How strongly do you believe in freedom of speech?

[XerXesXu]

If the President is doing nothing more than expressing an opinion, I don't think it would be illegal.

But if the President, hypothetically speaking, gets on the phone with the secretary of state of a state and, spouting obvious falsehoods about the election, urges that secretary of state to "find votes" that would give him the election, and if he stands in front of a crowd at the same time the Senate is convening to count the votes of electors, and whips up a large crowd and puts pressure on his Vice President to refuse to do his Constitutional duty, and if the crowd immediately after the speech storms the Capitol, injuring many law enforcement officers, and if that same President sits in his White House for several hours doing absolutely nothing to quell the violent takeover of the Capitol building, then I think at some point it's no longer protected speech; it's an act; it's a violation of legal and constitutional duty. That's my take.

The offence of inciting people to exercise their 2A rights.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

So no bias then.

Got it.



We. Told. Them. So.

You do you... SMH

 

[Missmister]

Badly enough to sacrifice my life to ensure it, not for me, but for mine.

 

[Missmister]

The offence of inciting people to exercise their 2A rights.

Yeah but where are they all? This is their moment.!where are the “good guys with guns”, the constitution allows us guns to fight, tyranny ,we have a bona fide tyrant in . So where are they?

 

[Missmister]

Yeah but where are they all? This is their moment.!where are the “good guys with guns”, the constitution allows us guns to fight, tyranny ,we have a bona fide tyrant in . So where are they?

Sorry about the punctuation.

 

[Husky_Embrace]

Yeah but where are they all? This is their moment.!where are the “good guys with guns”, the constitution allows us guns to fight, tyranny ,we have a bona fide tyrant in . So where are they?

I find it hard to get behind this sentiment. Are we really suggesting for guns to be used against each other? Or a political leader?

The fact of the matter is that this was chosen by the people. There were plenty of red flags to dissuade people. A guy who has pretty consistently lied, and doesn't even respect his loved ones enough not to cheat on them. To be fair, the other side isn't much better. How else are high ranking people of both parties involved with Epstein?

People wanted change, and they got it. Why should a good guy with a gun do anything about it? If most people want the bad thing instead of the good, are these good guys with guns in any right to change that? People do crazy stuff all the time, like choosing to smoke, or to stay in a bad place. Choosing a tyrant is just one of those things.

Next time you can choose, try to get everyone to choose something else. That is how democracy limps on. If there's still tyranny, go to peaceful protest. That is to say, there's many options before any gun should even be thought of.

That this bad thing spreads to other countries that did not choose a tyrant is the bad part. There is your argument for any action outside of democracy. Then it's up to diplomacy.

Guns haven't solved few problems, and caused many more. Whether wielded by good guys or bad.

 

[JohnEngelman]

I would draw the line at saying, "All Jews must die." in a private conversation I would ask, "Why do you think so?" In public discourse Jew haters might be encouraged to act on that.

Many of my opinions are controversial. I am confident in my ability to prevail in an intellectual environment that rewards fact based arguments and rational thinking, and which prohibits insults, name calling, obscene words and threats of various kinds.