Comments on: Jon Stewart: Guns Don’t Protect Free Speech, the Consent of the Governed Does

By: Darkman

Darkman — Sat, 12 Oct 2024 16:30:47 +0000

This is something I read a few years ago on a different site and comes courtesy of ‘strych 9’. “When it comes to Civil Rights… Neither public opinion nor a potential risk presented by that Right…Is a moral or ethical reason to curtail the Right itself.”

By: fuah

fuah — Sat, 12 Oct 2024 13:56:32 +0000

guns enable real humans to protect themselves from commie/pedocrat actions

By: JC

JC — Sat, 12 Oct 2024 01:19:32 +0000

Idiot.

By: JimB

JimB — Sat, 12 Oct 2024 01:15:21 +0000

Jon Stewart: An aging B-list celeb struggling desperately to remain relevant by patronizing to the simple minded.

By: JS Bryan

JS Bryan — Fri, 11 Oct 2024 23:19:34 +0000

What a shock, an incoherent, expletive laced screed from a leftist/statist/fascist supposed ‘comedian’ with zero factual content based almost entirely on his emotions. As surprising as we still have gravity and water is wet.

By: SAFEupstateFML

SAFEupstateFML — Fri, 11 Oct 2024 19:46:35 +0000

In reply to 10mmForLife. We are still dealing with the Covid quarantine camp legality in court here in NY and I have little doubt the only reason we didn't see it in play was many in NY being armed with rifles not on any state registry let alone entire country being armed to some extent.

By: 10mmForLife

10mmForLife — Fri, 11 Oct 2024 18:14:21 +0000

“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” – Mao Zedong, Chairman Mao, at the beginning of the Chinese civil war.

I think Jon Stewart can be quite funny at times, but what happens when the governed DON’T consent? Tyrants aren’t known for the peaceful transition of power.

By: Matthew A Carberry

Matthew A Carberry — Fri, 11 Oct 2024 17:52:08 +0000

That’s a logically incoherent position.

What happens when those other remedies are withdrawn with the “consent” of a majority of people who disagree with him, using the power of the state as its “militia”? Revocation of consent requires the capability to do so, and a means to enforce that revocation. Absent a personal, effective means of revocation in extremis, “consent” is a sham – it is merely a self-deluding mask put on upon submission to the will of others with the power to impose it.