Which of these 2 Amendments is the most abused?

[oeb11]

Interesting that the racist, marxist snowflakes have no response to posting the texts of the Constitution

they likely are unable to recognize what it is- due to their Teacher's Unions educations in which math, science, civics, geography, and anything but marxism is offlimits to them due to these topics' "Racism".

An excuse for incompetent teachers unable to master these subjects to teach them.

Orwell's 1984 is here - in Teacher's Unions schools.

[Yssup Rider]

The duke of drivel. The sultan of spin. They KING of WHOOPEEE!

In the words of our next POTUS.

[oeb11]

Thank U - yr/multiple handles.

usual nonsense.

And when harris OBLM and AntFa brownshirts come for U - there will definitively be NO One to speak for U!

[rexdutchman]

the socialist progressive re-tards hate the bill of rights the one document on the planet that stops them , That's what they understand / Side note the dim-wit have hooked up with the far leftists in the attempt to win --But u know u gotto pay the devil his due.

[Munchmasterman]

Lets see. You get all your news from facebook and twitter. You don't read the paper. You don't listen to MSM because you don't know how to evaluate or confirm sources.
Oh, I get it.
A trumpy.

And you think facebook or any social media is obligated to publish your tripe or even allow you to post it?
Sorry Charlie. You want to publish something no one else wants to?
Then pay. Facebook or twitter putting a fact check or warning on some posts isn't censorship.

An intelligent person who wanted to hear your senator would watch c-span. So your example you concocted that you worry about is something you have to worry about if you're thick or a trumpy.
You can't save everybody.
If you have ever watched c-span you would see many speeches not covered or reported by anyone else but c-span.

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Yes, the purpose of the 1st amendment, is to protect you against government retaliation for legal speech which doesn't include inciting a riot.


The "problem" as I see it, is that speech is being curtailed in places where it was celebrated in the past, namely College and Universities where now it seems, students are all for censoring speech that they don't like, that offends one group or another.


Big Tech. platforms are taking over the more traditional roles of newspapers, TV and radio news sources.


Imagine you only got your news from Facebook or Twitter and both decide that the words of a US Senator will not be printed for this or that reason and since you don't read the paper or listen to MSM, who may also have decided not to cover what the Senator said, you have no idea what the Senator said and whether it was worth hearing and considering.


So you may not be punished for your right to speak freely, the means of communicating may just decide that your speech is not worth hearing and when elected leaders start having their speech censored, that is a slippery slope in my opinion. ( Munchie )What elected official's speech is being censored? Nobody, that's who. C-span, remember?
Put on your big boy pants and start watching C-span. Let us all know if they start censoring. In the mean time, tell me who you think is obligated to show that speech.

What you really want is for trump to post obvious lies and facebook not to point out out they are lies. You want to infringe on Facebook's free speech to warn about the lies. They aren't changing the words, they're warning the feeble minded that the lies are lies.
But don't worry. You still get to believe what you want.
You can even call it censorship if you want. But you're nobody so they might delete you.


So while it isn't directly related to the government, when speech starts to be censored by the major means of communications, that is an assault on free speech in my opinion.


The second amendment has all kinds of legal restrictions to the basic right to bear arms and to me, is a much more complicated issue where the government is indeed given more power to punish you for breaking their rules.


So the second amendment will have have more consequences to the citizen for violating it than the 1st

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Lets see. You get all your news from facebook and twitter. You don't read the paper. You don't listen to MSM because you don't know how to evaluate or confirm sources.
Oh, I get it.
A trumpy.

And you think facebook or any social media is obligated to publish your tripe or even allow you to post it?
Sorry Charlie. You want to publish something no one else wants to?
Then pay. Facebook or twitter putting a fact check or warning on some posts isn't censorship.

An intelligent person who wanted to hear your senator would watch c-span. So your example you concocted that you worry about is something you have to worry about if you're thick or a trumpy.
You can't save everybody.
If you have ever watched c-span you would see many speeches not covered or reported by anyone else but c-span.

Munch, you've forced me to look for another graphic of the same but bigger. I didn't want to downplay your reply by posting it twice.

I just wanted to vociferously agree.

He ignores me because of my insipid (by overuse) GIFs and memes. Yet he also posted he wished he could read what I post. He can't take the good with the "bad" that I add to the forum.

[eccieuser9500]

Test.

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

...You want to publish something no one else wants to?
Then pay. Facebook or twitter putting a fact check or warning on some posts isn't censorship....

Actually it is. But more importantly, it is "publishing". For that, their Section 230 exemption should be removed and they should become liable for their opinions and deciding what gets published or not.

[soldierboy44]

Most abused? 1st because some people believe it allows one too say or do anything and IMHO it does not. So I would say it is the most abused by the people who would benefit the most from its.........now most litigated? hands down the 14th.

[winn dixie]

Anyone see that protagonist socialist get knocked the fuck out at a Texas bucc-es??

Thats consequences!

The loud mouthed bastard got what he deserved!

However the Gentleman who hit him will prolly be facing charges. Very sad!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by winn dixie

Changing the first is a slippery slope! But its abused and misconstrued all the time!
The fourteenth should be thrown out and re-written. A U.S. citizen should be born here by U.S. parents!
Only clause needed is for U.S. citizens working abroad! [example- military, diplomats etc..]

The 14th Amendment is okay. If you read the Congressional Globe which recounts the debate pertaining to the 14th Amendment, it's obvious that the 39th Congress never meant that birth-right citizenship should be bestowed on subjects of other sovereign nations. It's United States v. Wong Kim Ark that's being misinterpreted and misapplied. Wong's parents were in this country legally.

[rexdutchman]

Winn Dixie yes I did , the LSM didn't show the start just the dumbass getting knocked out

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by rexdutchman

Winn Dixie yes I did , the LSM didn't show the start just the dumbass getting knocked out

Well... to be fair - that's the part I have on endless loop. If I could convert it to a small enough sized GIF file -- that would be my avatar.

[winn dixie]

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Well... to be fair - that's the part I have on endless loop. If I could convert it to a small enough sized GIF file -- that would be my avatar.

Yep

[winn dixie]

I think the poll results shows the current political climate. Thanks to those who voted!