Charlie Kirk is proof that you have less freedom of speech when you have freedom of guns.

[selzero@syzito.xyz]

@LanceJZ excellent so you are getting tickets to kirks next speaking event I guess? Go you 🤣

[lancejz@mastodon.social]

@selzero WTAF are you even talking about?

[selzero@syzito.xyz]

@LanceJZ since the guns didn't impact his freedom of speech he is still out speaking yeah?

[lancejz@mastodon.social]

@selzero you obviously have no idea what freedom of speech even means.

[selzero@syzito.xyz]

@LanceJZ as long you claim Charlie Kirk still has his, we can agree to disagree. 🤷

[lancejz@mastodon.social]

@selzero you make no sense, at all. I have no idea what you are attempting to point out. Nothing you say has anything to do with my point, at all.

[selzero@syzito.xyz]

@LanceJZ

I said

"Charlie Kirk is proof that you have less freedom of speech when you have freedom of guns."

You objected.

Ok, you can be of the opinion that freedom of guns did not impact Kirk's freedom of speech and he will continue speaking his mind.

It's well within your rights to believe that. 🤷

[lancejz@mastodon.social]

@selzero no, no I did not object to that. What are you even talking about. You misconstrued what I said. I objected to him getting killed had anything to do with free speech.

[selzero@syzito.xyz]

@LanceJZ

I just said freedom of guns reduces freedom of speech.

[lancejz@mastodon.social]

@selzero yeah, I don't agree with that... Freedom of speech is something that only concerns the government. Guns have nothing to do with that.

[selzero@syzito.xyz]

@LanceJZ

My point is that the shooters freedom of guns ended Kirks freedom of speech.

It ended his freedom of everything.

The point is that, the argument that guns 'protect" rights is incorrect.

Guns destroy rights.

Including freedom of speech.