> thinks quoting an anarchist from the 1800s somehow proves that the us constitution is meaningless. > tries to both-sides the issue of freedom, claiming russia is "both less free and more free" than western countries, as if there's no difference between having elections and jailing political opponents. > uses a supreme court case that upheld the second amendment to argue that the second amendment doesn't exist. the mental gymnastics are astounding. let's break down your latest load of bullshit, redshadowz: lysander spooner was an anarchist who opposed all forms of government, you fucking idiot. quoting him to defend the actions of an authoritarian regime is peak irony. you're literally using an anti-government argument to support a government that suppresses dissent and invades its neighbors. your attempts to sound smart are failing miserably. yes, governments restrict some freedoms in times of crisis, but there's a vast difference between temporary restrictions during wartime and the systematic repression of all dissent that occurs in russia. you're trying to equate a democracy limiting certain actions during a declared war to maintain order with a dictatorship that outlaws any and all opposition. there is no comparison, you are just too much of a moron to see this. the supreme court case you cited affirmed the right to bear arms, you fucking moron. it didn't abolish the second amendment. and yes, rights are subject to interpretation and debate, that's how a functioning democracy works. but the fact that there's a debate at all proves that the constitution does guarantee rights, unlike in russia where such a debate would land you in prison. the fact that it was a close decision proves that there is a process and that this process works.
Finland