if first words can be made to make one a crimminal, then the freedom of ALL voices doth no exist?

many are deeming the tea party participants as unpatriotic, as against what?

they simply want their own "concern's" regarded as having meaning?

why would they still be marhcing, IF INDEED, their concern's were regarded, and addressed?

since when has any "dissent" become the unpatriotic?

was not DISSENT itself, WHAT CREATED AMERICA?

so then, was not dissent what created the very freedom of ALL AMERICAN'S?

was not dissent itself what freed slaves?

was not dissent itself what saved "proposed" withces from death?

was not dissent itself what stopped destruction of the indian's?

was not dissent itself what created a platform of freedom itself, of all human's as equal in value?

but, this notion that IF some derrogatory label can be found for another human, or applied to their action or speech, make their concerns, values, point of view, perception, in essence as less valubale, this then in essence, has come to implie that their entrie value unto the human species be as less, such totally undermining the very root of all good, that all deem as good, even for itself?

so what they want guns for all whom have legal grounds to have them?

there are indeed many VALID arguments as to what would BE CREATED, OR COULD BE BROUGHT INTO EXISTENCE, if the peoples have not guns, but the government does.

if the government represent the PEOPLE, than it cannot be given more POWER than the peoples itself?

so, if a government wish for guns, then a balance of power must be maintained?

how is it any more difficult than that?

if the government can speak "against the people, then the people must as well have the ability to speak against the government?

would not anything else be unfair?

if the government persue it's own interest, then so must the people be able to persue their own interest?

if the government wish to have decide which religion be good, then so must the people be able to decide what religion be good?

if the government wish to decide what psyhcologist be correct, then so must the people be able to decide what psyhcologist be inempt?

it cannot be missed, THAT IN ESSENCE, religion itself simply stand as a "CLAIM" OF WHAT BE """MOST TRUTH"""?

so, if ANY TRUTH, be deemed as THE MOST TRUTH, by any governing body of power, than it innoculate itself from ANY DISSENT OR ADVANCEMENT OF TRUTH ITSELF?

if the belief of a psychologist, IS USED AS "ULTIMATE TRUTH", by any governing body, than it has become established as a "religion", OR WHAT BE THE ULTIMIATE TRUTH?

if any science, BE ACCEPTED AS ULTIMATE TRUTH, then it has become endorsed as a "relgion" in itself, AS PER DEFINING IT AS "THE ULTIMATE TRUTH"?

so, all the dissent of EACH OF THESE "CATEGORIES" OF HUMAN INTELLECT AND INSIGHT, MUST BE SEEN AS EQUAL IN VALUE, by any governing body, or there is NO EQUAL REPRESENTATION OF "ALL FACTS"???

but, then "facts" comes into play?

what be a fact?

if the perception of EACH, be not considered as EQUAL POSSIBLE FACTS, than their is no EQUAL HEARING, and so no true EQUAL RIGHTS EVEN WISHED, EMBRACED, OR ENDORSED, by any that deem another's facts as irrelevant or of no vlaue?

so who be actually patrioctic?

for patriotism was never NO DISSENT AGAINST ESSTABLISHED GUIDELINES, but rather DISSENT OR QUESTIONING OF ALL "PROPOSED GUIDELINES", the very essence of the fight for freedom of the human species from ANY DICTATORSHIP OR OPPRESSIVE FORCE?

if a fact is deemed ANYTHING, but what hath been duly acknowledged by ALL, than it can not be considered as fact yet?

just as in the "world was FLAT"?

the FIRST, to declare it PERHAPS AS ROUND, that was met with attack, or resistence, was indeed the one that was perpetrated upon, with SELF BIAS, BIGOTRY, MOTIVE OF DISTAIN, MOTIVE TO RESTRICT, and all the likes of such, and WHAT THESE LATER CAN COME TO BE, such as IMPRISONMENT, TORTURE, AND EVEN DEATH?

COLLECTIVE BIAS IS A KILLER.

IN ALL CASES AND AT ALL TIMES?

are not muslim's which KILL, HAVING GUILTY OF HAVING COLLECTIVE COMMON BIAS AGAINST ANOTHER, THAT CREATES THE MOTIVE TO KILL?

IS NOT ANY TWO PEOPLE, GATHERED TOGETHER, TO COMMIT HARM AGAINST ANOTHER, GUILTY OF COLLECTIVE OR COMMON BIAS?

or a conspiracy to HARM ANOTHER?

but, basically the total sum of human argument of most valid insight, has come to be based upon "possible happening's" as true, with no regard to any needing or gathering of any COLLECTIVE EVIDENCE, as supported by ALL?

but, then this makes it easy to see, their never has been any "most facts within human society, ever duly known to be as such, by any collective ENTIRE MAJORITY OF ALL WITH HUMAN INSIGHT, and so what create the opposition of the human species to what be against itself continue's.

any that hath freedom, and doth not embrace dissent without bodily harm, neither deserve nor shall continue to have freedom.

for we cannot even now, being more advanced then in past days, ALLOW dissent to to be 'defined' "as the right to gather together peaceibly"?

for each WORD, HAS TO BE TOTALLY DEFINED, IF IN A SENTENCE, OR STATEMENT, MOST IF A "LAW", FOR THERE TO BE FAIR, OR ANY JUST?

what is PEACFULLY?

lol...