post in question doesn't provide a context or even explicitly call for gun ownership. Now if it were the case that Mr.Oilers called explicitly for gun ownership, then the previous arguments could be made. As is though, others are simply misinterpreting the post, and then proceeding to bash Mr.Oilers (Is this a particular favorite past time?).

  56. #156

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Aside from that one would think that anybody that had just stated that the founding fathers drew up the US Constitution to protect against Communism and Socialism (which didn't exist at the time)

    The subject (and main point) of my statement was "The founding fathers of the USA recognized that those are the top-2 protections that society has against a government who tries to steal people's freedom ..."

    Then the rest of the sentence provided examples that the first 2 amendments protect against today, such as a "dictatorship or an oppressive socialist/communist state".


    If you want to focus on the fact that socialism and communism didn't exist back then, go ahead. But the fact that socialism and communism exist today, and the first 2 amendments are still relevant because they "arm" citizens against them, doesn't make the subject of my sentence incorrect.
    I don't buy it.

    This is revisionist attempt at recovery at best. But even if its the case, as another poster mentioned you are an extremely poor communicator if you need multiple revisions of statements (each worse than the other) to attempt to get a point across. Like I stated if you were mocking Trump, alt Reich, or the NRA you couldn't do a better job.

    Your political posting is reading as satire. Honestly. I'm actually being kind telling you this. I doubt you will heed it.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  57. #157

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    I'm actually being kind telling you this.
    Actually, you are being a complete jerk.

  58. #158

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    I'm actually being kind telling you this.
    Actually, you are being a complete jerk.
    More name calling by the hypocrite

  59. #159

    Default

    Well, an incredibly condescending and patronizing comment like that is something only a jerk would say.
    Last edited by MrOilers; 27-08-2017 at 09:27 AM.

  60. #160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Well, an incredibly condescending and patronizing comment like that is something only a jerk would say.
    I'm more than capable of being assertive when required. Its sometimes par for the course. But in this exchange the reality is you've done disservice to your own argument and political stance here and you know that. That's what is stinging right now for you.

    There are times where acknowledging being wrong and "I don't know what I was thinking" or that kind of thing is called for.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  61. #161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Well, an incredibly condescending and patronizing comment like that is something only a jerk would say.
    No irony at all detected in this statement..

    Man, you are bad at communicating. How could you even state something like that before thinking it through?
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  62. #162

    Default

    OK professor, teach me how to master the forum as you do.

  63. #163
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,362

    Default

    ^
    ^^
    it's like listening to two guys on opposite sides of a door painted green on one side and blue on the other side trying to convince the other he just doesn't understand what colour the door is...
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  64. #164

    Default

    When even CBC is calling out the far left for their crybabyism, you know the problem might just be getting out of hand.


    'The left is alienating its allies by shutting down free speech
    So-called progressives celebrated last week after Ryerson cancelled an event featuring controversial speakers'

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/ryers...eech-1.4259360

  65. #165

    Default

    CBC has been calling out Trump since he's elected. I guess that problem might just be getting out of hand...

  66. #166

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    OK professor, teach me how to master the forum as you do.
    OK jerk.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  67. #167

    Default

    I think everyone needs to listen to what these speakers say in this short video. It is a small press conference for San Francisco's Free Speech rally organized by "Patriot's Prayer" organizer Joey Gibson. They preach free speech, patriotism, discussion of ideas, strong condemnation of political violence on both sides, and shame the media for pushing a divisive agenda.

    (if you don't want to see the whole thing, the best story is from the speaker starting at 7 min 50 sec (https://youtu.be/SY1WV6jweRU?t=472)




    If they had white skin (instead of all having brown or black), I think the people here would loudly call them racists/fascists/bigots/Nazis. One thing you will notice while watching this video is that every single one of these people are simply repeating and saying the ideas that I (and others) have presented here.

    While watching this video, remember that the press called this a "neo-Nazi" and 'white supremacist" rally.

  68. #168
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    St. Albert
    Posts
    2,042

    Default

    A speaker from the ACLU was shouted down by BLM protesters and had to end her speech.
    The protesters chanted " Liberalism is white supremacy"
    Restrictions on free speech are a very slippery slope.
    http://atlantablackstar.com/2017/10/...ite-supremacy/

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •