Please clarify. Are you saying Finicum would have been murdered for speaking what he did if he carried no gun and made no indication he would use one in his defense from unlawful (sic) law enforcement?freedomforall wrote:Let me clarify. I'm speaking in terms of the whole populace and your speaking of a few incidents. Lavoy was murdered and he would have been treated the same way because government cops are vindicated buy criminals in power...ChristopherABrown wrote:How did that work for LaVoy Finicum? He was not working to restore the purpose of free speech, he was working other rights and to see the government act only within the constitution.freedomforall wrote:The 2nd amendment assures we have the first amendment due to having a defense and a sense of fear from those trying to take one or both of them away.ChristopherABrown wrote:
If the weapon of the 2nd amendment has a purpose, does the speech of the 1st amendment?
Which is most important?
Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?
Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?
Would you prefer Americans are picked off one at a time because of their guns? Or would you prefer they unify first?
http://algoxy.com/law/lawfulpeacefulrevolution.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;]lawful and peaceful revolution
I mean if the 1st amendment gets Americans unified, and they work together for their lawful and peaceful revolution, but it doesn't work, they are still armed AND unified.
Which do you prefer?
Which do you work for?
Seems he might still be alive and succeeding if his right to have his free speech serve the purpose it was intended to by reaching 200 million Americans before he considered having the federal government deem him a threat then ambush him because he scared people with a weapon.
I wish he were still alive, so he might eventually understand how a lawful and peaceful revolution is designed to work. If oathkeepers had not banned me in 2009 as I promoted Article V and constitutional intent.
As it is grazing rights and the limits of land ownership by the federal gov is unchanged. My right to see my free speech serve its purpose is perhaps even less influential than it was two months ago because now people that speak to enforcement of the constitution can be seen as a as an armed threat. My right to bear arms could be considered lessened to as I speak for the constitution because now the Feds are more afraid of citizens having guns they may use.
Then, if what you wrote is true, why isn't the 1st amendment about the right to bear arms instead of free speech?
You could have just stuck with the format i provided and said you prefer Americans die lonely deaths rather than seeing free speech serve its purpose and enable the unity required to effectively enforce the constitution, whether it be with the force of the will of the majority or their weapons after peaceful,
lawful means fail.
Seems to me you advocate people should be afraid to speak their mind about the government. Wow.