Do Only Firearms Have An Ulimate Purpose, Or Does Free Speech Also?

What in hell does what you said have to do with what I said?

In fact, what the hell did you just say? Go ahead, explain it, I'll bet you can't.

 

Aleksander, your context is too obtuse to respond to easily.

What I posted ARE explanations despite the fouled context of your post. And what I posted is relevant to your post.

Of course one can do that. It's against the law however. You asked half a question or made half a statement. I generally don't bother with word salad.

The below responded to the above in as far as it can be addressed.

And, expression of oneself in the face of a threat to not express is fully possible.

 

Did you get how I addressed your post the second time around after I explained each part as you bet I could not?

Now you owe me. You owe all of us. How are you going to pay?

I'll make it easy on you and beneficial to all of us. Vote that free speech has the ultimate purpose of protecting life, our unalienable rights and we are even.

 

Well those responses show accountability, love that.

But basically, without your life, the narrative do not matter.

But I approve of working to share with new generations and correcting erroneous narratives. All very much the purpose of free speech, but not the ultimate.

Then, the 2nd AMD is not to be directed at government working on destroying unalienable rights until well after the 1st AMD has widely failed. If that is happened, citizens are alone against a public funded military like law enforcement. If the 1st AMD is properly engaged, at the point where the 2nd is justified, the people are unified and their use of the 2nd is going to be VERY effective. Whereas the of the 2nd prematurely appears as criminal insurrection, whereas use of the 1st to unify states citizens to alter or abolish government working on destroying unalienable rights, with the powers of states, is fully lawful and constitutional sequence.

It seems our thinking is actually very close, but the fullest understanding compelling the zeal needed to invest in pushing state citizens to use the 9th amendment to define a massive deficiency in the 1st amendment has not yet blossomed.

Politics is hopeless corrupted. States citizens need to alter that system by their imposition of law. The fact that ONLY states citizens can define constitutional intent is something we can take advantage of through the 9th AMD. But we must agree. If we decide free speech has the ultimate purpose of enabling the unity required to alter or abolish, and the 1st AMD does not say that, we have the right amend so that the constitution says that. We do that through state legislations.

This means we have the right to impose our definition of constitutional intent upon state legislations in order that they propose and ratify only amendments that have constitutional intent as Article V states.

What I am proposing is essentially the most powerful legal mechanism of the land, and by that law, if we agree and it is in accord with the written intents of the constitution, we can change exactly what we need to to assure the preservation of the constitution.

 

The purpose of freedom of speech is to prevent an aspiring tyrant of any political persuasion from enforcing their ideas on the population. Free exchange of ideas prevents any aristocracy from suppressing any ideas that runs counter to their rule or their opinions.

 

The above is another way to describe unity. It is also a way to describe Article V used to stop aristocracy.

Free exchange if ideas implies everyone can get ideas before everyone. That notion hasn't manifested in function since 1790 probably.

That function is the PURPOSE of free speech.

 

ChristopherABrown....... a massive shift in the world economy could begin in the nations of Israel and Jordan and I believe that The Petra Project is worthy of your consideration.

http://www.politicalforum.com/middl...petra-project-israel-jordan-palestinians.html

 

Hello. I like your views very different to mine.

On this usa forum many gun debates. Why so many neeed guns? Not all hunt. So either self protection or status symbol. I never needed or wanted gun. This curious to me.

 

Loki, my views are quite different from most people, but there is good reason for that. People cannot reason without information, and Americans are quite deprived of accurate information. I have different sources that have been keeping oral histories for millenia, so can fill many gaps and explain some things that most just accept in a nonsensical form that has become written history.

Americans, because of those deceptions which church and state are behind, are naturally afraid, so feel they need guns. And, if they continue to ignore the illicit control over their country, they may need them. However, a non unified group of people with guns really just makes themselves a better, more visible and justifiable target for tyrants while creating reason for them to build up an army to control the peasants.

Between that lack of good information and the host of covert agents the tyrants and their minions send to distract, mislead, misinform and exploit the peasants, Americans seem quite disabled from realizing that their unity brings function to their weapons for defense of their rights, if they need them for that, which, if they act soon, they won't. And of course the latter will organize to bash good information their master want suppressed.

American media conditions all Americans that consume media to want weapons, by the glorification of violence.

 

Firearms enable citizens to protect themselves legally.
Free speech enables citizens to express themselves.

Each is a hallmark of a free people, ruled fairly by established, just laws, and protected in writing by a document of authorization. In our case, that document is the Constitution, which liberal Democrats work tirelessly, day and night, to weaken and destroy....

 

This of course is true.

Firearms enable citizens to protect themselves legally.
Free speech enables citizens to express themselves.

But it is not comprehensive to explaining HOW citizens are to effectively use their right to alter or abolish, which is the only way citizens can more permanently and securely protect unalienable rights.

 

Firstly I extend gratitude for participation in the poll of this thread to all who voted.
Understanding requires information. Information explaining poll choices will greatly enhance the reasonableness of opinion put forth.

The poll results appear to be diluted by votes that do not have posts that reasonably support the vote made.

POLL RESULTS:

Yes, free speech has the ultimate purpose of enabling our unity. 10 votes or 58.82%

We have a right to alter or abolish and only free speech can enable it. 2
votes or 11.76%

No, free speech simply is. It has no purpose. 2 votes or 11.76%

We have no rights. The DOI & constitution are only paper. 3 votes or 17.65%

We have 29.42% that have voted supporting that free speech has no purpose or we have no rights at all.

They have not posted any argument supporting those positions with any real substance.

Not one post shows that firearms have a purpose while free speech does not. Efforts to do so have been rebutted with the simple logic that if free speech is well or properly used, firearms are not needed. That clearly shows two things.

1) The framers intended for free speech to serve the purpose of enabling the unity to enable the right to effectively alter or abolish.

2) if the framers intended Americans be able to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights and logic dictates that free speech was the peoples only method which might serve the purpose of creating the unity needed effective to alter or abolish.

The lack of explanation for that 29.42% indicates that covert agents may be attempting to defeat the poll, or a degree of unreasonable obstinance persists which is not constitutional.

In order to provide a final opportunity to support that 29.42% this question should be answerable.

If the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights, what did they intend to serve the PURPOSE of enabling the unity required to effectively alter or abolish if it was not free speech?

And, if no answer is provided, then some explanation is reasonably due because our right to alter or abolish is VERY important and the unaccounted for poll responses might tend to make people think that the purpose of free speech presented here is not defined with full validity.

So those voting against the right of free speech having a specific and ultimate purpose under the law of the land, please explain.

What great sacrifice or compromise do you suffer by agreeing and accepting the logical elements of these inquiries as constitutional intent.

 

I read a post by a Rabbi a couple of days ago that indicates that
perhaps your lawful and peaceful revolution is beginning.


http://www.politicalforum.com/lates...-bernie-supporters-will-not-vote-hillary.html
Is the Rabbi correct that one third of Bernie supporters will NOT vote for Hillary?

Is Rabbi Shaul Marshall correct that one third of Bernie's supporters WILL NOT vote for Hillary Clinton on November 8?

Mitt Romney lost the election back in 2012 by being too hard on Newt Gingrich so.......
something along that line could perhaps be happening again.

https://www.facebook.com/rabbi.praver/posts/10208601930299169

Rabbi Shaul Marshall Praver:

 

Let me put it this way, if we ban guns then the people who shouldn't have guns will get them illegally and then all the psychos have guns and people who are law abiding do not have the means to protect themselves, and no knives against automatics or even pistols is not a good defense

 

Hmm, very interesting post and articles. I would have to agree that a percentage of voters are catching on to the scam of elections promoted through media influence. Media influence as it is, essentially abridges the purpose of free speech by misleading, when it does. Curiously, the article exposes the scam by indicating what media does not report!

Democracy is dependent upon opinion, opinion is dependent upon information, information to the public is greatly dependent upon media. As media exposes itself, the public, after a time, becomes wiser to the deception and manipulation. Therein is the purpose of free speech emerging through the publics forced uses of alternative information and it's own discourse over time relating to the dichotomy of deception vs truth.

 

What is clarified through this thread is that there is a preference for information which actually explains things, rather than that which simply expresses an opinion.

The simple expression of opinion does not return to repeat itself whereas the expression of information leading to a collective understanding with function does.

Accurate and refined opinion is its own state of satisfaction leading to functional capacity of a group and those of the group inherently know when that state of functionality is attained. A form of unity of opinion is established by default as long as the explanatory information is allowed to be expressed. Reason is accepted as it takes its own solitary course towards real explanation whereas rhetoric simply echoes.

 

ChristopherABrown..... I haven't yet fully processed how I can incorporate your ideas into one or two of my proposed political campaigns........

but I certainly am thinking about this......

Can you give me any advice on how your ideas might fit with gun control laws here in Canada......
if I am able to put together a campaign at the provincial or even federal levels of Canadian politics?


http://www.politicalforum.com/elect...campaign-over-next-four-years-no-kidding.html
Considering four campaign over the next four years...... no kidding!

 

Since, from what I've seen, the general opinion of the left and right is to disagree vehemently and/or verbally (sometimes physically) attack each other since it's impossible for them to compromise... how much does this so-called freedom truly matter to the majority of voters?

If you're going to get butthurt, and think that the a large group (up to and including the federal government) should step in to shut up the "aggressor" and give you a safe space... then you don't agree with free speech.

College campuses for the most part are a great example of places that claim to be bastions of free speech, but if you're conservative or simply not a progressive, you aren't welcome.