I’m preaching to the choir here I suspect, but here is a couple of things to think on;

One of the most common arguments to be made against the 2nd Amendment at first starts with an acknowledgement that the 2nd is, in part, in place to resist a tyrannical government.

Once acknowledging the argument, a counter argument will be made of ”Opposing a tyrannical government, in 2021, is impossible because governments employ jets, tanks, and so forth, so therefore a citizen armed with an “assault rifle” has no hope of toppling an oppressive government.” . Then justifications will be made regarding application of the 2nd in an attempt to reduce the argument to justifying sustinance hunting only or some other “socially valid” excuse.

Except, this isn’t what we saw on January 6th. Instead, what we saw was quite a few thousand Americans outraged at the failure of their congressional and judical representation almost capture the Capitol without a single shot being fired, except by the Capitol police.

Imagine for a moment if the crowd we saw on January 6 was armed. Imagine if instead of walking away, Trump had instead marched with this imaginary crowd. What might the military’s reaction been when Trump approached the Capitol with thousands of armed patriots in support?

Would it then have been possible for this crowd of armed Americans to topple what they and many of us see a false and tyrannical government? Would their actions have been to hunt down oppression or instead solidify the guidelines of the Consitution? And I’m not asking here what Trumps actions would have been, but instead asking about those in the crowd and what their demands would have been.

It’s ideas like this and the consideration of them, whether to agree or disagree, which pose a threat to sitting tyrannical governments. When we consider what might have been, we can envision what can be. However to do that we need to be able to communicate. And that is what is truly under attack.

They don’t want us gathering with friends, or family, or in crowds, or anywhere else where we can sit down and simply discuss what we all think is bullshit. Don’t forget we need to keep social distancing and stop the spread or else we’re threats to society.

And we most certainly can’t risk spreading hate speech, or discussions of sedition, or fake news about voting, or anti-vaxx, or anything remotely dangerous to the staus quo because someone smarter than us decided what the status quo is and we really need to listen to them because they are an expert after all.

But don’t worry your freedom of speech is safe. You can say wherever you want online, so long as too many people don’t listen. If too many people listen we will need to make sure what you’re saying doesn’t violate the terms of service, which need to change regularly to reflect a dynamic social atmosphere.

Don’t worry! You can always just call into a radio show, and they might let you discuss this on air as long as what you are going to say isn’t inciting to anything illegal in the programmers opinion.

If it is, you can get a newspaper ad, as long as it meets the editorial opinion of your local newspaper.

Failing all of that, you could just go down the street and preach on the corner until the by-law enforcement officer fines you or calls a police officer to drag you away to a safe place.

Unless you have a gun, and a few thousand supporters, and a man willing to lead. Then there has to be a serious reconsideration of who gets to say what, when you get to say it and where it gets said, and who is Consitutionally bound to listen to it and act on it.

So just don’t forget this Easter Weekend when you are enjoying your right to free speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of religion that the main reason the 2nd Amendment exists is so tyrannical governments don’t fuck around with the 1st Amendment.

Happy Easter Conspiracies.win

I’m preaching to the choir here I suspect, but here is a couple of things to think on;

One of the most common arguments to be made against the 2nd Amendment at first starts with an acknowledgement that the 2nd is, in part, in place to resist a tyrannical government.

Once acknowledging the argument, a counter argument will be made of ”Opposing a tyrannical government, in 2021, is impossible because governments employ jets, tanks, and so forth, so therefore a citizen armed with an “assault rifle” has no hope of toppling an oppressive government.” . Then justifications will be made regarding application of the 2nd in an attempt to reduce the argument to justifying sustinance hunting only or some other “socially valid” excuse.

Except, this isn’t what we saw on January 6th. Instead, what we saw was quite a few thousand Americans outraged at the failure of their congressional and judical representation almost capture the Capitol without a single shot being fired, except by the Capitol police.

Imagine for a moment if the crowd we saw on January 6 was armed. Imagine if instead of walking away, Trump had instead marched with this imaginary crowd. What might the military’s reaction been when Trump approached the Capitol with thousands of armed patriots in support?

Would it then have been possible for this crowd of armed Americans to topple what they and many of us see a false and tyrannical government? Would their actions have been to hunt down oppression or instead solidify the guidelines of the Consitution? And I’m not asking here what Trumps actions would have been, but instead asking about those in the crowd and what their demands would have been.

It’s ideas like this and the consideration of them, whether to agree or disagree, which pose a threat to sitting tyrannical governments. When we consider what might have been, we can envision what can be. However to do that we need to be able to communicate. And that is what is truly under attack.

They don’t want us gathering with friends, or family, or in crowds, or anywhere else where we can sit down and simply discuss what we all think is bullshit. Don’t forget we need to keep social distancing and stop the spread or else we’re threats to society.

And we most certainly can’t risk spreading hate speech, or discussions of sedition, or fake news about voting, or anti-vaxx, or anything remotely dangerous to the staus quo because someone smarter than us decided what the status quo is and we really need to listen to them because they are an expert after all.

But don’t worry your freedom of speech is safe. You can say wherever you want online, so long as too many people don’t listen. If too many people listen we will need to make sure what you’re saying doesn’t violate the terms of service, which need to change regularly to reflect a dynamic social atmosphere.

Don’t worry! You can always just call into a radio show, and they might let you discuss this on air as long as what you are going to say isn’t inciting to anything illegal in the programmers opunion.

If it is, you can get a newspaper ad, as long as it meets the editorial opinion of your local newspaper.

Failing all of that, you could just go down the street and preach on the corner until the by-law enforcement officer fines you or calls a police officer to drag you away to a safe place.

Unless you have a gun, and a few thousand supporters, and a man willing to lead. Then there has to be a serious reconsideration of who gets to say what, when you get to say it and where it gets said, and who is Consitutionally bound to listen to it and act on it.

So just don’t forget this Easter Weekend when you are enjoying your right to free speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of religion that the main reason the 2nd Amendment exists is so tyrannical governments don’t fuck around with the 1st Amendment.

Happy Easter Conspiracies.win

I’m preaching to the choir here I suspect, but here is a couple of things to think on;

One of the most common arguments to be made against the 2nd Amendment at first starts with an acknowledgement that the 2nd is, in part, in place to resist a tyrannical government.

Once acknowledging the argument, a counter argument will be made of ”Opposing a tyrannical government, in 2021, is impossible because governments employ jets, tanks, and so forth, so therefore a citizen armed with an “assault rifle” has no hope of toppling an oppressive government.” . Then justifications will be made regarding application of the 2nd in an attempt to reduce the argument to justifying sustinance hunting only or some other “socially valid” excuse.

Except, this isn’t what we saw on January 6th. Instead, what we saw was quite a few thousand Americans outraged at the failure of their congressional and judical representation almost capture the Capitol without a single shot being fired, except by the Capitol police.

Imagine for a moment if the crowd we saw on January 6 was armed. Imagine if instead of walking away, Trump had instead marched with this imaginary crowd. What might the military’s reaction been when Trump approached the Capitol with thousands of armed patriots in support?

Would it then have been possible for this crowd of armed Americans to topple what they and many of us see a false and tyrannical government? Would their actions have been to hunt down oppression or instead solidify the guidelines of the Consitution? And I’m not asking here what Trumps actions would have been, but instead asking about those in the crowd and what their demands would have been.

It’s ideas like this and the consideration of them, whether to agree or disagree, which pose a threat to sitting tyrannical governments. When we consider what might have been, we can envision what can be. However to do that we beed to be able to communicate. And that is what is truly under attack.

They don’t want us gathering with friends, or family, or in crowds, or anywhere else where we can sit down and simply discuss what we all think is bullshit. Don’t forget we need to keep social distancing and stop the spread or else we’re threats to society.

And we most certainly can’t risk spreading hate speech, or discussions of sedition, or fake news about voting, or anti-vaxx, or anything remotely dangerous to the staus quo because someone smarter than us decided what the status quo is and we really need to listen to them because they are an expert after all.

But don’t worry your freedom of speech is safe. You can say wherever you want online, so long as too many people don’t listen. If too many people listen we will need to make sure what you’re saying doesn’t violate the terms of service, which need to change regularly to reflect a dynamic social atmosphere.

Don’t worry! You can always just call into a radio show, and they might let you discuss this on air as long as what you are going to say isn’t inciting to anything illegal in the programmers opunion.

If it is, you can get a newspaper ad, as long as it meets the editorial opinion of your local newspaper.

Failing all of that, you could just go down the street and preach on the corner until the by-law enforcement officer fines you or calls a police officer to drag you away to a safe place.

Unless you have a gun, and a few thousand supporters, and a man willing to lead. Then there has to be a serious reconsideration of who gets to say what, when you get to say it and where it gets said, and who is Consitutionally bound to listen to it and act on it.

So just don’t forget this Easter Weekend when you are enjoying your right to free speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of religion that the main reason the 2nd Amendment exists is so tyrannical governments don’t fuck around with the 1st Amendment.

Happy Easter Conspiracies.win

I’m preaching to the choir here I suspect, but here is a couple of things to think on;

One of the most common arguments to be made against the 2nd Amendment at first starts with an acknowledgement that the 2nd is, in part, in place to resist a tyrannical government.

Once acknowledging the argument, a counter argument will be made of ”Opposing a tyrannical government, in 2021, is impossible because governments employ jets, tanks, and so forth, so therefore a citizen armed with an “assault rifle” has no hope of toppling an oppressive government.” . Then justifications will be made regarding application of the 2nd in an attempt to reduce the argument to justifying sustinance hunting only or some other “socially valid” excuse.

Except, this isn’t what we saw on January 6th. Instead, what we saw was quite a few thousand Americans outraged at the failure of their congressional and judical representation almost capture the Capitol without a single shot being fired, except by the Capitol police.

Imagine for a moment if the crowd we saw on January 6 was armed. Imagine if instead of walking away, Trump had instead marched with this imaginary crowd. What might the military’s reaction been when Trump approached the Capitol with thousands of armed patriots in support?

Would it then have been possible for this crowd of armed Americans to topple what they and many of us see a false and tyrannical government? Would their actions have been to hunt down oppression or instead solidify the guidelines of the Consitution? And I’m not asking here what Trumps actions would have been, but instead asking about those in the crowd and what their demands would have been.

It’s ideas like and the consideration of them, whether to agree or disagree, which pose a threat to sitting tyrannical governments. When we consider what might have been, we can envision what can be. However to do that we beed to be able to communicate. And that is what is truly under attack.

They don’t want us gathering with friends, or family, or in crowds, or anywhere else where we can sit down and simply discuss what we all think is bullshit. Don’t forget we need to keep social distancing and stop the spread or else we’re threats to society.

And we most certainly can’t risk spreading hate speech, or discussions of sedition, or fake news about voting, or anti-vaxx, or anything remotely dangerous to the staus quo because someone smarter than us decided what the status quo is and we really need to listen to them because they are an expert after all.

But don’t worry your freedom of speech is safe. You can say wherever you want online, so long as too many people don’t listen. If too many people listen we will need to make sure what you’re saying doesn’t violate the terms of service, which need to change regularly to reflect a dynamic social atmosphere.

Don’t worry! You can always just call into a radio show, and they might let you discuss this on air as long as what you are going to say isn’t inciting to anything illegal in the programmers opunion.

If it is, you can get a newspaper ad, as long as it meets the editorial opinion of your local newspaper.

Failing all of that, you could just go down the street and preach on the corner until the by-law enforcement officer fines you or calls a police officer to drag you away to a safe place.

Unless you have a gun, and a few thousand supporters, and a man willing to lead. Then there has to be a serious reconsideration of who gets to say what, when you get to say it and where it gets said, and who is Consitutionally bound to listen to it and act on it.

So just don’t forget this Easter Weekend when you are enjoying your right to free speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of religion that the main reason the 2nd Amendment exists is so tyrannical governments don’t fuck around with the 1st Amendment.

Happy Easter Conspiracies.win

I’m preaching to the choir here I suspect, but here is a couple of things to think on;

One of the most common arguments to be made against the 2nd Amendment at first starts with an acknowledgement that the 2nd is, in part, in place to resist a tyrannical government.

Once acknowledging the argument, a counter argument will be made of ”Opposing a tyrannical government, in 2021, is impossible because governments employ jets, tanks, and so forth, so therefore a citizen armed with an “assault rifle” has no hope of toppling an oppressive government.” . Then justifications will be made regarding application of the 2nd in an attempt to reduce the argument to justifying sustinance hunting only or some other “socially valid” excuse.

Except, this isn’t what we saw on January 6th. Instead, what we saw was quite a few thousand Americans outraged at the failure of their congressional and judical representation almost capture the Capitol without a single shot being fired, except by the Capitol police.

Imagine for a moment if the crowd we saw on January 6 was armed. Imagine if instead of walking away, Trump had instead marched with this imaginary crowd. What might the military’s reaction been when Trump approached the Capitol with thousands of armed patriots in support?

Would it then have been possible for this crowd of armed Americans to topple what they and many of us see a false and tyrannical government? Would their actions have been to hunt down oppression or instead solidify the guidelines of the Consitution? And I’m not asking here what Trumps actions would have been, but instead asking about those in the crowd and what their demands would have been.

It’s ideas like and the consideration of them, whether to agree or disagree, which pose a threat to sitting tyrannical governments. When we consider what might have been, we can envision what can be. However to do that we beed to be able to communicate. And that is what is truly under attack.

They don’t want us gathering with friends, ot family, or in crowds, or anywhere else where we can sit down and simply discuss what we all think is bullshit. Don’t firget we need to keep social distancing and stop the spread or else we’re threats to society.

And we most certainly can’t risk spreading hate speech, or discussions of sedition, or fake news about voting, or anti-vaxx, or anything remotely dangerous to the staus quo because someone smarter than us decided what the status quo is and we really need to listen to them because they are an expert after all.

But don’t worry your freedome of speech is safe. You can say wherever you want online, so long as too many people don’t listen. If too many people listen we will need to make sure what you’re saying doesn’t violate the terms of service, which need to change regularly to reflect a dynamic social atmosphere.

Don’t worry! You can always just call into a radio show, and they might let you discuss this on air as long as what you are going to say isn’t inciting to anything illegal in the programmers opunion.

If it is, you can get a newspaper add, as long as it meets the editorial opinion of your local newspaper.

Failing all of that, you could just go down the street and preach on tge corner until the by-law enforcement officer fines you or calls a police officer to drag you away to a safe place.

Unless you have a gun, and a few thousand supporters, and a man willing to lead. Then there has to be a serious reconsideration of who gets to say what, when you get to say it and where it gets said, and who is Consitutionally bound to listen to it and act on it.

So just don’t forget this Easter Weekend when you are enjoying your right ti free speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of religion that the main reason the 2nd Amendment exists is so tyrannical governments don’t fuck around with the 1st Amendment.

Happy Easter Conspiracies.win