2nd Amendment

How so?

You must base your opinion on something, I am very interested in what would make you think that.

 

What happens in other countries. How many dissidents or journalists are imprisoned world wide just for voicing their opinion or telling the truth?

 

I think that the issue with the right to bear arms ( ie not just guns but knives and other tools that are design more to be a weapon) is that while it does push people that are both armed and don't want to get hurt to talk. This would not have been the case before. The point to a degree of the 2nd Amendment to be counter to a government that would use force instead of reason to control the population. It is not a perfect solution, but it has shown value I think in history. It works when the people are rational and thoughtful. I think however that recent history has shown how irrational people have used to manipulate the intent to cause disorder to subvert the system. Media as it is today makes it so easy to twist the truth to make anyone any sane person question how to act. The ability to make people fear makes it easy to make them to want to arm to protect what they believe is being destroyed and needs to be protected. Beyond that we also have to keep in mind that people use weapons to hurt others, much of the violence is about people in a bad mental state not getting the help and support they need. We use fear of jail to try to tempter these acts, however fear has never stopped people from acting when they feel they have little choice.

 

There are definitely those countries that do not have freedom of the press, but there are other countries that do, and have strict gun laws...and are doing well

 

You mean the "supposed freedom of the press". Look what the current regime in the USA has been doing with social media. Censoring any and all content that is contrary to the approved narratives. High courts recently found that was in violation of the 1st amendment. How will the current regime protect itself now? Send out the ANTIFA and BLM goon squads again?

 

Are you Canadian? If not, then, according to the groupthink here, you have no right to comment on Canadian politics.

 

You do understand the media and social media are different, right?
Social media companies are corporations not owned by the government, so do not fall under 1st Amendment requirements. They got caught with their pants down for selling personal data to some really bad folks who used it to spread ridiculous lies that targeted the MAGAzombies...who fell for it hook, line, and sinker!

 

Boy oh boy, you really bought that lie in total. Here social media and mainstream media are in lock step. I'm talking about the US government colluding with ALL media forms to limit and censor free speech. I'm not talking hate speech, I'm talking about difference of opinion and suppression of scientific information that does not reflect the approved narratives. Has NOTHING to do with the sale of private information (which has been done). YES!!!! The Supreme Court has ruled that the Biden regime MUST STOP coercing media from censoring information and from blocking those individuals "labeled" as "misinformation speakers" (my term not theirs).

 

The Executive Order Trump put out must have slipped your mind.

Here is a nice little piece that walks you through it:

https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/29/...edia-censorship-executive-order-analysis-bias

Biden is certainly not perfect, but Trump was purposely hateful, like the true narcissist he is.

 

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Biden regime MUST STOP coercing media from censoring information and from blocking those individuals "labeled" as "misinformation speakers" (my term not theirs).

The same Supreme Court that reversed Roe v Wade after the three Trump-appointed justices said they would not?

The same Supreme Court that refuses to follow the same reporting rules required for every other court in the land?

The same Supreme Court that allows justices with clear conflicts of interest to not recuse themselves?

I could go on but it is obvious this Supreme Court is biased like none other before.

 

It was a tongue-in-cheek response, thus the smiley face

 

Easy thar, Tex. It was only a joke.

 

2nd is an archaic law from a time that is long gone, used mostly by Freeeedum co spiracy theorists and gun nuts

 

Personally I love shooting. It's a fun hobby and sport. I have no problem with ARs and AKs as long as they're owned/operated by responsible parties.

 

Who is/are the people who determine who is responsible? Politicians? Physicians? We all saw the aftermath their COVID response. I no longer trust any of them.

 

I'm not saying the government should necessarily impose those rules, though I DO prefer "shall-issue" CCW permiting over constitutional carry.

Generally it's my belief that the responsibility aspect should be a personal understanding. Being a gun owner/user is a great power, so it requires greater personal responsibility. Basically, if your going to buy a gun, make sure to study and practice the basic safety rules, store it where it isn't easily accessible to other's or children, etc...

I generally believe that when systems are trusted to maintain safety and responsibility, people get careless and rely on them. For example, a safety switch. Most gun owners know that they still need to practice traditional gun safety regardless of what position a switch/lever is in. But some folks get too complacent because they're relying on that safety device (basically the ole "relax bro, the safety's on" while they wave the weapon towards others). We've seen the same in cars too, some people drive more aggressively and stop harder because they're trusting their anti-lock brakes too much. Responsibility should always lie with the user/operator first and foremost.