Manifesto of a radical first amendment advocate

First Amendment Advocate Manifesto

I’m a radical first amendment advocate. I will fight to the death to say whatever the **** I ****ing want to say.  Why? Because it’s in the ****ing constitution, that’s why.

I’ve heard all of the stupid ****ing arguments from ********ing ****ers who want to take away my first amendment rights. But none of their **** ******** **** makes any ****-damn sense.

First, and most importantly, it’s in the ****ing constitution, you ********ing ****s. Does the constitution say “freedom of speech except for some words“? NO. Does the constitution say “freedom of speech except in some places“? NO. Therefore, any attempt to regulate my speech AT ALL is clearly a violation of my constitutional rights.

Really, that should be the end of the entire ******** ****ing argument. The **** constitution is the basis of our entire **** country. Who do these **** ****s think they are?

Now, some **** ********s are going to say, “Hey, you don’t really NEED to use those words, do you? Why would anyone NEED to use those words?”

IT’S NOT ABOUT NEED, YOU **** **** ******** ****!

When something is a RIGHT that is guaranteed in the constitution, it is not required to demonstrate a ****ing “need”! You don’t ****ing need your ****ing gay-**** marriage, but you still think that’s a right, don’t you? Well, I have a ****ing right to say whatever the **** I want to, because it’s in the ********ing constitution, so there’s nothing you can do about it! So **** the **** off!

Other people say, “But words can hurt!” No they ****ing can’t you stupid ********er!

Words don’t hurt people, it’s only people who ****ing use words the wrong ****ing way who hurt people.

Don’t blame the ****ing words, ****ers!

Plus, the answer isn’t to try to ****ing force people to not use certain ****ing words. The answer is to use MORE OF THOSE WORDS! Isn’t that obvious?? After all, if every ****ing **** in the whole ****ing **** used ********ing **** words all the ****ing time, then everyone would be safer.

Finally, some really ********ed ********s have argued that regulating just a few words, those words that are “especially harmful”, isn’t really that ****ing bad, and that the benefits outweigh the costs.

WHAT A LOAD OF ****ing ********ed ****!

It’s a slippery ****ing slope, guys. Where will it end?

If the ****ing government bans words like “****” and “****“, then what’s to stop them from banning the word “sheep” or “toaster” next?

If we allow them to ban yelling “fire” in a crowded building, what’s to stop them from banning saying the word “Christian” in public parks?

WHERE WILL IT ****ING END???

It ends here!

That’s what I ****ing say. I will not ****ing allow those ****s to ****ing regulate my First ****ing Amendment ****ing rights.

They can pry my ****ing **** **** from my dead cold ****ing ****.

That is why I am a radical first amendment advocate.

And you should be, too.

—Anonymous

P.S. This ****ing website “LiberalBias.com” better not ****ing censor my ****, or I’ll **** their **** up. Seriously. ****.

 


 

Share this manifesto as an image using the snapshot below:

First Amendment Advocate Manifesto

State-level gun death statistics have a liberal bias!

Gun Death Statistics

Gun Death StatisticsEveryone knows that shootings are caused by drug-crazed, video-game-playing liberals who are from poor urban neighborhoods or neighborhoods that have been wussified by liberal gun control policies. Yet this graph seems to suggest otherwise.

Some big nerd over at The Atlantic took well-known gun death rate statistics for each state, and looked at a broad range of other statistics for each state to see whether there was any statistical correlation.

Something obviously must be wrong with these numbers, because they seem to go exactly against what every common-sense conservative intuition would lead you to believe.

This table shows some of the highlights:

conservative ideology liberal statistics
shootings are all done by people who are crazy or on drugs there is no statistical relationship between either mental illness, neurosis, or drug use in a particular state, and the rate of gun deaths in that state
having guns in schools makes everyone safer firearm-related deaths are positively correlated with the rates of high school students that carry weapons on school property (correlation +0.54).
immigrants are dangerous and a big source of the problem states with more immigrants have lower levels of gun-related deaths (correlation -0.34).
assault rifle bans and safety regulation have absolutely no effect at all on gun violence because criminals will do whatever they want to. there are substantial negative correlations between firearm deaths and states that ban assault weapons (-0.45), require trigger locks (-0.42), and mandate safe storage requirements for guns (-0.48).
liberal states are more dangerous because those liberals don’t know how to handle themselves and they’re all criminals anyway. Firearm-related deaths were positively associated with states that voted for McCain in 2004 (+0.66) and negatively associated with states that voted for Obama (-0.66)

 

Of course, as if all of this weren’t bad enough, the final result just exposes the liberal bias in these statistics for what they are: Firearm deaths were far less likely to occur in states with more creative class jobs (-0.52).

“Creative class jobs”?  Uh huh… we all know what that means….

 

…LIBERALS!

 

graph data source: statehealthfacts.org
graph found via: theatlantic.com

Republican response to Senator Feinstein’s gun control proposal

Official Republican response

Please refer to the following infographic for a complete and detailed summary of the Republican party’s official response to Senator Dianne Feinstein’s proposed gun control legislation.

Official Republican response to proposed gun control legislation

If the Republicans ever add anything substantive to this response, above and beyond what is conveyed by this infographic, we will add the information below: