Eegore wrote on 05/13/18 at 18:11:49:

 Primarily Japan but also in order of most recent documented conversations: UK Ireland Germany Norway Sweden Brazil Peru Argentina Chile   These are broken down into individuals in which I have had direct contact in their country on more than 8 occasions for a duration of more than 60 days.  I left out places I have not been to such as Australia although I know people there that do not think the 2nd Amendment is directly correlated with our modern day media rights and content or "Freedom of Press".    There was no direct discussion regarding gun support from each individual as the topic was regarding modern media and if they believed that without a 2nd Amendment that US citizens would not have a Freedom of Press.  I can ask them each if they are "gun supporters" and clarify that is the individual ownership of firearms in the home.

First this post was changed to, ‘Freedom of the PRESS’.  Which ‘Freedom of the Press’ is a Part of, ‘Freedom of Speech’.  In a ‘Book’, Just because it is printed words, and bound, the, ‘Freedom’ to say what one wants, IS, the 1st, Amendment. Of course, outside things like shouting ‘Fire’ in a crowded theater, when their is not a fire, and it is meant to cause harm, or perhaps it is a prank, but does cause harm. (That is to get ahead of a counter, which if I said, ‘…shouting fire in a theater…”, someone could say: “ Nothing Wrong with that, and NO one has Ever been prosecuted for shouting ‘fire’, in a theater, when their is a fire)

Now going back to the people you have talked to from other countries, which you say have said their, ‘freedom of speech/press’, is just as good as the one in the USA, and their is no need for a  2nd, to protect it. Their is a distinct difference, in the way you are contacting these people, and the way, those people have, contacted me.  In most cases, coming to the place where I sell something they are interested in, instead of being approached by you to sell/give them something. It is a, Huge, difference.  Just like selling something in Minn. on a Monday, after the Vikings Lost a game on Sun. Sit at the desk and do paperwork. Or the,’Team’, Won, forget the paperwork, make hay while the sun shines.

Some thoughts on, ‘Freedom of Press’.  Could it be, that they believe their press is Free, because they know/experienced, nothing else ?  Because they have been told it is ? Do they believe if you are, ‘giving’, something, will they not say what they believe you want to hear ?  If you are selling something, do they believe that if they say, what they believe you want to here, they will get a better price ?  Are they afraid to speak badly of their, freedom of the press, because if the wrong person hears them, they will just ‘disappear’ ?  

The statement from a previous post: "…In 2016, a television ad which advocated that babies with Down Syndrome shouldn’t be aborted solely because of their syndrome ran. It was ruled anti-abortion speech and removed….”, Is  from France,  (France because of someones, ’Toaster’)  It is a Statement, which, here, in the US, would most definitely be considered, ‘censorship’, at the very least.  (Now again, believing it was, ‘removed’, by a policy/law/directive, by a government).  It would not have been, ‘removed’ by the company/station, that aired it, it just wouldn’t have been aired in the first place. If it was that stations, Policy.  (Very much like the, ‘Policy’, of several ‘news’ stations, to not report any ‘news’, which does not fit their policy, or if it is big, and all over elsewhere, to spin it, or out and out lie, so it does fit their policy.)

Oh, one more note:  You said, ‘Brazil’.  Wondering what position, that person, your contact, has in the Government ?
In fact, what contact/ties/association to their, ’government’, do any of these people you contact have.

Eegore wrote on 05/14/18 at 08:02:46:

"... ... There is in my opinion no conspiracy or danger here to anyone.  These people simply do not believe that the 2nd Amendment is protecting the US Freedom of Speech at this time. ..."(Compleate text in post #17)   

Using France as a example because of a Toaster.
The Below is, ‘Fake’ ?  The, ’Truth’?   Or just ‘ignored’ ?
(For the record, I do Not believe in suicide, but believe the  Freedom, to state a Opinion !)

“…In 1987 a law repressing incitation to suicide was passed, after a best-selling book called "Suicide, mode d'emploi" was published in 1982. The bill was first adopted by the Senate in 1983; in 1987, during the debates before the National Assembly, the book was cited by name as a prime example of what was to be banned. This book, written by two anarchists (Claude Guillon and Yves Le Bonniec), contained a historic and theoretical account of suicide, as well as a critical overview of ways to commit suicide. The book could not be rereleased in 1989 because of that law. The book is thus censored de facto, unavailable in all libraries and bookshops in France. It has never been translated into English….”
http://www.artandpopularculture.com/Censorship_in_France

And the: “…In 2016, a television ad which advocated that babies with Down Syndrome shouldn't be aborted solely because of their syndrome ran. It was ruled anti-abortion speech and removed. …”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_France

So, while some may believe, that Disarming, civilian, Citizens, is correct. Others believe, that, ‘Freedom’, is correct.  And which one, 'IS', correct, will be determined, probably 50-100 years from now. And even then, it will be argued, as who, is 'correct' in their opinion, of what was correct !

                      Just to ‘remind’, some.
 When you are persuaded to Give UP a ‘Freedom', in return for ’Security’,
                       you will have  NEITHER.
               Which is Very Well Documented in History !
           And said by well knowen people, a Long Time Ago.

ALA?

Trump is banning science... one word at a time...

Quote:


Quote:


Quote:

 The ALA list does not have government listed books as it is no part of their research and US controls pretty much stop at child pornography.  Our banning or limitation comes from us, not the government  that so many people seem to think is doing it.  

 Right it is their opinion regarding the assessment that our 2nd Amendment is not protecting our Freedom of Speech/Assembly at this time, and mine is influenced by their and my observations.

 I do not think our Freedom of Press/Assembly is currently protected by our 2nd Amendment.

MnSpring wrote on 05/14/18 at 15:48:07:

We all could..

Eegore wrote on 05/14/18 at 17:59:37:

        (Full text in post above, #27)
"... I do not think our Freedom of Press/Assembly
is currently protected by our 2nd Amendment.   ..."

Yep, (Actually it was post 6), you, ‘KINNA’  skirted around it.
In post 24, you came out and said it.
  (Although now, (out of the blue), adding the word, ‘Assembly’)

In post 6, you said, ’now’.  
That word, coupled with, ’as far as I can tell’, suggests that at one time, you believed the 2nd, Did protect the first.
But you don’t believe that now.

So, that is your belief. Fine.  
           Just as I have mine.
Their are 2 others here, that routinely,
 (to put this electronic forum into real life words)
        “ Say one thing, yet do another”

Again back to the point.
 Totally Ironic, (and total Hypocrisy),
that a person uses the,
 Protection of  the 1st.,  
To try and eliminate, the 2nd.