Swoosh.

The whole point of half my comments is to try and get people to think about an issue or story more, to consider what they might not have considered. To recognize the unknown unknowns and not jump to conclusions.
There is no harm in recognizing that one does not know enough yet and delay the forming of an opinion till more information comes.

You don't have to read between the lines, I speak very frankly and genuinely. If you read between the lines you are reading something that isn't there.

Maybe if you spent more time looking up facts about a topic and actually contributing to the discussion, your comments would be better received?

Seems you just want to be included, even though you really have nothing relevant to add.

Many of your posts that ask questions, like maybe the person was just doing something that changes the situation, were already answered in videos or reports not linked in the topic.  it takes just a few seconds to do a search and see if that question was answered before posting something that's already answered and makes your question incorrect.

Lazy?  Or just trying to be contrary?

It's one thing to tryng get others to think, but maybe it should start with you actually knowing what you're talking about first?  Then you could contribute more than a random thought, like "I found a link that refers to the person doing this that changes the situation."

Most of your questions can ba applied to every single thread.  Maybe this, perhaps that, this might have been the case, that could have been his mindset .... 

I admit the "news" is poorly research nowadays, yet you cite them when it supports your arguments -- so, the entire world of news can't be 100% lacking in "nuance".

What EEF says serves a purpose.   A big problem here and  with other groups that passionately support a subject is group think and too narrowly focused.  Where everyone thinks a certain way and aren't able to give consideration to other ideas.  That can become dangerous and leads to ineffectiveness.
To be the most effective you need to know as much relevant information as possible on both sides and be unbiased when making decisions.  When it comes to the 2A, that would be researching things from supporters and opponents, and being neither for or against the 2A for decision making.  That requires sometimes playing devil's advocate and bringing in outside ideas.

Thank you. You are, as usual, good at seeing through the emotion, and probably better at articulating them than I am.

Maybe if you spent more time looking up facts about a topic and actually contributing to the discussion, your comments would be better received?

Do you feel it is not contributing to step back for a second and ask a question that might bring into question someone's conclusion?

Most of your questions can ba applied to every single thread.  Maybe this, perhaps that, this might have been the case, that could have been his mindset .... 

That is how I try/tend to look at things, very analytically.

I am not perfect at it by any means, I am often tempted to side with some study that supports a certain side, I am human and subject to bias, But I do try to ask challenging questions of everything, even of myself. I find it batter, or at least harmless, to not jump to a conclusion.

His testimony isn’t a second amendment issue, nor a first amendment issue.  It is solely a pocketbook issue.

What EEF says serves a purpose.   A big problem here and  with other groups that passionately support a subject is group think and too narrowly focused.  Where everyone thinks a certain way and aren't able to give consideration to other ideas.  That can become dangerous and leads to ineffectiveness.
To be the most effective you need to know as much relevant information as possible on both sides and be unbiased when making decisions.  When it comes to the 2A, that would be researching things from supporters and opponents, and being neither for or against the 2A for decision making.  That requires sometimes playing devil's advocate and bringing in outside ideas.

What "research"? Searching for things on the internet is not research. i.e. last time someone did "research" on ricochets from Kokohead it was used to justify the banning of steel targets.
Theres no purpose in putting out bogus information and having it used against the 2a community

Thank you. You are, as usual, good at seeing through the emotion, and probably better at articulating them than I am.

Don't let this give you a hard on. He doesn't participate here as much.

In the past, I agreed that you're "objectiveness" was valid on some issues.  But recently all you do is object, even when the issue is clear. Hence why my replies to you have changed as well.

Don't let this give you a hard on. He doesn't participate here as much.

In the past, I agreed that you're "objectiveness" was valid on some issues.  But recently all you do is object, even when the issue is clear. Hence why my replies to you have changed as well.

Especially in the last year or two -- when he only shows up here every week or once a month.

It's like a drive-by with him now.  Rather than actually discuss anything, he gives his opinion (usually contrary) and disappears, only to come back days or weeks later to pick up where he left.  The real discussion has moved on, but he's still arguing and turning every thread into a pissing contest, arguing about nuance, definitions and hypotheticals that are not well thought out.

that person is just an antagonist. Not a shooter because range too far. All talk. A tool. Not a smith.

Don't let this give you a hard on. He doesn't participate here as much.

Shucks, I was really going for popularity  here 

Especially in the last year or two -- when he only shows up here every week or once a month.

It's like a drive-by with him now.  Rather than actually discuss anything, he gives his opinion (usually contrary) and disappears, only to come back days or weeks later to pick up where he left.  The real discussion has moved on, but he's still arguing and turning every thread into a pissing contest, arguing about nuance, definitions and hypotheticals that are not well thought out.

Are you offended that I don't show up to debate you daily? Sorry I don't dedicate more time to respond to you on your timing preference.

Language.  Without learning language one can't speak.

You don't have to speak to exercise "free speech".  The middle finger, Nazi salute, or even holding a sign made by someone else (holder can't read or write), are all protected.

But thank you for replying on what you think is required in order to exercise ones right.  I'm glad our government doesn't require one to learn language before exercising their right.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=xNToJwKE4F0

Sent from my moto g power (2021) using Tapatalk

You don't have to speak to exercise "free speech".  The middle finger, Nazi salute, or even holding a sign made by someone else (holder can't read or write), are all protected.

But thank you for replying on what you think is required in order to exercise ones right.  I'm glad our government doesn't require one to learn language before exercising their right.

Exactly.  The 1A doesn't cover speech specifically.  The SCOTUS has ruled any form of expression is covered.

Larry Flynt (Hustler Mag) won his 1A cases because photography and drawn artwork was deemed a protected, free expression.

You do know that's mostly language.  You learn all of that.   No one is born knowing anything you said.  Point is that no matter what you have to learn and be taught.  Only a few things like breathing you get just by being born.

Are you saying almost anything that you "have to" learn and is not an involuntary or instinctual trait counts as language?

I think that's what you are saying, but your use of the language is somewhat incoherent. 

I don't think anyone had to take a class on appreciating the human body in the nude.  Photography is just a medium for expression.  Don't confuse that with the actual message.

You do know that's mostly language.  You learn all of that.   No one is born knowing anything you said.  Even holding a sign is a taught skill.  Point is that no matter what you have to learn and be taught.  Only a few things like breathing you get just by being born.

Mostly, but not 100%. I've seen kids hold signs that I'm sure they don't comprehend what they're protesting against or for.  Also are you saying someone who's mentally handicap and cannot comprehend language is not afforded the 1st amendment?  You're right, holding a sign may be a taught skill, but it also may not be either.  And if it's the latter, then language has nothing to do with it.

Homeless are camping on the street. No one "taught" them to do it, they just did it. And they do have  rights.

So now lets apply your classes to other rights. How about search and seizure, what class does 1 need to attend so the government doesn't violate this?  How about quartering of soldiers? Or the right to due process or the right not to self incriminate?

Do you see where you're logic fails?  If you don't then I guess unless you took any of the classes for the above rights, you must not have them?

I forgot to add, since we need a CCW permit and have to show it as proof we took the "class" when interacting with the police, would we also need a separate permit that shows one took a language class?  How about for the classes I mentioned above?  People will need to carry like 15 different cards or 1 card with various credentials on it.  Then renew said permit/card.  And anyone who doesn't have this permit on them, the government can censor and do as they please right?

I used language as an example because it's 99% of free speech.   But since it was nitpicked I had to elaborate to include all aspects of learning.   Point is you have to learn stuff. 2nd ammendment isn't some magical exemption.  We must be practical.

Where did you get that "fact?"

Did you know that making a donation to a political campaign is protected under free speech?

You can also now wear a political badge, political button, or anything bearing political insignia inside a polling place on Election Day because it's free speech.

The state or federal government can't force a web designer to to create expressive designs containing messages with which the designer disagrees. 

A baker can't be forced to bake a cake with decorations or other expressive messaging (including language) that violates the baker's freedom to disagree.

Video games also qualify for first amendment free speech protection, as do books, plays, movies, etc.

Placing a permanent monument in a public park is a form of government speech, and therefore protected as free speech.

Burning a US Flag is protected free speech.

Burning a cross unless done in a way to terrorize or intimidate is protected free speech.

Nude dancing is protected free expression, but may be limited by local gov't to bar totally nude performance based on public indecency laws.

The list goes on...

Where did you get that "fact?"

Did you know that making a donation to a political campaign is protected under free speech?

You can also now wear a political badge, political button, or anything bearing political insignia inside a polling place on Election Day because it's free speech.

The state or federal government can't force a web designer to to create expressive designs containing messages with which the designer disagrees. 

A baker can't be forced to bake a cake with decorations or other expressive messaging (including language) that violates the baker's freedom to disagree.

Video games also qualify for first amendment free speech protection, as do books, plays, movies, etc.

Placing a permanent monument in a public park is a form of government speech, and therefore protected as free speech.

Burning a US Flag is protected free speech.

Burning a cross unless done in a way to terrorize or intimidate is protected free speech.

Nude dancing is protected free expression, but may be limited by local gov't to bar totally nude performance based on public indecency laws.

The list goes on...

I thing i agree with is HI law allows all to be topless in public.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Hmmm you guys make some good points.   But I still think many of that is still learned.   You have to have comprehension.  I personally believe if you are braindead you are dead.  The mentally ill have less rights. (Can't own guns). Etc

So do you believe that a drivers license is against your rights?   Having insurance?   What about degrees?   Permits? 

Where do we as a society draw the line?

You started out stating "Language.  Without learning language one can't speak. "

Now you're lumping in everything the human mind can do under the label "learning," and trying to expand your belief beyond just language -- now that you realize generalizing the way you did was incorrect.  That's a classic case of goal post moving.

Given your new logic, shooting someone is protected expression because you had to learn to use the gun.

As for your obvious attempt to muddy the water, there are rights, there are privileges and there are restrictions on both. 

You're certainly free to yell "fire!" in a crowded theater.  There may actually be smoke, and you are raising an alarm.  Or, it was a prank, and the attendees may evacuate calmly and without injury.  Therefore, no unfortunate consequences to your false alarm, and no laws broken.  You may be trespassed from that theater and all their other properties.  Rights allow you to act without government repercussion, so as a private theater company, they can certainly punish you for your behavior.  Nobody prevented you from yelling "fire!" is the point.  You chose to yell, and that speech is protected from government action as long as nothing bad resulted from it -- injury, death, property damage, etc.  Charges would be based on those outcomes, not the speech alone.

Operating a motor vehicle on public streets is not a right.  Unless you identify as a Sovereign Citizen, which would explain a lot.   

i don't know what you mean by "What about degrees?".  Maybe i never learned how to interpret an incomplete interrogative sentence fragment without proper context.