with what weapons? the UK does not honor the right to bear arms or the right to self-defense.
the first amendment is an article that ensures the government cannot restrict the free speech of the citizens, to paraphrase. as far as I'm aware, these registrars are not part of the government.
if memory serves, the thing that ensures free speech on the Internet is section 230 of title 47 of the United States code. this section essentially ensures that websites that host third-party content cannot be held liable for said third-party content. in the past, this protection was provided so long as the service provider was considered a platform and not a publisher. however, that line is been blurred over the past several years with content moderation reaching beyond removing illegal content.
y r u gay?
"there are no bad tactics, only bad targets"
alright Texas. the feds were allowing a harmful condition that was negatively impacting your state, and you took the security of your state into your own hands. the feds are now removing your ability to secure your own borders, and insisting that you go by their extremely lax security to the detriment of your state. what are you going to do about it?
we're waiting!
you're here forever
"there are no bad tactics, only bad targets"
I will repeat their philosophy until the heat death of the universe because people still don't understand how the left operates. Hypocrisy, lies, deceit, even murder are permissable to them, so long as the person affected is an acceptable target.
This is one of my all time favorite anime, partially because it's unapologetically indulgent, but also because it has healthy lessons on brotherhood and grief, as well as optimism in the face of stacked odds.
I do recommend the show over the movie, as the movie glosses over some important plot points in favor of extending the epic battles, but they're both good.
Lifting tyranny imposed by the state is still lifting tyranny, even if its the feds doing it. especially in this era of fake and gay elections.
Would you consider the first or second amendments to be tyrannical?
I do not see how preventing something from being illegal is forcing it on someone.
redefining terms is not an argument.
Gay marriage was explicitly illegal. "Legalizing" it was simply removing that government intervention.
faggot
no surprise there
and what happens when a busybody in DC decides you are unfit to vote because of some bullshit criteria like the color of your skin or your participation in a certain political movement? Would you still think denying certain people the right to vote is fair, or even practical?
I indeed believe the government has no business butting into our relationships when nobody is getting hurt. that's my point.
I am not picking and choosing laws or applications. Authorities 100% have a right to police behavior and actions that cause harm to those who did not/cannot agree to being involved. Things like public indecency, theft, assault, child exploitation, etc.
But when people of sound body and mind, and of legal age, agree to something, it is tyranny for authorities to stop them.
didn't we threaten to invade Syria over their alleged use of chemical weapons? Why does Israel get a pass?
devil's advocate: hamas and other islamist militants do use dirty tactics like false surrender all the time. IDF soldiers are probably ordered to shoot anyone who tries to get close on sight.
health care is a human right, but TraNSspHobes don't have rights!
don't women get groped in the trains
bruh, lay off the hentai.
why do you concern yourself with the opinions of journalists?
maybe, but I've never known bullying to be a cure or treatment for mental illness.
so at what point do we concede on immoral behavior? Do we not allow skateboarding or extreme sports because they endanger the rider? Do we ban sports cars because they have inferior utility to suvs? Do we do away with video games because they are a waste of time? On whose authority can you certify that these immoral things are/aren't worthy of attention?
To impose ones own morality on everyone, no matter how righteous, is still tyranny. The only way to avoid this tyranny, in my view, is to adhere to these very simple rules:
- my rights end where yours begin
- your rights end where mine begin
In other words, do whatever you want so long as it doesn't hurt someone else.
you may have a point there, video evidence repeatedly shows that UK police are massive pussies.