Should we revert to measuring anal capacity in Courics? Would that make you feel better?
Question for the gun nuts - what would it take...
- Thread starter MMike
- Start date
I believe the term "From my cold dead hands" applies here.
Braaaaarp- incorrect. The VB only inserts squid tentacles into his poop chute. F*cken amateur.
irate2:
I watched an interview with a top Japanese general (maybe an Admiral) and he was talking about WWII and Pearl Harbor; he said Japan never considered an invasion of the west coast....when asked why he said: "Every American owns a gun"....that statement is enough of a reason for me to fight for the right the own a weapon. It's improbable that we will have a revolution here anytime soon, but the right for every citizen to own a firearm IMO will help keep the government in check.
I just wish people would defend the FIRST Amendment with such tenacity...
O well, thank god for the ACLU then...
O well, thank god for the ACLU then...
Manassas was the asshole of Virginia in the 80's-90's when I lived there.
How it could have gotten any worse?
What states/cities have passed laws in violation of the first amendment?
Whose first amendment rights are being denied in this country, wholesale or even individually?
Ask Lowlight7...
Last edited:
http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=204766&page=3
there's a few cases there, I'll try to remember the name of another one in California where the government was allowed to take Native American lands that had a church
6-7 cases from the last century vs. a total ban. Yeah, you can find examples (often arguable), but nothing like a wholesale and indefinite ban on newspapers, which is more the equivalent of a city banning handguns. ("Why do you need newspapers? You can have TV and radio news...just like you can only have a rifle or a shotgun with a lock on it. Why do you need pistols?")
O'Brien, by the way, wasn't convicted because he burned his draft card as speech, but because he 1) burned it in violation of a law against mutilating them--(the illegality of which would, IMHO, be a valid free-speech impingement alone, as the action is nearly totally symbolic) and 2) failed to possess the required card after burning it, which was in fact against the law--he knew it and chose to take his action. Importantly, though, the decision actually AFFIRMS free speech rights.
Ed: By the way, there are a lot of people who DO defend and affirm free speech in this country, Defen--ACLU much? I would also be quite a bit more offended by a wide-ranging free speech ban than any 2A infringements currently going on in this country. Free speech lets us argue peacefully about the other rights.
Last edited:
He was challenging number 2 as a violation to the first amendment, and I agree with him, which is why I included it in there.
Legally, thought, it's clearly not. And again, the decision is a win for free speech rights, affirming that specific content-based protest cannot be infringed upon.
I think you should be able to burn as many flags as you want.
This thread, from the beginning, was the equivalent of one of those guys-sitting-around-the-campfire questions, like, "OK, so, well, if you had no other choice--would you choose to go down on Roseanne Barr, or let Madonna plug you with her favorite strap-on?"
(The answer, by the way, is likewise obvious...)
Ed: That was mid-90s "Ray of Light" video Madonna, by the way.
Last edited:
Would that really change your answer??
Well, the possibilities connected with multiple items of jelly-jewelry and/or watches are a *little* disconcerting.
you do realize the fact that the FBI is guilty of seriously abusing Patriot Act powers has been established right?
You do realize that the Bush administration tried to push an expanded Patriot Act ver 2 through congress right?
You do realize how close we came to having an amendment to the constitution which criminalized flag desecration right?
You do realize that the Bush administration tried to push an expanded Patriot Act ver 2 through congress right?
You do realize how close we came to having an amendment to the constitution which criminalized flag desecration right?
What do #1 and #2 have to do with free speech? Likewise, name any wholesale deprivations of rights resulting from the Patriot act. Disparate questionable incidents are far different than a state or local government simply outlawing, by statute, an activity specifically protected by the founding document of the country. (The ACLU even dropped its anti-Patriot act lawsuit citing "improvements to the law.")
#3 didn't happen. If it had, that would be serious. But it didn't. (And it's not hard to imagine it passing in a country where the majority of people oppose flag burning...and even if it had passed, it'd only have become a critical issue if it was upheld in subsequent SCOTUS review.)
are you kidding, do you know what the patriot act is? They can arrest anyone without charges if they think they are threatening the US. That means protesters, journalists, and activists could be at risk. We don't know if someone is taken, because they will be shipped off to a Siberian torture camp.
even right now, the government has the right to go through any personal records
http://action.aclu.org/reformthepatriotact/
Last edited:
well in true government form they pledged to only make use of the exceptionally intrusive (and characteristically unconstitutional) provisions when dealing with terrorism but have failed to show such noble restraint. The act is setup in a way that if they can finagle a "terrorist" brand for you they can sensor/arrest away.
You know she was pregnant in that video?