When Openly Carrying a Firearm Limits Others’ Free Speech…Allegedly

Open carry gun rights protest

A demonstrator carries an AR-15 rifle during a gun rally at the Capitol in Richmond, Va. (AP Photo/Steve Helber)

Now that Michael Bloomberg’s no longer occupied on the campaign trail, he can refocus his attention on financing the never-ending effort to disarm Americans, both on the streets and in their homes.

This, uh, think piece on open carry and the free speech is from his anti-gun agitprop generation outlet, The Trace.

For a chill on expression to cross over into a free speech violation, the threatening consequence of speech has to be immediate — like getting arrested for your dissenting speech, losing your job for your political views, or being shot at a protest. “It has to be some kind of tangible, compulsive, coercive impingement on you,” said (William and Mary Law School professor Timothy) Zick. One’s own perception that speech could get them into trouble is called “subjective chill,” and the Supreme Court has held that First Amendment claims based on that definition are dead on arrival.

As a result, a court would likely find no immediate threat to people who don’t attend protests because of open carry practices. As Zick noted, “Your willingness to rally amongst guns depends heavily on what you believe about guns.” Not everyone thinks that guns are inherently dangerous, and open carry laws by themselves don’t guarantee that people will use their firearms in a dangerous way. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit relied on this reasoning in a 2018 case about concealed carry in public university classrooms in Texas. A group of University of Texas professors argued that the presence of weapons in class would chill their First Amendment academic freedoms. But the court found they were choosing to self-censor their speech “based on the hypothetical future decisions of students.”

Some legal experts disagree with the jurisprudence and believe that guns in public spaces are incompatible with a functioning democracy. In a paper arguing that the Second Amendment right should exist only in the privacy of one’s home, Darrell Miller of Duke Law School argued, “The presence of a gun in public has the effect of chilling or distorting the essential channels of a democracy.” He added, “Valueless opinions enjoy an inflated currency if accompanied by threats of violence.”

Likewise, Mary Anne Franks of the University of Miami has argued that, under the sway of the gun lobby, the Supreme Court has transformed the Second Amendment into a “superright” — one with the ability to override others — with the power to cancel out the freedom of speech by intimidating people into silence. “This chilling effect,” she noted in her book The Cult of the Constitution, “is felt most acutely by the least powerful members of society.”

– Olivia Li in When Protestors Carry Guns, Does It Impede Others’ Free Speech?

comments

  1. avatar pwrserge says:

    That’s adorable… she thinks commie vermin like her have rights.

    1. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

      Everyone has rights, everywhere and all the time.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Wrong. People have rights. Commies aren’t people

        1. avatar Anton Solomyr says:

          As much as I loathe the precepts of communism and all which it represents (the abject stifling of individuality and self-determination), we cannot make exceptions to one’s right to their own beliefs and free will. If someone believes in communism and wants to talk it up, let them. It’s their right to express their views; the 1st Amendment recognizes and protects such rights of everyone. It’s a dangerous and slippery slope to persecute someone based solely on their beliefs. We have no more right to limit someone’s expression based on how it makes us feel than someone has the right to limit our right to keep and bear arms based on how it makes them feel.

          Now if and when they choose to act on them, if those actions violate the rights of another/others, then it becomes necessary to stifle such behavior with punitive action. Not before.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          … and you wonder how commies managed to infiltrate every level of western society and are busy tearing it apart? Principles and an empty sack are worth the sack.

        3. avatar 41mag says:

          Pwrserge, remind me of that Polish merc who was quoted about fighting Communists…

        4. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Anton Solomyr,

          I support the idea that Freedom of Speech encompasses an extremely wide latitude of ideas.

          I do not support the idea that Freedom of Speech covers ideas that promote infringing upon our inalienable rights.

          As an example I do not support the idea that Freedom of Speech covers promoting a government program to execute all Japanese Americans.

        5. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Constitutional protections for freedom of speech/expression do not exist for protection of speech that is agreeable or non-controversial. Such speech needs no protection. Rather, those constitutional protections are specifically intended to protect offensive and controversial speech.


          Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. Only an emergency can justify repression. Such must be the rule if authority is to be reconciled with freedom. Such, in my opinion, is the command of the Constitution. It is therefore always open to Americans to challenge a law abridging free speech and assembly by showing that there was no emergency justifying it.

          Moreover, even imminent danger cannot justify resort to prohibition of these functions essential to effective democracy unless the evil apprehended is relatively serious. Prohibition of free speech and assembly is a measure so stringent that it would be inappropriate as the means for averting a relatively trivial harm to society. A police measure may be unconstitutional merely because the remedy, although effective as means of protection, is unduly harsh or oppressive. Thus, a State might, in the exercise of its police power, make any trespass upon the land of another a crime, regardless of the results or of the intent or purpose of the trespasser. It might, also, punish an attempt, a conspiracy, or an incitement to commit the trespass. But it is hardly conceivable that this Court would hold constitutional a statute which punished as a felony the mere voluntary assembly with a society formed to teach that pedestrians had the moral right to cross unenclosed, unposted, wastelands and to advocate their doing so, even if there was imminent danger that advocacy would lead to a trespass. The fact that speech is likely to result in some violence or in destruction of property is not enough to justify its suppression. There must be the probability of serious injury to the State. Among free men, the deterrents ordinarily to be applied to prevent crime are education and punishment for violations of the law, not abridgment of the rights of free speech and assembly.

          – Louis Brandeis, concurring, Whitney v California (1927)

        6. avatar SomeDudeThatHasAnAssloadOfGreentip says:

          This. . . Commies are sh*tbag subhumans that deserve nothing.

        7. avatar Fred says:

          Look in the mirror. The commie you see staring back at you is……you.

        8. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          I see what you tried to do there, Chip, but I respectfully disagree. All speech must be gathered under the umbrella of protection, both obnoxious and agreeable. Perhaps a better way to say it is that constitutional protections only need to be invoked if the speech is obnoxious.

        9. avatar strych9 says:

          “Principles and an empty sack are worth the sack.”

          I would argue this is incorrect. It’s exactly the problem with the American Left and with Communists worldwide.

          The reason they seem so crazy to many people is because they lack principles. This allows they to say/do whatever they want but it makes them very inconsistent.

          Their arguments don’t follow the normal course of a logical argument because… they don’t have to. It’s whatever they want it to be at the time. Which is exactly why they’re dangerous. They can justify things like mass murder “for the people” or runeous economic policies for the advancement of the economy.

          Their arguments are feelz based because that’s convenient and because without principles there’s no reason not to just do whatever you want. Someone says something you don’t agree with? Call ‘wm a Nazi and throw a punch or swing a bike lock. They’re not a Nazi? Sure they are because a Nazibis whatever the fuck I say it is because I want to.

        10. avatar Purity of Essence says:

          True. People are individuals. Commies have surrendered their individuality to the collective. They’re more like ants than people. Unfortunately, also like ants they are damn hard to get rid of.

      2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        Since communism has a long and bloody history, the only way to promote it is either through lying or pure ignorance. So, does the 1st Amendment protect dishonest or ignorant speech? Unfortunately, ignorant speech is protected, so you’re free to babble on, expressing your stupidity to anyone caring to notice. However dishonest speech is not protected IF that dishonesty could be to the detriment of others. Fraud, for instance is not protected speech. So anyone with an IQ over 3 who espouses communism is clearly commiting fraud and therefore should be tried and summarily executed. Or at least censured.

        1. avatar In for a penny, In for a pound says:

          I live in an agricultural state, which means our economy is based upon providing material support to communist China. Thank the boomers for that. Trump has given farmers 20 billion tax dollars at least, because of the losses from not being able to supply communist China with goods.

          That’s a lot of heavily armed people who financially depend upon communist china, who you wish harm. Good luck with that.

        2. avatar burley says:

          if you will, I’d like to refine your point just a tiny bit:
          you are allowed to speak dishonestly. You are NOT protected from the consequences of your lies. ALL speech should be allowed in a free society. However, if you have a clear case of someone’s lies causing harm to others, they should be sentenced to a sutiably strong punishment. If life was lost, then an execution may be in order.

        3. avatar Hush says:

          “Freedom of Speech” and “freedom to speak” are not the same things. As the Gov pointed out Fraudulent speech can end poorly for the speaker. Committing perjury in a court of law is speech one should avoid even though one is free To speak. Running one’s mouth in public about how you would would hurt or kill a home intruder may at some future date come back to haunt you in a civil or criminal trial. Again you are Free to speak, but as I have pointed out before in comments, is it always wise to do so?

        4. avatar Hannibal says:

          The idea of executing someone for political speech under the auspices of ‘fraud isn’t protected speech’ is so thoroughly stupid and contrary to the intent of the First Amendment that I don’t know if you’re joking or not. I know pwrserge is a fascist in the true sense of the word (right wing authoritarian nationalist) but Poe’s law makes it hard to tell who else is in that game.

        5. avatar pwrserge says:

          I just believe that any healthy Republic needs a Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus on occasion. I’m also not under the mistaken impression that dealing with communists using half measures is going to do anything other than wind up with the destruction of human civilization at their hands. These scumbags are insane. You don’t reason with a rabid dog, you put it down.

    2. avatar In for a penny, In for a pound says:

      You are who We Americans have the right to use force upon. The commies messed up by not removing all of your family members, but not nearly as bad as the U.S. government officials that let your kind flee to our shores. Fortunately, We White Americans are not known to make that mistake of not removing all our enemies, when it is legal to protect our families from authortarian scum like yourself.
      Heck, there are many cavalry men buried in the pastures and mountains around here, next to the indians they tried to force on Whites.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Oh look, a genocidal white nationalist. How novel.

        There is nothing authoritarian about stomping out an existential threat to human civilization by any means necessary.

        1. avatar In for a penny, In for a pound says:

          The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is for war, and war is meant to be fought by killing all of your enemy, which your own words prove you to be. The Constitution is a White cultural construct so of course I’m a White nationalist.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          Go home and polish your jackboots. Your Demokkkommie buddies are going to miss you at your weekly cross burning.

        3. avatar Boomerpoast says:

          Cross *lightings*

      2. avatar Everyday_Carrier says:

        Fuck you nazi/redneck/whateverkindofracistyouare

    3. avatar Bill B says:

      As my relatives in the Carolinas would say
      “Well, bless her heart”.

      1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        OT, but I *just* saw this breaking news come out on the wire!

        https://www.marketwatch.com/story/warren-to-end-bid-for-democratic-presidential-nomination-ny-times-2020-03-05?siteid=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A%20marketwatch%2Fmarketpulse%20(MarketWatch.com%20-%20MarketPulse)

        Warren is dropping out! Now it’s between “All Your Dollars Are Belong To Us” Sanders and “Sleepy, Creepy, Two-Shots” Biden.

        The race is now down to three older white men in their 70s (Trump, Biden, Sanders). The Dems must be having fits about it. Where’s muh diversity, lol?

        1. avatar jwm says:

          All wealthy old white men. So much for a sweeping change…..

        2. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

          A PRE DEMENTIA PATIENT or A Crazy Commie Loon,either candidate will lose to Trump,thankfully,e

    4. avatar Someone says:

      Sadly, they are people and their right to speak is protected by the First amendment. No matter how dishonest, stupid or hurtful the speech, no matter if the speaker is a racist, National socialist or even a communist.

    5. avatar Thixotropic says:

      They DO have the same rights as you and I do.

      There is NO such thing as ‘Hate Speech’ there is only Unpopular Speech.

      There is NO such thing as a ‘Hate Crime’ there is only crime.

      There is NO SUCH THING as ‘Gun Violence’ only Criminal Violence.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        We covered this. PEOPLE have the same rights as I do. Commies aren’t people.

    6. avatar Kroglikepie says:

      Communists are not people, they are property of the State.

  2. avatar bryan1980 says:

    If people chose to self-censor, that’s they’re problem. The only speech I can think of that open carry might limit is “Give me your wallet”.

    1. avatar bryan1980 says:

      “Their”, not “they’re”……dammit.

    2. avatar burley says:

      which is precisely why politicians hate the 2A. They’re afraid to demand more from an armed people.

  3. avatar No one of consequence says:

    So that means they’re against Antifa, right? Since they represent not a threat but a promise of violence to those who disagree with them.

  4. avatar Shire-man says:

    So my action results in your hurt feelings which results in restricting my action which results in my hurt feelings which results in you restricting your action which results in your hurt feelings which results in restricting my action which results in my hurt feelings…..

    1. avatar Gordon in MO says:

      No, that only works one way.

      Their hurt feelings trump you and everything you would think, feel or say, so BE SILENT PEASANT !!!

    2. avatar In for a penny, In for a pound says:

      In Montana, it would be considered intimidation for a White man to be open carrying next to a jew. The conservatives were scared of the Whites saying it is okay to be White, and infinged on the White Citizen’s rights, so the conservatives wouldn’t be viewed as racists.

      1. avatar Boomerpoast says:

        Oh no- they will call you a leftist troll on this blog now goy.

      2. avatar Excedrine says:

        Except that it actually wouldn’t be, especially not in deep-red Montana, and you know it. You liberals were scared of blacks going about their business peaceably — and armed, and infringed on black citizen’s rights, and convinced the country that conservatives were the racists.

        The problem is you. Unfuck yourself.

  5. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

    as opposed to only gov having arms and silencing all speech.

  6. avatar Wedge259 says:

    Someone who writes a book called “The Cult of The Constitution” sounds like someone who uses it as toilet paper. But that sounds like a “cult” we should all be in, and be proud of it!

  7. avatar Nww says:

    Bryan1980 hit the nail on the head. Guns suppress people from committing crimes against others. If someone’s too cowardly to speak when a firearm is nearby that’s their problem.

  8. avatar tdiinva says:

    They have their super right — abortion

    We have our.duper right — public carry

    Fair is fair.

    Oh, our super right is explicitly stated in the Constitution.

    Their’s just in pnumbras and emminations

  9. avatar surlycmd says:

    Someone in a law school thinks the USA is a democracy. Interesting.

    1. avatar Mercury says:

      Inb4 “democracy just means representative government.” Don’t anyone fall for that sophistry. That’s just a way for a speaker to conflate all forms of government-by-consent with the radical “tyranny of the majority” of democracy, and then deflect when called out on it. Make no mistake, tyranny of the majority is exactly what leftists want, and our republic which prevents it by design is repugnant to them.

  10. avatar LKB says:

    Law professor and noted 2A scholar Glenn Reynolds (a/k/a Instapundit a/k/a The Blogfather) commented on this argument that lawful carrying = improper chilling of First Amendment speech. (This was one of the arguments that the goofball UT professors made to try and get Texas’ legalization of campus carry overturned.)

    He correctly characterized it as “an embarrassingly stupid argument.” And, of course, both Judge Yeakel and the Fifth Circuit agreed.

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      “He correctly characterized it as “an embarrassingly stupid argument.” And, of course, both Judge Yeakel and the Fifth Circuit agreed.”

      The problem are the Circuits that disagree…

  11. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    “This chilling effect,” she noted in her book The Cult of the Constitution, “is felt most acutely by the least powerful members of society.”

    If only there were a tool that effectively equalized disparity of power among members of society…

    1. avatar 41mag says:

      Winner

  12. avatar Warchild says:

    They ain’t gonna do shitt, bunch of skirt hiders
    I’m spitting in their face

  13. avatar Geoff ‘lie with fleas get up with unvaccinated dogs says:

    Does it mean my right to free speech is auto-suppressed every time I see a cop?

    1. avatar jwm says:

      You said it purdier than I could.

      1. avatar Geoff “Guns. Lots of guns.” PR says:

        That wasn’t me, JWM…

    2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      I see what you did there with your temporary name change, lol. Are you trying to conjure up a once-active-now-absent commenter who couldn’t seem to discuss anything without mentioning the vaxx?

      Be careful. Once Beetlejuice is summoned, he’s very difficult to put back into the bottle.

      1. avatar Geoff “Guns. Lots of guns.” PR says:

        That wasn’t me, Haz.

        There have been a few imposter posts over the past few days, if I had to guess, it’s probably little one-trick-pony ‘pee-gee2’, royally pissed-off I’m rubbing his nose in TTAG’s official policy of no vaccine commentary.

        It’s rather hilarious, living in his pointed head rent-free… 😉

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Hmmm…

          ‘Ol Beetlejuice’s reappearance might explain some other oddball comments posted today under oddball usernames never seen before. A couple of them swirled around the verboten topic of “medical lightning rod” topics (I dare not write them here for fear of invoking the site filters, lol).

        2. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          *Exactly*.

          Those are the ones…

  14. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    Hypothetically, by this logic, if a little league baseball field was to be leveled to make way for a new Walmart, the little leaguers could not carry their bats to the protest, as someone might infer that as a threat of violence. If you infer a threat that was never implied, that’s your own stupidity squashing your 1st Amendment rights. So deal with it.

    1. avatar Ginder12 says:

      Someone who knows the proper use of infer and imply. You win the internet for a week.

      1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        I suppose I should have explained the difference for the unwashed masses, but this should work even better. – dictionary.com

        You know, the whole ‘give a man a fish, vs teaching him how to fish’ thing …

        1. avatar jwm says:

          Build a fire for a man and he’s warm until the fire goes out. Set a man on fire and he’s warm for the rest of his life.

        2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          jwm, that’s gold. I’m taking it.

        3. avatar jwm says:

          Feel free. I stole it from someone else.

        4. avatar Yes he is. says:

          Feel free. I stole it from another, also. My reply to you under jwm vanished.

        5. avatar Mr Lucky says:

          “Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day… Teach a man to fish and he will sit in a boat and drink beer all day.”

      2. avatar Nero "...diction, not grammar..." Wolfe says:

        +1 Ginder12

  15. avatar General Zod says:

    Oddly enough, the open carry of firearms in public was a major factor in the creation of a government that is supposed to protect that right a couple of centuries ago…

  16. avatar Stateisevil says:

    FL GOP says I have a government granted privilege to carry concealed only, in certain places only. So I don’t have to worry about open carry.

    1. avatar Yes he is. says:

      Florida Man? That explains a lot….

    2. avatar Someone says:

      I see your FL ‘no open carry’ and raise you the IL FOID hall pass without which I can’t even touch a gun at my LGS, never mind buy one or ammo for one.

  17. avatar HoundDogDave says:

    “Valueless opinions enjoy an inflated currency if accompanied by threats of violence.”

    Hence, my visibly carrying protection against violence, or threats of violence will likely curtail your valueless opinions being accompanied by threats of violence toward others.

    An armed society, is a polite society.

  18. avatar strych9 says:

    So is having like minded friends a “super right”? I mean that might chill someone’s speech if they’re alone and disagree with you.

    I would argue not.

    Then there’s the question of if generally unfavorable opinions are a free speech right being trampled due to being held by the minority. And does the trampling “super right” vary with circumstance and location? For example exposing racist views might be “chilled” at a bar with a large number of people belonging to the race in question. I’m not seeing how having 50 black dudes in a bar “chills” the speech of a neonazi.

    Seeing as guns appear to be the key here I would say that this whole thing seems to be based on the faulty premise that “guns = violence” that chills speech… but strangely only if the guns are visible.

  19. avatar The art of the Boomerpoast says:

    Free speech? I get censored here on TTAG if I:
    -question if 11 year old girls open carrying an AR15 helps save 2A rights
    -correctly point out that human lampshades never happened
    -criticize Kat Ainsworth for justifying murdering your spouse

    Y’all don’t care about free speech.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      Sorry, snowflake. This is a privately owned and run site. They have the right to delete any and all comments.

      If you want to play like an uncivilized savage don’t be surprised if you’re treated like an uncivilized savage.

      1. avatar Cal says:

        Watching JWM defend censorship while allegedly defending the Bill of Rights. This is the Kind of egregious hypocrisy that makes this blog so entertaining!

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          It’s not censorship. We’ve all seen some of our comments randomly disappear, and Dan has explained that TTAG has had some hiccups with its WordPress filters for a while. The site seems to be doing better recently.

          Then again, there was some sort of scandal a few months back that got so bad it prompted Dan himself to intervene and post an article dedicated to the subject, though I don’t recall all the details.

          In any case, act like you actually want to be here, and you won’t have to worry about all the kids throwing dirt clods at you.

        2. avatar strych9 says:

          Even if it is censorship this ain’t your sandbox so you don’t get to make the rules.

          The just of the previous issue was that a certain poster showed up daily and posted about vaccines, never talking about anything else, and often hijacking threads with off topic discussions that often devolved into idiotic arguments.

          TTAG doesn’t care about occasional off topic discussions or sidebars but they decided they didnt want someone who consistantly caused problems and literally never talked about the topic this website exists to discuss. At that point it was just straight out trolling and they requested that it stop.

        3. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Um…however…I purposefully spelled “WordPress” with a lower case ‘p’, and it was somehow changed in my comment above when I posted it. What the heck, Dan? This isn’t helping the argument that nothing’s going on behind the curtain at TTAG…

        4. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          I purposefully spelled “WordPress” with a lower case ‘p’, and it was somehow changed in my comment above when I posted it…

          That has nothing to do with Dan or TTAG. It is due to a built-in, core filter in WordPress (called, accurately enough, “capital_P_dangit”), that is automatically applied (along with other, similarly cosmetic and data-sanitizing filters) to comments by WordPress.

        5. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Must be an auto-editor, as I spelled it with a lower case ‘p’ again. I’ll do it one more time, and I’ll bet TTAG will change it again. None of our comments should ever be edited/changed…

          WordPress

        6. avatar HoundDogDave says:

          So guess that would makes it WordSuppress or maybe just WordRepress.

        7. avatar You So Stupid It Should Hurt says:

          cal, apparently the concept of censorship is above your iq level. Private house, private rules. I’m posting under a different name because the glitch has hit again.

        8. There was never a “scandal” here. One commenter who has a proclivity for Reynolds Wrap headwear was convinced that we were shadow banning him. We neither have that capability, nor would we use it if we did. We don’t edit posts (such as the spelling of WordPress) either…see Chip’s explanation above.

          Here’s that post from July:
          https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/a-few-words-on-ttags-comment-policy/

          We’ve tried to tweak the WordPress comment filters so that it doesn’t catch as many innocuous words and phrases, holding them for moderation. It probably snags between five and ten a day (that’s out of hundreds or thousands…we have over 2 million comments in on the site).

          That said, there is a range of pretty obvious words in the filter that trigger a hold on a post and they will remain.

          What I wrote in that July post stands. If you want to talk about the topic raised in a post, have at it. If you want to hijack the comments to talk about vaccines, crop circles, the Holomodor…whatever…do it somewhere else.

          Off-topic rants and flame wars will be deleted when I see them. They’re boring and there are too many other places you can happily do that.

        9. avatar Cal says:

          For the forum posters with lower IQs…..yes there is a difference between 1st amendment protected speech, and old fashioned censorship. I never said anything about government encroachment of my 1st Amendment rights. I spoke of censorship, which many here openly support. Fixed it for ya.

        10. avatar Mr Lucky says:

          Try this: “wordpress”.

        11. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          “In any case, act like you actually want to be here, and you won’t have to worry about all the kids throwing dirt clods at you.”

          *Applause*… 😉

        12. avatar Geoff "Trolls, the other white meat" PR says:

          “This is the Kind of egregious hypocrisy that makes this blog so entertaining!”

          If there’s anyone who knows hypocrisy, it’s Leftist scum like yourself, son…

  20. avatar Slow Joe Crow says:

    This quote sounds like Antifa in a nutshell “Valueless opinions enjoy an inflated currency if accompanied by threats of violence.”

  21. avatar Kendahl says:

    Do they really expect me to believe they wouldn’t be intimidated by an unarmed person, a foot taller than they, 100 pounds heavier and decades younger, glaring at them?

    1. avatar Kapeltam says:

      These people would feel threatened by a grape.

      1. avatar JG says:

        They also fear their own lack of self-restraint if they were carrying firearms. (antifa, for example) Therefore, no one should carry.

      2. avatar frank speak says:

        the presence of weapons openly displayed would seem appropriate at a second amendment rally…such as the one in VA…but, perhaps not where some other issue is in play…..

  22. avatar Matt in Oklahoma says:

    Just cause you Can say things doesn’t mean you SHOULD

  23. avatar Kimber says:

    It’s like smoking. We free thinking people have a basic right to NOT HAVE gun nuts breathing their toxic ideologies around us. Get your guns off our land.

    Remember. Trump has already lost the election. Beto and Obama are on Joe’s side. Joe will take every state. Black Americans will have a second Obama in 2021 and Beto will be the gun control czar. Kiss your firearms and asses goodbye.

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      Amazing how people like Rob Reiner managed to make a large portion of this country into morons.

      If you don’t like smoke or smokers then you have this freedom called “freedom of association” which you can use to disassociate yourself from smokers and their fumes.

      But nah, telling g other people what to do is bettah.

    2. avatar pwrserge says:

      Remind me to lite up a cigar at the next opportunity so that I can blow my $100 smoke into your commie face.

      1. avatar Fappy says:

        I am like Bill Clinton, I stuff my intern with my cigars

        1. avatar Geoff "Trolls, the other white meat" PR says:

          ‘Fappy’, what a perfect name for a jerk-off like yourself… 😉

    3. avatar Everyday_Carrier says:

      da fuq did I just read?

      You want to compare the second amendment to smoking? Gun nuts? lol. Show me a better weapon to defend yourself from someone intent on doing you harm, or overthrow government tyranny. I’ll wait. Just know anything you say that is a better weapon will either do more, or less damage, and in terms of less damage, are you really willing to put your life on the line for that? Sympathy? Is that what you have towards someone intent on killing you? Naive.

    4. avatar Geoff "Trolls, the other white meat" PR says:

      “It’s like smoking. We free thinking people have a basic right to NOT HAVE gun nuts breathing their toxic ideologies around us.”

      Nope, you get to suck on it and like it.

      You see, that’s what someone who is tolerant and accepting of others not like themselves does.

      You’re a hypocrite, ‘kimber’. You and every last one of your little shit buddies. Guns are here to stay, and soon will be legal to carry concealed nation-wide, whether you like it or not.

      Consider it an excellent opportunity for you to work on your coping skills… 🙂

  24. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    My rights don’t end where some Commies feelz begin.

  25. avatar Sam I Am says:

    1A was written to prohibit the federal government from interfering with freedom of speech, it does not protect speech from consequences. Self-censorship is a consequence.

    These whimps who believe their speech is threatened by the presence of firearms in public are quite comfortable with the chilling effect on speech presented by protest mobs, especially violent protesters such as Antifa. Such intimidation resulting in self-censorship by Antifa targets is just part of democracy.

  26. avatar Mike says:

    My favorite concept, and I see it more and more, is that “democracy” can’t do something, or something doesn’t support “democracy”. I simultaneously laugh, vomit a little, and die a little inside everytime I read this somewhere. What does and does not or may or may not do ANYTHING for democracy is of little consequence here. Why? America is not a democracy, and we don’t practice it. You want it? Go somewhere with it in the name; like China, North Korea, Cuba, or Congo. (the full names of these places take great care to include The Democratic People’s Republic of… or some close variant of such) We are not a democracy, so stop getting butthurt about democracy in America.

  27. avatar Debbie W. says:

    The word democratic is used to gloss over the word rat in democRat.
    Bottom line fact is the roots of Gun Control are in racism and genocide. That fact makes gun control zealots nazis and racists.

  28. avatar Nacho says:

    Be safe with that virus out there folks!

  29. avatar hawkeye says:

    Superright? Really? By the Supreme Court? The 2A has been chipped away to become a scrawny wisp of what was intended. A few decisions have kinda glued a couple of the chips back in place, and she thinks the result is a superright? I’m rarely rendered sputtering, but….the audacity….

  30. avatar Prndll says:

    People are more likely to choose their words more carefully when carrying. There is a lesser likelihood of profane yelling matches. It doesn’t always work that way but it does tend to. This is normal.

    I would like to see people get upset about their 1st amendment rights being takin by gang members, criminals, and thugs carrying their guns in public.

    If someone is afraid of speaking up about something when a licensed person legally carries, it says more about that person and less about the carrier (or the gun).

    Lol,
    I don’t feel free to criticize you and your ideas when your carrying a gun.

    These people are confusing the good guys for the bad guys.

  31. avatar D.J.U. says:

    By this being said then All police are openly suppressing free speech daily. That makes them unconstitutional. Not. This ding bat is a true commy all the way. But if you beleave that dribble that those commies push then you need to be in China or North Korea or some other true communist run country. Of course in those countries you can’t say things like that as they are not free speech advocates.

  32. avatar Reredacted says:

    Im on the side of absolute protection of free speech. Germany is a good example of how anything else leads to tyranny. For example, do you question the official narrative of the holocaust in any way? That’s likely to get you years in prison in Germany.

    For anyone interested, the more I learn about wwii, the less I believe the official holocaust narrative. The number six million in particular. Oh and gas chambers. Change my mind!

    1. avatar Everyday_Carrier says:

      I’m sorry are you saying there were no gas chambers? Or the holocaust was not as serious as the numbers? TBH, I could care less if that number was 6 billion, or 60. It happened. Your statement is a bit confusing.

      1. avatar Reredacted says:

        Primarily that there were no gas chambers as we have been made to understand the meaning of those words. Yes there was a holocaust. Most if not all people who died in camps were starved or stricken by disease and then cremated or buried. And based on census numbers before the war and a somewhat unreliable accounting of jews who were able to flee before being interred or killed, the six million figure makes absolutely no sense. Then take the number of people who either survived, returned, or emigrated to Israel and you’ll see even less evidence to support the six million figure.

        The preceding paragraph would most likely get me years in prison in Canada, Australia, UK, Germany, Israel and the list goes on. I’m not denying anything. Except maybe the gas chambers. If anyone has direct evidence of their existence I would be glad to see it. All I am saying is I simply don’t believe the narrative I was taught in public schools or that I hear regurgitated any time the topic is brought up.

        1. avatar Everyday_Carrier says:

          German scientist bent babies in half to see how flexible they were… I don’t doubt there were gas chambers – in teh name of science…

  33. avatar jwm says:

    No need to even try. You’re a bigot looking to ignore the truth and will have none of it. I’ve talked to ww2 vets that saw the crimes with their own eyes.

    You have to have a scapegoat for your own failed life. Why not the jews?

    1. avatar jwm says:

      Meant for reredacted.

    2. avatar Reredacted says:

      Interesting that you would jump to the conclusion that I’m a bigot. The definition of bigot is a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions. Maybe you meant to say that I’m a racist or anti-semite? I’m none of those things. But it seems you may be intolerant toward me for holding different opinions. Am I guilty of anything for simply asking for proof of grave accusations? I have spoken to many vets also. None of whom said they saw gas chambers, gas manufacturing facilities, etc. They saw crematorium to be sure. And like I said above I would gladly look at any evidence you have for the existence of operational gas chambers in any Nazi held territory before, during, or after the war. Would you be willing to look at evidence I’ve found that says they never existed? Or evidence that the Nuremberg trials were kangaroo courts? If the answer is yes I’ll show you the rabbit hole.

      My point is we can all despise what the Nazis did without resorting to lies.

  34. avatar eagle10 says:

    If these people dislike guns so much, they should move to a country where their views are matched by the government. Like Mexico, Cuba, England, Australia, etc. Maybe we should put them all on Alcatraz Island and let them fend for themselves.

  35. avatar WI Patriot says:

    “When Openly Carrying a Firearm Limits Others’ Free Speech…Allegedly”

    Well, it certainly limits the lefts ability to talk shit and nonsense and commits acts of violence…

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      would you carry an AR-15 to a school board meeting?….what message would that send?

  36. avatar MigraineMan says:

    Your irrational fear of an inanimate object is not my problem.

    1. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

      “Your irrational fear of an inanimate object is not my problem.”
      In this case they actually fear the person carrying the gun. It is their belief that the very purpose of carrying the gun is to prevent them from saying things you don’t want to hear and therefore you have infringed on their 1st amendment right. Unfortunately, based on many of the comments on this site at least in some cases they are correct.

      Here is my suggestion, let’s have a “We the people” rally where everyone is invited and everyone can, if they choose, speak their thoughts on the 2nd amendment. Before the cowards start yelling they won’t go if they can’t carry, think about growing a pair, and going “commando” for a few hours. Worried about your family? Leave them home! Let’s be the grown ups for once and organize this thing. Show we’re not the ogre’s we’ve been made out to be, and get a national stage to get the real statistics and facts out there for all to hear. In other words, let’s debate this thing in public instead of preaching to the choir on sites like this.

    2. avatar frank speak says:

      It’s a bit like someone standing in front of you slowly tapping a baseball bat in the palm of his hand…what would you infer from that?…

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “It’s a bit like someone standing in front of you slowly tapping a baseball bat in the palm of his hand…what would you infer from that?…”

        A person could infer many things, but until aggressive action is taken, armed response is not appropriate. The mere presence of a person holding a weapon is not a direct threat to anyone (or everyone). But to continue the analogy, attending a public meeting while holding a bat, slowly tapping it, is not illegal, nor is it a direct threat. It could be a comfort bat.

      2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        You’re comparing a holstered firearm to a brandished baseball bat? Sorry, but that dog won’t hunt.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Hey, Chip

          Good to see ya’, again.

    3. avatar frank speak says:

      it’s all about context…sometimes these displays do more harm than good….

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “it’s all about context…sometimes these displays do more harm than good….”

        Yes, and the context is no private citizen should own firearms. People displaying reminders to the government of its proper limits, and the consequences for egregious disregard, should be normal.

  37. avatar Hans says:

    https://www.law.miami.edu/faculty/mary-anne-franks

    “Mary Anne Franks, Professor of Law and Dean’s Distinguished Scholar, teaches criminal law, criminal procedure, First Amendment law, Second Amendment law, family law, and Law, Policy, and Technology. Professor Franks is also an Affiliated Faculty member of the University of Miami Department of Philosophy. She also serves as the President and Legislative & Tech Policy Director of the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, a nonprofit organization dedicated to combating online abuse and discrimination.”

    https://www.amazon.com/Cult-Constitution-Mary-Anne-Franks/dp/1503603229

    “n this controversial and provocative book, Mary Anne Franks examines the thin line between constitutional fidelity and constitutional fundamentalism. The Cult of the Constitution reveals how deep fundamentalist strains in both conservative and liberal American thought keep the Constitution in the service of white male supremacy.

    Constitutional fundamentalists read the Constitution selectively and self-servingly. Fundamentalist interpretations of the Constitution elevate certain constitutional rights above all others, benefit the most powerful members of society, and undermine the integrity of the document as a whole. The conservative fetish for the Second Amendment (enforced by groups such as the NRA) provides an obvious example of constitutional fundamentalism; the liberal fetish for the First Amendment (enforced by groups such as the ACLU) is less obvious but no less influential. Economic and civil libertarianism have increasingly merged to produce a deregulatory, “free-market” approach to constitutional rights that achieves fullest expression in the idealization of the Internet. The worship of guns, speech, and the Internet in the name of the Constitution has blurred the boundaries between conduct and speech and between veneration and violence.”

    Now examine this doltish quote!!

    “keep the Constitution in the service of white male supremacy.”

    It appears her other campaign is the liberation of women. She is an
    active Fem and more than likely a Misandry, in the most classical sense.

  38. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    In other words when the 1st amendment becomes about guns instead of about pornography and flag burning. Then the people need to have their 1st amendment rights limited by the government. And limited by the business world. Because it was called a violation of free speech when people called for private business to limit displays of porn. Or calls to stop advertisement of porn.

    The 1st amendment for Sex materials and images but not for images of guns and open carry. But it’s ok for large women to expose their sagging breasts in public. Or on days the government gives you permission you can perform sex acts in public.

  39. avatar Will Drider says:

    Fear not the Law abiding Citizens whether they be armed or not, lest you lay with Tyrants to remove their Liberties!

    History shows British collaborators an supporters were held accountable for their words and actions.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email