An armed person intent on wreaking havoc with a firearm probably loves when his targets are unarmed and can't shoot back.
For instance, look at those puss hunters shooting animals.
Yes, there have been no end of mass shootings in the States foiled by the intervention of an armed citizen. For instance...
...well, I'll leave that one up to you.
Haha, beautifully stated.
In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they're not.
The OP claimes to have been involved with chess for 20 yrs. He's been here for 7 months, and has 0 friends. What's up with that?? No friends in 7 months and now he want's to talk about guns ?? Not a good sign of balanced mental health. I'm notifying SWAT in case they have to respond to this thread. If you see something, SAY something.
If only you were here, I'd be happy to discuss my Second Amendment rights with you...
I'm English. We don't have the right to keep and bear arms... fortunately
(punchline in white text)
In my opinon, Brit's should also not have the right to bare arms.
So pasty.
I can answer your question. In the 70's, the NRA began a campaign to change the Constitution. There was no FOX network in the 70's. The're playing on people's fear ever since.
I'm one of the biggest critics of censorship on chess.com, but still I have to admit that chess.com does not violate free speech in legal terms. Chess.com has the right to censor what you post on its forums, and it makes sense for it to do so for the purpose of increasing revenue - a great majority of people (not including me) would agree that some censorship is good, and if there are too many posts in the forums that are generally considered offensive it could very likely drive potential customers away. So even though I don't like censorship, I can understand why chess.com does it.
I agree with Mr. Macer75.....and dont forget there are kids that play here too....my 14 yr old son is one of them....
So you're suggestiong non-subscribers should have their right to speech on this topic curtailed?
Non-subscribers aren't non contributors at all. There is a lot of value sourced from this audience, and I'm not talking about ad revenue.
Huh? You are not making a lot of sense here.
And I'd dispute the first part.
I can assure you of one thing. If you start swearing up a storm like a drunken sailor, chess.com WILL violate your free speech rights. But I recently went to the VA to be hypnotised to never do that again. Now,who took my cigarettes??
Aren't you quiting, Ronald?
I can assure you of one thing. If you start swearing up a storm like a drunken sailor, chess.com WILL violate your free speech rights. But I recently went to the VA to be hypnotised to never do that again. Now,who took my cigarettes??
You have no right to swear up a storm like a drunken sailor here. In fact, you explicitly agreed not to when you agreed to the terms of service.
Trivialized how? You mean by trying to impose restrictions on who could and couldn't weigh in on a debate about censorship?
Well I'm going in the right direction. I've cut back considerably, and I'll be getting Chantix and hypnosis from the VA shortly.
Well don't quit quitting. What do they call cigarettes ? Nails in a coffin ?....I know a little bit about coffins Ronald. They can wait for you....
....
I can assure you of one thing. If you start swearing up a storm like a drunken sailor, chess.com WILL violate your free speech rights. But I recently went to the VA to be hypnotised to never do that again. Now,who took my cigarettes??
You have no right to swear up a storm like a drunken sailor here. In fact, you explicitly agreed not to when you agreed to the terms of service.
In fact you do have the right! Sort of. It's like driving through a red light. You have the right to do it for let's say 300 euro.
One time I was looking for half an hour for a parking spot and there were none available. Since I was late for something important. (a date) I parked my car nose first against the front door of the post office which was closed. A meter maid walked by and told me I could not park there. Of course I replied that for a lousy 125 euro I could park my car anywhere I damn well liked. She gave me a ticket. No sense of fair play.
That is exactly what it means. Freedom of speech = first amendment = government censorship only. In fact, the first amendment only applies to 1 of the 3 branches of government, the legislative i.e. Congress. You are entitled to nothing here at chess.com in terms of freedom of speech.
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.
That's the amendment. Nothing more than that.
First you try to redefine "troll", now free speech, too? ;)
P.S. The OP's trolling attempt is not free speech, either.