By Thomas Madison

Remember Bundy Ranch and Obama’s “First Amendment Zone” that everyone simply ignored, taking their protests to wherever they damn well pleased?

Suppose those patriots instead complied with King Hussein’s instructions and like obedient sheeple tried to squeeze their protest into the designated confinement area, well away from the action and the cameras. God Bless them all that they didn’t!

take our poll - story continues below

Should Brett Kavanaugh withdraw over sexual misconduct allegations?

  • Should Brett Kavanaugh withdraw over sexual misconduct allegations?

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Powdered Wig Society updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Trending: Valerie Jarrett is a slimy swamp rat. Feinstein still refusing to turn over letter. Kavanaugh eager to testify, Ford, not so much. McConnell discovers testosterone

Our First and Second Amendments were alive and well at Bundy Ranch, and as a result the government backed down, which is EXACTLY the purpose of those revered amendments to our Constitution. May Americans always understand the importance of these God-given rights and our Constitution’s clear language in prohibiting the government’s restriction of those rights.

GUN CONTROL, SPEECH CONTROL? We Will Tell You When You May Talk

From Rob Morse, Clash Daily

The first amendment recognizes some of our fundamental rights and tells governments not to infringe upon them. 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.

Sounds good to me. Our culture says those rights are important. Our culture also says that some rights are more equal than others. What if we treated the other rights in the constitution the same way we treat the right of self-defense protected by the second amendment?

— You would need a permit before you could speak in public, and that permit is only good in the state where you live. This is what would happen if we abused the right of free-speech the way we abuse the right of self-defense.
— You would have to take a speech test in each state to earn your speaking permit there. In some states, you’d need to pay a fee and receive a speaking permit even to talk inside your own home. Don’t be shocked. The government says it is only regulating your right to speak, not infringing on it.. yet this is exactly the way we infringe on the right of self-defense. Some states don’t recognize the right of non-residents to speak at all.
— Once you have your permit to speak, there are further restrictions on the number of words you can speak at one time. We also can’t let you speak too fast or too loudly. Politicians say this is necessary to protect the public from dangerous speech.
— These speech restrictions only apply only to citizens. People who speak for the government can use all the words they want.
— Suppose you wanted to gather together with your friends. You want to pray, to sing and to play music. The microphone, amplifiers, cables and speakers would be regulated by the state. The speakers can’t be too big, or too small. The amplifier can’t be too powerful. The cables can’t be too long. Only the government needs to speak that loudly… just as we infringe on the right to self-defense today.
— You finally received your permit to own a small public address system. The state needs to know which church you will attend if you bring your speakers. Detours between your home and church are not allowed while you are carrying the speakers. Violating these regulations makes you a felon. That is how we treat gun owners…and politicians say it is for public safety.

Read more….