• Before posting an article from a specific source, check this list here to see how much the Orange Room trust it. You can also vote/change your vote based on the source track record.

Right to Bear Arms

HalaMadrid

HalaMadrid

Active Member
Orange Room Supporter
Why do you always try to ruin the fun?
I'd like to see the cousin-shagging tooth-missing opioid-addicted hillbillies of Alabama try to take on the full force of the US military with their peashooters and pickup trucks. Who wouldn't? Free entertainment.
Didn't we already see this show in Oregon? It was not as entertaining as you'd like...
 
  • Advertisement
  • Myso

    Myso

    Active Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    I come out thinking wikipedia is not a credible source for delineating the differences between countries' freedom of speech laws. But I don't know why we're in a freedom of speech argument anyway. None of this has still borne a connection between people have small arms in their homes and their speech being suppressed (to the extent it's suppressed in the UK).
    This is a heavy-cited Wikipedia. And it just shows the numerous cases. You can google the academic papers on it. And see the great multitude of differences in number and extremity between censorship laws between the two.

    Once again, they are not behind ANY of those things. Progressives are behind those things (the real civil libertarians). This group's only interest is their guns, NOT civil liberties. This is a movement that votes loyally and uniformly Republican, not just for president, but across the board. What part of the Republican party has ever demonstrated suspicions about the NSA, or Facebook, or Google, or "auditing the Fed?" None. In fact, no party has protected these corporations more and prostrated themselves in front of the NSA, CIA, etc, more. Exactly two right wing civil libertarians have been put in national office: Justin Amash and Mike Lee and I don't think I need to explain what's now happening with Amash. At some point if you're claiming to be a protector of civil liberties, you should use your arms to protect actual civil liberties and not just to further protect your arms. And that should be translating into electoral votes as well. It's not. So, it's not just hypocrisy, it's regressive.
    Progressives? You mean Jack Dorsey? Or Mark Zuckerberg ? Or Jeff Bezos? Or Anna Sarkisian? Or Cenk Uygur? Those wanting to remove freedom of speech, right to bear arms and everything under the book? Even punish people for misgendering / not using fake made-up pronouns?

    You have no idea who libertarians are. You keep saying they're neo-con republicans based on paid-for propaganda campagins from the likes Trevor "not even accidentally funny" Noah. It's mere delusion. Heck, even the top "don't tread on me" youtube political analyists supported Obama and then supported Trump. And they're right on youtube for you to watch with dated videos. Need I say more? Then you divert it into some civil liberty of building a minaret that's foreign to a culture, to say they're hypocrites. Well at least those hypocrites strive for more liberties. And are not corporate tyrants who want to spread Californian scissor hands to the rest of the world.
     
    HalaMadrid

    HalaMadrid

    Active Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    This is a heavy-cited Wikipedia. And it just shows the numerous cases. You can google the academic papers on it. And see the great multitude of differences in number and extremity between censorship laws between the two.
    The point is that any moron can edit a wikipedia page to their liking and link to sources. So yes, there are many sources for the UK's issues. I can do the same for Switzerland and pick and choose to my liking and write 8 paragraphs. It still doesn't have any rigor to its analysis and it doesn't tell me anything about the underlying subject we were allegedly discussing.

    Progressives? You mean Jack Dorsey? Or Mark Zuckerberg ? Or Jeff Bezos? Or Anna Sarkisian? Or Cenk Uygur? Those wanting to remove freedom of speech, right to bear arms and everything under the book? Even punish people for misgendering / not using fake made-up pronouns?
    No lol. You think I would ****ing consider billionaire corporate entities progressives? Or whoever the **** Anna whatever is. Or a conservative-turned-convenient progressive to advance his career? No. And I don't get my political analysis on youtube shows.

    You have no idea who libertarians are. You keep saying they're neo-con republicans based on paid-for propaganda campagins from the likes Trevor "not even accidentally funny" Noah. It's mere delusion. Heck, even the top "don't tread on me" youtube political analyists supported Obama and then supported Trump. And they're right on youtube for you to watch with dated videos. Need I say more? Then you divert it into some civil liberty of building a minaret that's foreign to a culture, to say they're hypocrites. Well at least those hypocrites strive for more liberties. And are not corporate tyrants who want to spread Californian scissor hands to the rest of the world.
    Yes, it's I who doesn't know who libertarians are. Okay. You chose to believe I conflated neocons with Libertarians, I did not. I acknowledge they're ideologically distinct. But it is no secret that alleged gun rights libertarians have supported the neocon agenda electorally. Let me put it in caps: THE POINT IS THAT LIBERTARIANS UNIFORMLY VOTE FOR THE PARTY THAT ADVANCES CORPORATE INTERESTS EVEN MORE THAN THE PARTY THAT ALSO ADVANCES CORPORATE INTERESTS BUT TRIES TO ADD SOME ACCOUNTABILITY. They do not vote for individuals who attempt to address privacy rights, they do not vote for people who have advanced free press, they don't vote for people who have tried to check police powers, they don't vote for people who check foreign militarism. They don't vote for people who stand uniformly for religious liberty. Those are libertarians in real life. Real people. I don't know how Joe Rogan votes and I don't care.
     
    Nevermore

    Nevermore

    New Member
    "Protecting":

    Greg McMichael: “I’m out here at Satilla Shores and there’s a black man running down the street."

    911 dispatcher: “I just need to know what he was doing wrong, was he just on the premises and not supposed to be?”

    Greg McMichael: “And he’s been caught on the camera a bunch before at night. It’s an ongoing thing out here.”

    McMichael later told police he suspected that Arbery was burglarizing houses under construction in the Brunswick neighborhood.

    According to the police report, McMichael was calling for his son who “grabbed his shotgun because they didn’t know if the male was armed or not.”
     
    Myso

    Myso

    Active Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    No lol. You think I would ****ing consider billionaire corporate entities progressives? Or whoever the **** Anna whatever is. Or a conservative-turned-convenient progressive to advance his career?
    So you're ready to throw a "No true Scotsman" fallacy when it comes to Progressives, when it DOES include San Fran Progressives like Jack Dorsey of Twitter. But you're not willing to exempt Libertarians from your generalizations about them.
    مكيالين

    Yes, it's I who doesn't know who libertarians are. Okay. You chose to believe I conflated neocons with Libertarians, I did not. I acknowledge they're ideologically distinct. But it is no secret that alleged gun rights libertarians have supported the neocon agenda electorally. Let me put it in caps: THE POINT IS THAT LIBERTARIANS UNIFORMLY VOTE FOR THE PARTY THAT ADVANCES CORPORATE INTERESTS EVEN MORE THAN THE PARTY THAT ALSO ADVANCES CORPORATE INTERESTS BUT TRIES TO ADD SOME ACCOUNTABILITY. They do not vote for individuals who attempt to address privacy rights, they do not vote for people who have advanced free press, they don't vote for people who have tried to check police powers, they don't vote for people who check foreign militarism. They don't vote for people who stand uniformly for religious liberty. Those are libertarians in real life. Real people. I don't know how Joe Rogan votes and I don't care.
    They ultimately have to vote for people outside of their group because they're a minority. Doesn't seem to me like they really can choose who they actually want for you to judge them on their vote, when none of their candidates has made it any far.

    And no, you won't find as much cases of censorship in Switzerland as you do in the UK. In the history of Switzerland, no Swiss citizen used Twitter to tag the "govna" and "powleece" for an offensive tweet. I can tell you that.
     
    Mrsrx

    Mrsrx

    Somehow a Member
    Staff member
    So you're ready to throw a "No true Scotsman" fallacy when it comes to Progressives, when it DOES include San Fran Progressives like Jack Dorsey of Twitter. But you're not willing to exempt Libertarians from your generalizations about them.
    مكيالين



    They ultimately have to vote for people outside of their group because they're a minority. Doesn't seem to me like they really can choose who they actually want for you to judge them on their vote, when none of their candidates has made it any far.

    And no, you won't find as much cases of censorship in Switzerland as you do in the UK. In the history of Switzerland, no Swiss citizen used Twitter to tag the "govna" and "powleece" for an offensive tweet. I can tell you that.
    Quick question how am i guaranteed freedom of speech if my neighbor can whip his gun and tell me if i open my mouth again he would shoot me?
     
    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    Legendary Member
    Quick question how am i guaranteed freedom of speech if my neighbor can whip his gun and tell me if i open my mouth again he would shoot me?
    First, Freedom of Speech is guarantied by State, not by private entity such as your neighbor.
    Second, Second Amendment guaranties your right to self-defense.
    Third, State guaranties to do their otmost to punish the guilty.
     
    HalaMadrid

    HalaMadrid

    Active Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    So you're ready to throw a "No true Scotsman" fallacy when it comes to Progressives, when it DOES include San Fran Progressives like Jack Dorsey of Twitter. But you're not willing to exempt Libertarians from your generalizations about them.
    مكيالين
    Can you explain to me why conservatives always do this like some kind of gotcha: "TELL ME ABOUT YOUR KING TWITTER JACK DORSEY AND FACEBOOK MARK ZUCKERBERG AND BILL MAHER" as if these ghouls haven't be kowtowing to the complaints of Ben Shapiro and his ilk for the past 3 years and like progressives haven't been trying to hang the former two assholes along with their counterparts at other companies in the public squares? Like, half of Jack's twitter menchies are progressives tweeting guillotine gifs at him. Just like Jamie Dimon's.
    They ultimately have to vote for people outside of their group because they're a minority. Doesn't seem to me like they really can choose who they actually want for you to judge them on their vote, when none of their candidates has made it any far.
    Have you heard of primaries? Because to me either libertarians are pretty content with the Republican party as currently constituted because it protects their guns or they have never heard of primaries. Progressives don't win very much, but at least they're constantly putting up primary challengers to corporate Dems and have even put a handful in Congress.
    And no, you won't find as much cases of censorship in Switzerland as you do in the UK. In the history of Switzerland, no Swiss citizen used Twitter to tag the "govna" and "powleece" for an offensive tweet. I can tell you that.
    Ok. The British are snowy white snowflakes who want to persecute youtube talking heads and bloggers or whatever. And the Swiss are tough gun-toting burly men who are not offended by non-PC language.
     
    Myso

    Myso

    Active Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Quick question how am i guaranteed freedom of speech if my neighbor can whip his gun and tell me if i open my mouth again he would shoot me?
    If he did that, that's "making threats of violence" in US and Canadian law, and he would be punished in court of law. Easy.

    And he could do the same threats with a kitchen knife or a baseball bat.
     
    Myso

    Myso

    Active Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Can you explain to me why conservatives always do this like some kind of gotcha: "TELL ME ABOUT YOUR KING TWITTER JACK DORSEY AND FACEBOOK MARK ZUCKERBERG AND BILL MAHER" as if these ghouls haven't be kowtowing to the complaints of Ben Shapiro and his ilk for the past 3 years and like progressives haven't been trying to hang the former two assholes along with their counterparts at other companies in the public squares? Like, half of Jack's twitter menchies are progressives tweeting guillotine gifs at him. Just like Jamie Dimon's.
    Perhaps because THOSE are the leaders of the Progressives. I see no other influential people around that hold your political ideology.

    Google even took it to heart in leaked footage that Trump won the elections and kinda said that they should do something about it. Facebook even started relying on Leftist fact-checking websites to eliminate conservative news, when Snopes and others are known for their selection bias and biased categories (e.g if Hillary lies, it's mostly not exactly true). And they ban conservatives (e.g Milo), shadowban conservatives (e.g Steven Crowder), filter out conservative search results (e.g Steven Crowder, Styxenhammer666) and step on liberties right and left under the guise of being a private company (even though legally there's an argument that they're more like online public squares with an important hold / influence on politics and economy, and so should be treated differently).


    Have you heard of primaries? Because to me either libertarians are pretty content with the Republican party as currently constituted because it protects their guns or they have never heard of primaries. Progressives don't win very much, but at least they're constantly putting up primary challengers to corporate Dems and have even put a handful in Congress.
    Your crazy Progressive radicals are why Biden made it. You think people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar contribute anything to the political world but mindless white guilt-tripping and a lopsided view of economy? And if not who does? I mentioned Cenk Uygur which is an influential progressive running for politics. And you didn't seem to like him either.

    Ok. The British are snowy white snowflakes who want to persecute youtube talking heads and bloggers or whatever. And the Swiss are tough gun-toting burly men who are not offended by non-PC language.
    It's not exactly like that. But at this point, Even Ayatollah Iran is better than the UK when it comes to freedom. At least I can do holocaust revisionism in Iran and Switzerland. I can own a TV without a license and prior selected channels. I can do journalistic activities out of courtrooms. And that says a lot.
     
    Mrsrx

    Mrsrx

    Somehow a Member
    Staff member
    First, Freedom of Speech is guarantied by State, not by private entity such as your neighbor.
    Second, Second Amendment guaranties your right to self-defense.
    Third, State guaranties to do their otmost to punish the guilty.
    If he did that, that's "making threats of violence" in US and Canadian law, and he would be punished in court of law. Easy.

    And he could do the same threats with a kitchen knife or a baseball bat.
    Fair enough for both answers i agree.
    Now lets continue in this scenario. I have a follow up.
    What if that same neighbor along with his family and friends all think that the state is tyranical and think that they are not correctly upholding the law and the constitution and organise themselves to defend against it (seems to be their right)? Am i losing my freedom of speech because of my neighbor's right to bear arms?
     
    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    Legendary Member
    Fair enough for both answers i agree.
    Now lets continue in this scenario. I have a follow up.
    What if that same neighbor along with his family and friends all think that the state is tyranical and think that they are not correctly upholding the law and the constitution and organise themselves to defend against it (seems to be their right)? Am i losing my freedom of speech because of my neighbor's right to bear arms?
    "Am i losing my freedom of speech because of my neighbor's right to bear arms?" - you have not lost you right to freedom of speech in the first case and I do not see how this example differs from before. It is still the same situation - you and your armed neighbor disagree.

    Perhaps you meant to ask something else and if so please clarify.
     
    Mrsrx

    Mrsrx

    Somehow a Member
    Staff member
    you have not lost you right to freedom of speech in the first case and I do not see how this example differs from before. It is still the same situation - you and your armed neighbor disagree.
    It did not change it is still the same situation with more information. My neighbor does not respect the government that would punish him and is already preparing for defending himself against it if they come. Which means he does not care about their laws and their justice system.

    That leaves us with 2 options:

    1- I did not lose my freedom of speech because i have nothing to worry about as the state will protect me and they are more powerful than him and his friends and family which means his arms to protect him against a tyranical government are useless.

    2- I did lose my freedom of speech as it is my neighbors law as he is in his right to defend himself against the government so his immediate law (shutting me up) is the new law in my neighborhood.

    Option 1 renders the argument of defending against a tyranical government useless.
    Option 2 means that the law of the powerful reigns and we accept the fact that that might no be the state.

    (Please lets not get in this again and i know i am mentioning it but not for debate it is only for explaining my point: his militia risks of getting as big as Hezbollah or the Cartels or the IRA ....)
     
    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    Legendary Member
    It did not change it is still the same situation with more information. My neighbor does not respect the government that would punish him and is already preparing for defending himself against it if they come. Which means he does not care about their laws and their justice system.

    That leaves us with 2 options:

    1- I did not lose my freedom of speech because i have nothing to worry about as the state will protect me and they are more powerful than him and his friends and family which means his arms to protect him against a tyranical government are useless.

    2- I did lose my freedom of speech as it is my neighbors law as he is in his right to defend himself against the government so his immediate law (shutting me up) is the new law in my neighborhood.

    Option 1 renders the argument of defending against a tyranical government useless.
    Option 2 means that the law of the powerful reigns and we accept the fact that that might no be the state.

    (Please lets not get in this again and i know i am mentioning it but not for debate it is only for explaining my point: his militia risks of getting as big as Hezbollah or the Cartels or the IRA ....)
    I am sorry, but I still cannot understand your specific problem.

    1. If your neighbor threatens you directly, then we have already addressed it in original example.
    2. If you suspect that your neighbor might do something terrible to his neighbors or elsewhere, then take your concerns to proper authorities.
    3. If you are not worried about #1 and #2, then I do not see how it is your problem at all, let time sort it out between your neighbor and The State.
     
    Mrsrx

    Mrsrx

    Somehow a Member
    Staff member
    I am sorry, but I still cannot understand your specific problem.

    1. If your neighbor threatens you directly, then we have already addressed it in original example.
    2. If you suspect that your neighbor might do something terrible to his neighbors or elsewhere, then take your concerns to proper authorities.
    3. If you are not worried about #1 and #2, then I do not see how it is your problem at all, let time sort it out between your neighbor and The State.
    My whole point is that your solution is the law that my neighbor does not care about as he thinks that the entiity upholding that law is tyranical which leaves me without any protection of being shot if i speak out.
     
    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    Legendary Member
    My whole point is that your solution is the law that my neighbor does not care about as he thinks that the entiity upholding that law is tyranical which leaves me without any protection of being shot if i speak out.
    Yes, I understand that, but aside from what I suggested above what else can you do - I am always trying to evaluate possible solution to a problem when ever I have one.

    BTW, "which leaves me without any protection of being shot if i speak out" - I intentionally did not mention elephant in the room before hoping that you might reach this conclusion - how about you arming yourself to be ready while waiting for authorities to arrive should it be necessary.
     
    HalaMadrid

    HalaMadrid

    Active Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Perhaps because THOSE are the leaders of the Progressives. I see no other influential people around that hold your political ideology.

    Google even took it to heart in leaked footage that Trump won the elections and kinda said that they should do something about it. Facebook even started relying on Leftist fact-checking websites to eliminate conservative news, when Snopes and others are known for their selection bias and biased categories (e.g if Hillary lies, it's mostly not exactly true). And they ban conservatives (e.g Milo), shadowban conservatives (e.g Steven Crowder), filter out conservative search results (e.g Steven Crowder, Styxenhammer666) and step on liberties right and left under the guise of being a private company (even though legally there's an argument that they're more like online public squares with an important hold / influence on politics and economy, and so should be treated differently).

    Your crazy Progressive radicals are why Biden made it. You think people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar contribute anything to the political world but mindless white guilt-tripping and a lopsided view of economy? And if not who does? I mentioned Cenk Uygur which is an influential progressive running for politics. And you didn't seem to like him either.

    It's not exactly like that. But at this point, Even Ayatollah Iran is better than the UK when it comes to freedom. At least I can do holocaust revisionism in Iran and Switzerland. I can own a TV without a license and prior selected channels. I can do journalistic activities out of courtrooms. And that says a lot.
    That you decided to skip over noam chomsky, naomi klein, glenn greenwald, michael parenti, slavoj zizek, michelle alexander, tony judt, among others to give me Jack dorsey and cenk uygur shows that your idea of progressivism is a cartoonish one rooted in the hallucination of YouTube warriors. This is an unserious and not actually a discussion about free speech, but about twitter grievances. Nationalize facebook and twitter and your problems go away. Maybe corporate boards shouldn't be deciding what gets posted in the public squares. lol.

    Why do i feel like you're a hair's breadth away from telling me that there are no go zones in Europe patrolled by the Muslim brotherhood or something. Come on.

    You still haven't addressed my original point which is that gun rights activists (and to the extent they intersect with libertarians) are part and parcel of the police state and largely reinforce it because their only interest is protecting their gun rights and not civil liberties, which is how we got to the discussion about elections and free speech anyway, because their electoral choices reflect that.
     
    Mrsrx

    Mrsrx

    Somehow a Member
    Staff member
    Yes, I understand that, but aside from what I suggested above what else can you do - I am always trying to evaluate possible solution to a problem when ever I have one.

    BTW, "which leaves me without any protection of being shot if i speak out" - I intentionally did not mention elephant in the room before hoping that you might reach this conclusion - how about you arming yourself to be ready while waiting for authorities to arrive should it be necessary.
    I have the right to live in safety so owning a gun is not a solution. (Basic human rights unless we are considering that the state does not respect human rights by law then yea everyman for himself so you have done well of not mentioning that elephant in the room)

    The point is i always lived by the mantra of "my freedom stops when it starts limiting the freedom of others" (not sure what the english translation is but you get the point). So someone having a gun gives them the means to deprive me of my freedoms.

    So i understand the idea of owning a gun is a matter of freedom but it creates either a strong (gun owner) and a weak (non gun owner) or brings everyone back to a society where safety is not guaranteed by the state and this is not a great world to live in.
    In a weak vs strong world you have many risks that we do not necessarily see today in the US but are very clear in the 3rd world.
    If you would ask me in what world i prefer to live:
    1. A world where groups can start fighting and have many casulaties and recurring killings because 2 minorities (numbers not talking race) are fighting (ex: hillbillies vs rednecks ozark ref or more real cribz vs bloodz or cartel A vs Cartel B....)
    2. A world with hypothetical tyranical government when i live in a great democracy and if it was true they will crush me anyway. I would chose #2 anyday.
    Problem with the USA today it is the in between. Consider yourself lucky to not live in a shithole country and protect it from going there....

    Last but not least i feel very very uncomfortable going to a restaurant and seeing a guy with a gun on the next table :) ...i can defend myself with moderate success against a knife but not against a gun...

    anyway im too tired and too busy to write coherently hope you get my point ... need to finish what i have to do start my 4day weekend :)
     
    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    Legendary Member
    I have the right to live in safety so owning a gun is not a solution. (Basic human rights unless we are considering that the state does not respect human rights by law then yea everyman for himself so you have done well of not mentioning that elephant in the room)

    The point is i always lived by the mantra of "my freedom stops when it starts limiting the freedom of others" (not sure what the english translation is but you get the point). So someone having a gun gives them the means to deprive me of my freedoms.

    So i understand the idea of owning a gun is a matter of freedom but it creates either a strong (gun owner) and a weak (non gun owner) or brings everyone back to a society where safety is not guaranteed by the state and this is not a great world to live in.
    In a weak vs strong world you have many risks that we do not necessarily see today in the US but are very clear in the 3rd world.
    If you would ask me in what world i prefer to live:
    1. A world where groups can start fighting and have many casulaties and recurring killings because 2 minorities (numbers not talking race) are fighting (ex: hillbillies vs rednecks ozark ref or more real cribz vs bloodz or cartel A vs Cartel B....)
    2. A world with hypothetical tyranical government when i live in a great democracy and if it was true they will crush me anyway. I would chose #2 anyday.
    Problem with the USA today it is the in between. Consider yourself lucky to not live in a shithole country and protect it from going there....

    Last but not least i feel very very uncomfortable going to a restaurant and seeing a guy with a gun on the next table :) ...i can defend myself with moderate success against a knife but not against a gun...

    anyway im too tired and too busy to write coherently hope you get my point ... need to finish what i have to do start my 4day weekend :)
    "I have the right to live in safety so owning a gun is not a solution" - indeed you have this right, but every right must be protected and enforced.
    You may decide to rely solely on your government to enforce your right by punishing those who infringe on it
    or you could decide to help your government to protect your right by making yourself a little bit harder target than you are (at least you'll have enough time to survive before government's cavalry would arrive).

    "my freedom stops when it starts limiting the freedom of others" - I am not sure how you wish to apply this idea to the situation.
    If you mean to say that your neighbor must give up his freedom because you feel uneasy, then I disagree - your uneasiness is your problem.
     
    Top