Gun Control & RKBA

NutmegYankee

(16,204 posts) Mon May 4, 2015, 11:56 AM May 2015

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

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

97 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Anyone notice some of the strongly Anti-RKBA people are also very anti-free speech in GD. [View all] NutmegYankee May 2015 OP

who'd a thunkit? discntnt_irny_srcsm May 2015 #1

Funny there is an OP saying just the opposite. upaloopa May 2015 #2

The standard talking past each other. NutmegYankee May 2015 #5

I noticed a lot of anti-hate speech posts Starboard Tack May 2015 #3

Violence in response to speech is never justified. NutmegYankee May 2015 #4

Very true! Starboard Tack May 2015 #10

Drawing cartoons does not incite violence. NutmegYankee May 2015 #11

I can only wonder which planet you live on if you truly believe that Starboard Tack May 2015 #17

The terrorists were looking for a reason to attack for their ideology - NutmegYankee May 2015 #20

The ideology may drive it, but the islamophobes provide the opportunity Starboard Tack May 2015 #63

How many cartoons did the Idiot Boys who died in Dallas actually see? cherokeeprogressive May 2015 #82

"to further their authoritarian agenda" Starboard Tack May 2015 #32

I'm referring to ISIS, took responsibility for the attack NutmegYankee May 2015 #61

Pamela Geller may have gotten her oats in a most peculiar manner... Eleanors38 May 2015 #7

This apparently was not an example of "free" speech. Starboard Tack May 2015 #12

An incitement charge will be shit-canned by any competentcompetent court. Eleanors38 May 2015 #13

I agree. Starboard Tack May 2015 #18

would you say the same about gejohnston May 2015 #21

Cartoons incite violence blueridge3210 May 2015 #24

They have short memories DonP May 2015 #25

The 'shield' they want would become a sword in right-wing hands... friendly_iconoclast May 2015 #33

And so it has become, less than a week later. From the CBC: friendly_iconoclast May 2015 #64

No. Catholics and Mormons got over this kind of shit a while back Starboard Tack May 2015 #35

Mormons never murdered people gejohnston May 2015 #36

I'll give you that it is "unamerican" to call for hate speech laws Starboard Tack May 2015 #38

agree but one thing gejohnston May 2015 #44

Defending the right to free speech is fine. Starboard Tack May 2015 #46

I don't know anything about these people gejohnston May 2015 #50

You really belive that?! virginia mountainman May 2015 #29

Some are bound and determined to conform to Ronald Reagan's definition of a liberal friendly_iconoclast May 2015 #34

Did I say that drawing an image was incitement to violence? Starboard Tack May 2015 #40

*sigh* blueridge3210 May 2015 #41

Did you hear the speeches of Geller and Wilders? Starboard Tack May 2015 #48

It doesn't matter what their motivation was. blueridge3210 May 2015 #49

We know that. Starboard Tack May 2015 #53

The First Amendment is just fine as is. blueridge3210 May 2015 #54

Yes, their is a law.. virginia mountainman May 2015 #57

That type of law regarding speech... discntnt_irny_srcsm May 2015 #59

"Doesn't mean we cannot talk about their motives." Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #65

No! Legal consequences for inciting violence. Starboard Tack May 2015 #69

The only ones inciting violence are those preaching that "blasphemers" should be killed. Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #70

No, they are not inciting violence. They are promising violence. Starboard Tack May 2015 #74

Only one side is using violence. If the terrorists weren't killing people over cartoons Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #76

Only one side is using violence? Starboard Tack May 2015 #84

Only one side is using illegal violence. blueridge3210 May 2015 #85

Nice distinction Starboard Tack May 2015 #87

A distinction with a vital difference. blueridge3210 May 2015 #88

I do not propose anyone be held accountable for legal acts Starboard Tack May 2015 #89

"Hate Speech" blueridge3210 May 2015 #90

No, it is not meaningless. Starboard Tack May 2015 #91

Boil that word salad down and the result is blueridge3210 May 2015 #92

No, I am not holding anyone responsible for the actions of others. Starboard Tack May 2015 #95

Sorry, no. blueridge3210 May 2015 #96

Sory, but you are wrong Starboard Tack May 2015 #97

In your previous post you described the things you don't like as a throwback and here you Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #93

I did not "dismiss" society as merely a concept Starboard Tack May 2015 #94

Not only are you victim-blaming those who were attacked you're making victims of the attackers. Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #86

The difference is that Gellar did not "incite" violence. blueridge3210 May 2015 #72

That is why the First Amendment needs adjustment Starboard Tack May 2015 #73

Nice double down. beevul May 2015 #75

Would you defend the right of a person of color to march through the midst of a KKK rally? Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #77

no it does not need updating gejohnston May 2015 #79

Sorry, but you're wrong. blueridge3210 May 2015 #80

Furthermore... beevul May 2015 #81

Brandenburg v Ohio discntnt_irny_srcsm May 2015 #30

I guess if someone wants to disregard the 2nd Amendment... NaturalHigh May 2015 #6

Perhaps more disregarded is the 5th's Due Process clause. Eleanors38 May 2015 #8

We're only progressive when it's something we like/agree with it seems. ileus May 2015 #9

Did you just realize that? Starboard Tack May 2015 #16

Simple test: How many times has anti RKBA demanded the Gungeon be shut down in ATA or Meta? DonP May 2015 #14

META was a lot of fun back when it was wide open. ileus May 2015 #15

IMNSHO, the true irony is the anti RKBA think they are the "tolerant" ones DonP May 2015 #19

Meta was.. Puha Ekapi May 2015 #22

I have long noticed virginia mountainman May 2015 #23

Not particularly, no. I've often noticed that individual DUer may take positions that petronius May 2015 #26

I did. beevul May 2015 #27

Guns/being pro-gun are/is antithesis to liberalism. uncleverusername May 2015 #28

Really? Why don't you read what George Orwell said. MicaelS May 2015 #37

Don't know who a George Orwell is or why I should care uncleverusername May 2015 #43

O M G!!! sarisataka May 2015 #47

I'd laugh at the teabagger gun nuts too.... uncleverusername May 2015 #55

Ahh, they know so little.. virginia mountainman May 2015 #58

Many hate filled bigots sarisataka May 2015 #60

You must be really be naive. MicaelS May 2015 #62

You have an insurmountable obstacle sarisataka May 2015 #45

Nonsense. In fact, you're 180 degrees off. beevul May 2015 #39

None of that applies to gun ownership, except in your warped sense of mind. uncleverusername May 2015 #42

Nonsense. beevul May 2015 #56

You fail, utterly, to comprehend what liberalism actually is. Lizzie Poppet May 2015 #66

I call them "Ronald Reagan liberals": friendly_iconoclast May 2015 #31

not me. I am rabidly opposed to those who limit free speech and yet CBGLuthier May 2015 #51

And the 1st allows you to say that sarisataka May 2015 #52

You support an al carte Bill of Rights? hack89 May 2015 #67

I am rabidly opposed to those who limit rights.. virginia mountainman May 2015 #68

For some people "The Greater Good", "The Group", "The Commons", "Society" is all that matters. MicaelS May 2015 #71

Don't you know the Bill of Rights consists of Amendments 3 through 10 tularetom May 2015 #78

Scratch the 10th. It gives the states too much power and limits the fed too much according to some. cherokeeprogressive May 2015 #83