I don't know shit about this dude but I really like this answer

Squirt said:

oregonblitzkrieg said:

Squirt said:

In fact, I disagree with Justice Stevens' conclusion that the First Amendment allows a state to criminalize flag burning.

HTFH. Go back to school little fish.

The word "allow" in this context does not carry the same meaning as "authorizes" or "empowers" or "grants power to" or whatever else. It means "does not prohibit." The First Amendment, in the opinion of Justice Stevens and the other dissenters (Justices White, O'Connor, and Rehnquist), does not prohibit the states from criminalizing flag burning.

Prohibiting flag burning is a violation of free speech. Again, not surprising that 'liberal' leaning judges would err on the side of authoritarianism in their interpretation of the Constitution.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Squirt said:

oregonblitzkrieg said:

Squirt said:

oregonblitzkrieg said:

Squirt said:

In fact, I disagree with Justice Stevens' conclusion that the First Amendment allows a state to criminalize flag burning.

HTFH. Go back to school little fish.

The word "allow" in this context does not carry the same meaning as "authorizes" or "empowers" or "grants power to" or whatever else. It means "does not prohibit." The First Amendment, in the opinion of Justice Stevens and the other dissenters (Justices White, O'Connor, and Rehnquist), does not prohibit the states from criminalizing flag burning.

Prohibiting flag burning is a violation of free speech. Again, not surprising that 'liberal' leaning judges would err on the side of authoritarianism in their interpretation of the Constitution.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Um, yes, that's my opinion too, although you seem to have comprehended differently.

Here's a fun little test of OBK's constitutional knowledge. Notice that the First Amendment explicitly applies to "Congress," but not the states. How could it be that the states are subject to the First Amendment's protections of free speech?

Yeah, I'm aware of your side's fetish with these little 'fun facts.' I've been reading your shit philosophy on the DSA website, your side is using the same tactics to attack the 2nd amendment by trying to make the argument that the amendments don't apply to the states. I don't know if there's a legal way to attack this argument, I never claimed to be a constitutional lawyer. Here's what you should keep in mind though.

The 2nd amendment backs up the first amendment. Millions of Americans own guns, will refuse to ever turn them in, and are willing, if need be, to use them to depose any government or checkmate any fascist movement that attempts to infringe on these basic pillars of American freedom. You should consider that unspoken but settled law.

ThomasFremont said:

oregonblitzkrieg said:

Squirt said:

oregonblitzkrieg said:

Squirt said:

oregonblitzkrieg said:

Squirt said:

In fact, I disagree with Justice Stevens' conclusion that the First Amendment allows a state to criminalize flag burning.

HTFH. Go back to school little fish.

The word "allow" in this context does not carry the same meaning as "authorizes" or "empowers" or "grants power to" or whatever else. It means "does not prohibit." The First Amendment, in the opinion of Justice Stevens and the other dissenters (Justices White, O'Connor, and Rehnquist), does not prohibit the states from criminalizing flag burning.

Prohibiting flag burning is a violation of free speech. Again, not surprising that 'liberal' leaning judges would err on the side of authoritarianism in their interpretation of the Constitution.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Um, yes, that's my opinion too, although you seem to have comprehended differently.

Here's a fun little test of OBK's constitutional knowledge. Notice that the First Amendment explicitly applies to "Congress," but not the states. How could it be that the states are subject to the First Amendment's protections of free speech?

Yeah, I'm aware of your side's fetish with these little 'fun facts.' I've been reading your shit philosophy on the DSA website, your side is using the same tactics to attack the 2nd amendment by trying to make the argument that the amendments don't apply to the states. I don't know if there's a legal way to attack this argument, I never claimed to be a constitutional lawyer. Here's what you should keep in mind though.

The 2nd amendment backs up the first amendment. Millions of Americans own guns, will refuse to ever turn them in, and are willing, if need be, to use them to depose any government or checkmate any fascist movement that attempts to infringe on these basic pillars of American freedom. You should consider that unspoken but settled law.

Where were all the gun toting freedom lovers when privacy rights went *poof*??? Just admit that your little armed revolution fantasy is bullshit. Go play Call of Duty, boy.

Yeah, about that... I'm not the one agitating for revolution, those are your guys.

ThomasFremont said:

oregonblitzkrieg said:

ThomasFremont said:

oregonblitzkrieg said:

Squirt said:

oregonblitzkrieg said:

Squirt said:

oregonblitzkrieg said:

Squirt said:

In fact, I disagree with Justice Stevens' conclusion that the First Amendment allows a state to criminalize flag burning.

HTFH. Go back to school little fish.

The word "allow" in this context does not carry the same meaning as "authorizes" or "empowers" or "grants power to" or whatever else. It means "does not prohibit." The First Amendment, in the opinion of Justice Stevens and the other dissenters (Justices White, O'Connor, and Rehnquist), does not prohibit the states from criminalizing flag burning.

Prohibiting flag burning is a violation of free speech. Again, not surprising that 'liberal' leaning judges would err on the side of authoritarianism in their interpretation of the Constitution.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Um, yes, that's my opinion too, although you seem to have comprehended differently.

Here's a fun little test of OBK's constitutional knowledge. Notice that the First Amendment explicitly applies to "Congress," but not the states. How could it be that the states are subject to the First Amendment's protections of free speech?

Yeah, I'm aware of your side's fetish with these little 'fun facts.' I've been reading your shit philosophy on the DSA website, your side is using the same tactics to attack the 2nd amendment by trying to make the argument that the amendments don't apply to the states. I don't know if there's a legal way to attack this argument, I never claimed to be a constitutional lawyer. Here's what you should keep in mind though.

The 2nd amendment backs up the first amendment. Millions of Americans own guns, will refuse to ever turn them in, and are willing, if need be, to use them to depose any government or checkmate any fascist movement that attempts to infringe on these basic pillars of American freedom. You should consider that unspoken but settled law.

Where were all the gun toting freedom lovers when privacy rights went *poof*??? Just admit that your little armed revolution fantasy is bullshit. Go play Call of Duty, boy.

Yeah, about that... I'm not the one agitating for revolution, those are your guys.

Answer the question.

Why axe a question you already know the answer to? Obviously people don't value their privacy enough to take up arms. Try taking their speech and gun rights away and the sleeping bear will get woke. Like the great Russian bear, it will plow through everything and everyone in its path to reach the capitol city of the enemy and obliterate it like 1940's Berlin.

oregonblitzkrieg said:

ThomasFremont said:

oregonblitzkrieg said:

ThomasFremont said:

oregonblitzkrieg said:

Squirt said:

oregonblitzkrieg said:

Squirt said:

oregonblitzkrieg said:

Squirt said:

In fact, I disagree with Justice Stevens' conclusion that the First Amendment allows a state to criminalize flag burning.

HTFH. Go back to school little fish.

The word "allow" in this context does not carry the same meaning as "authorizes" or "empowers" or "grants power to" or whatever else. It means "does not prohibit." The First Amendment, in the opinion of Justice Stevens and the other dissenters (Justices White, O'Connor, and Rehnquist), does not prohibit the states from criminalizing flag burning.

Prohibiting flag burning is a violation of free speech. Again, not surprising that 'liberal' leaning judges would err on the side of authoritarianism in their interpretation of the Constitution.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Um, yes, that's my opinion too, although you seem to have comprehended differently.

Here's a fun little test of OBK's constitutional knowledge. Notice that the First Amendment explicitly applies to "Congress," but not the states. How could it be that the states are subject to the First Amendment's protections of free speech?

Yeah, I'm aware of your side's fetish with these little 'fun facts.' I've been reading your shit philosophy on the DSA website, your side is using the same tactics to attack the 2nd amendment by trying to make the argument that the amendments don't apply to the states. I don't know if there's a legal way to attack this argument, I never claimed to be a constitutional lawyer. Here's what you should keep in mind though.

The 2nd amendment backs up the first amendment. Millions of Americans own guns, will refuse to ever turn them in, and are willing, if need be, to use them to depose any government or checkmate any fascist movement that attempts to infringe on these basic pillars of American freedom. You should consider that unspoken but settled law.

Where were all the gun toting freedom lovers when privacy rights went *poof*??? Just admit that your little armed revolution fantasy is bullshit. Go play Call of Duty, boy.

Yeah, about that... I'm not the one agitating for revolution, those are your guys.

Answer the question.

Why axe a question you already know the answer to? Obviously people don't value their privacy enough to take up arms. Try taking their speech and gun rights away and the sleeping bear will get woke. Like the great Russian bear, it will plow through everything and everyone in its path to reach the capitol city of the enemy and obliterate it like 1940's Berlin.

Your obsession with Russia is just weird, man. Take Babushka’s dick out of your mouth.