Afraid of the people: Arizona racketeering bill includes political protests

[Winehole23]

SB 1142 would expand the definition to allow charges if the force or violence results in property damage. Because it defines rioting as "two or more people acting together," it could allow protest organizers to be prosecuted if someone else is involved in the rioting — even if that someone isn't part of the organizing group. It could also allow organizers to be prosecuted just for planning an event that prosecutors believe could result in rioting.http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/legislature/2017/02/23/5-things-know-arizona-bill-arrest-protesters-riot/98302932/

[Winehole23]

This bill would put rioting under the state's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) statutes that are typically used to prosecute organized crime and allow police to take items acquired through criminal activity. The sentence for racketeering can include more than a year in prison. It would allow police to seize protesters' or organizers' assets and make them financially responsible for any property damage.

[UNT Eagles 2016]

Absolutely 100% agree with this. A swift end needs to be put to these hipster liberal millennial cess-parties that have grown rampant like Spanish flu after WWI. Especially around the college campuses, those faggots are the fucking worst.

[UNT Eagles 2016]

And don't just punish the organizers, while they definitely deserve punishment for rioting plus a conspiracy charge... you still have to give the one-year rioting sentence to any and all participators. And I don't mean just general bystanders that keep a reasonable distance from the scene, I mean the ones actually holding up the signs and screaming and marching in obvious accordance with the mob. These are the real problem, they're generally young and stupid and should be taught a serious lesson!

Without the participators, the organizers have nothing to organize, so the participators must be punished harshly. It's why those caught using drugs should be punished more harshly as opposed to only targeting the sellers. Without the users, the sellers have no business!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Doubt it stands SCOTUS scrutiny.

[Thread]

Doubt it stands SCOTUS scrutiny.

Lump!!!!!!!!! Sweetheart!!!!!!!!! Pumpinpuss!!!!!!!!!

The old proverbial hatchet is buried deep. Let us fight no more forever.

[Winehole23]

Problem with this is that freedom of assembly to seek redress of grievances is constitutionally guaranteed.

If Obama or some blue state similarly sought to limit the Tea Party, the howls of tyranny would have been dire and correctly so. But that didn't happen.

[Winehole23]

Candy ass republicans want to chill political expression since it makes their guy look bad.

What shrinking violets. Maybe they don't gave the spine to subsist in a vibrant republic.

[Thread]

Problem with this is that freedom of assembly to seek redress of grievances is constitutionally guaranteed.

If Obama or some blue state similarly sought to limit the Tea Party, the howls of tyranny would have been dire and correctly so. But that didn't happen.

& I would have left them to their chicanery. Everyone knows what is going on. It's FAKE NEWS at it's finest. Let 'em shit where we eat.

[DMC]

Isn't the 1st Amendment outdated though? Do we really need it?

Professional rioters need to be prosecuted. Those who fund them need to be prosecuted as well. It almost amounts to terrorism.

[DMC]

Problem with this is that freedom of assembly to seek redress of grievances is constitutionally guaranteed.

If Obama or some blue state similarly sought to limit the Tea Party, the howls of tyranny would have been dire and correctly so. But that didn't happen.

Don't leave out the "peacefully" part of the 1st Amendment, like you did in the quote above. It's dishonest and it gives the rioters a backdoor. Nuh uh.

[Winehole23]

We already have laws for breaking the peace and rioting. Are they insufficient?

[DMC]

We already have laws for breaking the peace and rioting. Are they insufficient?

The existing laws target individuals. When rioters are hired, they are basically a terrorist group and those who hire them need to be prosecuted.

Besides, this is very reminiscient of the 2nd Amendment debate when new gun laws are proposed as if the existing laws are insufficient. It's already illegal to kill people, why have more gun laws?

[Winehole23]

Seems silly to hold permit holders responsible before the fact for violence the police fear might break out or was perpetrated by others. The AZ law makes it tactical for people unconnected with the organizers to start fights knowing the organizers will be held accountable.

[DMC]

Seems silly to hold permit holders responsible before the fact for violence the police fear might break out or was perpetrated by others. The AZ law makes it tactical for people unconnected with the organizers to start fights knowing the organizers will be held accountable.

You mean like holding gun retailers accountable for what some lunatic does with the product?

Funny how the Bill of Rights suddenly matters.

[Winehole23]

So where's the proof anyone has hired professional rioters? Seems like overkill to pass a law based on what might happen or might have happened.

[Winehole23]

You mean like holding gun retailers accountable for what some lunatic does with the product?

Funny how the Bill of Rights suddenly matters.I never suggeated that was appropriate.

Swing and a miss.

[Winehole23]

You're boxing with shadows, not with me.

[DMC]

I never suggeated that was appropriate.

Swing and a miss.

There exists a gradient of leftism here and each part of that gradient takes the liberty of their custom stance on issues so that they can have plausible deniability when the shoe is pointed out to be on the other foot. They will not speak out against the rest of the gradient regardless the level of destruction they wish to heap upon the 2nd Amendment. Still, when the dust settles, there's a clear line and you're on the other side.

When you (you in general) set fire to the BoR because part of it doesn't seem to apply to you, it doesn't necessarily stop at that Amendment.

[Winehole23]

Isn't the 1st Amendment outdated though? Do we really need it?.it's still part of the foundational compact.

Do you think we don't need it?

[DMC]

it's still part of the foundational compact.

Do you think we don't need it?

If the 2nd needs to go, why not the 1st as well?

[Winehole23]

There exists a gradient of leftism here and each part of that gradient takes the liberty of their custom stance on issues so that they can have plausible deniability when the shoe is pointed out to be on the other foot. When the dust settles, there's a clear line and you're on the other side.

When you (you in general) set fire to the BoR because part of it doesn't seem to apply to you, it doesn't necessarily stop at that Amendment.so you agree you weren't really talking to me.

Appreciate your candor.

[Winehole23]

If the 2nd needs to go, why not the 1st as well?2nd is still there too. Neither needs to go.

[DMC]

2nd is still there too. Neither needs to go.

The 2nd has been infringed upon more than any in the BoR and it's under constant attack from the left. Why do you need guns? Are you a gun nut? Are you a free speech nut, a right to peacefully assemble nut?

No, you folks lost me with that queer liberal bullshit. I hope it bites you all in the ass.

[Winehole23]

Still punching at shadows, I see

[Winehole23]

The 2nd has been infringed upon more than any in the BoR and it's under constant attack from the left. Why do you need guns? Are you a gun nut? Are you a free speech nut, a right to peacefully assemble nut?

No, you folks lost me with that queer liberal bullshit. I hope it bites you all in the ass.now you're just raving. I'm not you all. I'm just me, and I'm not a gun grabber.

[Winehole23]

Gun regulation and the right to bear arms came up together.

Free white men in the early days were required to possess guns by government mandate, had to register them and have them inspected by state officials.

Free blacks in many cases were forbidden to have guns.

Were you unaware?

[DMC]

Gun regulation and the right to bear arms came up together.

Militia member in the colonial days had to register their guns and have them inspected by state officials.

Free blacks in many cases were forbidden to have guns.

Were you unaware?

Blacks weren't allowed to peacefully protest either. The point is when you fence straddlers don't lift a finger against infringement of the BoR in one case, don't expect those who support those Amendments to come to your rescue or give a shit when the one you find sacred gets slaughtered as well. It's a well known condition, eventually they will come for you.

[Winehole23]

What fence am I straddling?

[Winehole23]

You suggested free speech is unnecessary.

Why do you think so?

[Winehole23]

What infringement of the 2nd Amendment do you think I was supposed to stand against?

[Winehole23]

Registration was there ab initio. So was limitation of the privilege. Has been all along.

[DMC]

What fence am I straddling?

Rioting law = government is afraid of the people

Gun law = Government afraid of the people? No, these are needed to prevent gun related homicides

Which of those do you disagree with?

[Winehole23]

Just like speech, the right isn't absolute.

[Winehole23]

Rioting law = government is afraid of the people

Gun law = Government afraid of the people? No, these are needed to prevent gun related homicides

Which of those do you disagree with?Neither. Both are appropriate.

Extending racketeering law to compass political expression is a bit of a stretch when adequate laws already exist for rioting.

[DMC]

Registration was there ab initio. So was limitation of the privilege. Has been all along.

What's your point?

[DMC]

Just like speech, the right isn't absolute.

Then we're good, why are you worried then about this thing in Arizona? Just say the 1st Amendment isn't absolute.

[DMC]

Neither. Both are appropriate.

Extending racketeering law to compass political expression is a bit of a stretch when adequate laws already exist for rioting.

Of course. You agree with infringing upon the 2nd Amendment but not the 1st. You think the government isn't afraid of an armed population, as long as they don't speak out because words can kill?

Existing laws punish individuals who riot if they are caught. Anarchist hide in crowds and they wear masks and carry bats and set shit on fire and beat people. If you're going to be associated with an event where you know it's likely that's going to happen, you're taking that risk.

As the site says, with today's social media, these things are no longer organic. They are staged. Did you expect no new legislation after all this stupid shit? Folks are lucky no one has been shot and killed.

[Winehole23]

The new law is overkill, inequitable, and designed to quash political expression. I think it's bullshit, based on bullshit allegations that civil society hires professional rioters.

[Winehole23]

Police already enforce laws against public disturbances. Absent a compelling state interest, a fundamental political right ought not to be infringed.

[DMC]

The new law is overkill, inequitable, and designed to quash political expression. I think it's bullshit, based on bullshit allegations that civil society hires professional rioters.

That's your opinion. Blame it on the liberal fucktards who cannot have a peaceful protest. Dude shows up to speak at a university through invite and fuckers try to burn the place to the ground. Arizona is known for radical moves to squash that kind of shit. No worries, the paid rioters can move to California.

[Winehole23]

The LE toolbox is sufficient. Preventing violence before the fact, based in mere suspicion of wrongdoing, or the intuition it may happen isn't LE, it's tyranny.

[DMC]

Police already enforce laws against public disturbances. Absent a compelling state interest, a fundamental political right ought not to be infringed.

The right to burn shit down and damage storefronts, beat people and clog business traffic for hours, to put workloads on the police force to go out and corral all these liberal assholes?

Cause and effect. When you have freedoms, don't shit on them else you can lose them. Folks might learn that term really is true, about it not being free.

[Winehole23]

No one's upholding the right to burn shit down.

The police can't shut you down just because they fear it "might" happen.

[DMC]

The LE toolbox is sufficient. Preventing violence before the fact, based in mere suspicion of wrongdoing, or the intuition it may happen isn't LE, it's tyranny.

So it should be ok for masked assholes to destroy property and beat people down? Oh no, we cannot riot! Tyranny!

[DMC]

No one's upholding the right to burn shit down.

The police can't shut you down just because they fear it "might" happen.

Sure they can. What are you going to do about it, riot?

[Winehole23]

Police can't shut your shit down just because they're afraid something bad might happen.

[Winehole23]

Police aren't there to prevent crime. They're there to enforce the law. You're preoccupied with the Pre-crime Division, a la Minority Report.

[DMC]

Police can't shut your shit just because they're afraid something bad might happen.
The First Amendment is not absolute. Government can make reasonable stipulations about the time, place and manner a peaceable protest can take place, as long as those restrictions are applied in a content-neutral way.

[Winehole23]

Police can't proleptically preempt political expression just because they think something bad might happen.That's Soviet style shit.

[Winehole23]

The First Amendment is not absolute. Government can make reasonable stipulations about the time, place and manner a peaceable protest can take place, as long as those restrictions are applied in a content-neutral way.This statute doesn't do that. It holds organizers responsible for violence that may be exogenous.

It even goes further. It reserves the right to preempt based on the mere suspicion that violence may occur.

[Winehole23]

Sure they can. What are you going to do about it, riot?Nope, but I will complain.

[Winehole23]

So it should be ok for masked assholes to destroy property and beat people down? Oh no, we cannot riot! Tyranny!Nope.

I'm not advocating for the right to riot. If you think so you're being obtuse.

[ElNono]

Such a waste of time. There's no such thing as thought crimes. It's fundamentally unconstitutional.

If they're worried about alleged 'professional protesters', they could just as easily spent their time passing a law creating a specialized LE division to investigate such groups/allegations.

But hey, that would actually be addressing the actual concern.

[Winehole23]

beg pardon, but there's nothing wrong with political organizing per se. it's called civil society and free association.

[Winehole23]

god forbid we should be anything but docile consumers and rest content with the crumbs that fall off the table

[ElNono]

beg pardon, but there's nothing wrong with political organizing per se. it's called civil society and free association.

I'm just saying, if they feel there's a criminal organization plotting violent crimes, LE is certainly entitled to investigate. If they feel LE doesn't have enough tools to do that, they can certainly pass laws to aid in that.

[Winehole23]

I'm just saying, if they feel there's a criminal organization plotting violent crimes, LE is certainly entitled to investigate. If they feel LE doesn't have enough tools to do that, they can certainly pass laws to aid in that.perhaps so. does that seem the purpose of the Arizona statute to you?

[Winehole23]

and granted that it is, what evidence do you see that public manifestations in AZ are a public danger warranting preemptive LE scrutiny?

[Winehole23]

imaginary dangers are omnipresent. the actual danger presented by political marches in the USA seems to me vastly overblown.

[ElNono]

perhaps so. does that seem the purpose of the Arizona statute to you?

No, that's why I said it was a waste of time, and IMO, will sooner or later be found unconstitutional.

I was actually agreeing...

[Winehole23]

I hope so. A lot of people seem to think order is more important than freedom.

The turn toward authoritarianism is real and the current powers that be -- on this board and in the White House -- are encouraging it strongly.

[Thread]

I hope so. A lot of people seem to think order is more important than freedom.

The turn toward authoritarianism is real and the current powers that be -- on this board and in the White House -- are encouraging it strongly.

You mean that dog that keeps deleting [Trump president. Not Clinton] every single time I lodge it?

[Winehole23]

Trump president, not Obama.

Chop chop, shit to do!

[Winehole23]

pointing at HRC doesn't cut it anymore.

[Thread]

pointing at HRC doesn't cut it anymore.

Please. You pointed at Bush for 8 years.

[Winehole23]

then I pointed at Obama for 8 years. I'll point at your asshole for however long he lasts.

your point?

[Thread]

then I pointed at Obama for 8 years. I'll point at your asshole for however long he lasts.

your point?

You're never wrong. Ever.:rolleyes

[Winehole23]

I never said so, what's your point?

[Winehole23]

I'm a dangerous floater. I don't belong to a political tribe.

[DMC]

Police can't shut your shit down just because they're afraid something bad might happen.


No one's upholding the right to burn shit down.

The police can't shut you down just because they fear it "might" happen.


Police can't proleptically preempt political expression just because they think something bad might happen.That's Soviet style shit.

Argumentum ad nauseum

If the police can't do it, what are you concerned about?

[DMC]

Nope.

I'm not advocating for the right to riot. If you think so you're being obtuse.

When an event becomes a riot, everyone there is guilty, and based on the pre-existing law even the organizers are guilty since they are part of the "two or more" clause.

[Winehole23]

they will, based on bullshit statutes. AZ isn't the only state trying to do this.

LE will abuse freedom until the courts stop them. and you're standing up for it.

[Winehole23]

When an event becomes a riot, everyone there is guilty, and based on the pre-existing law even the organizers are guilty since they are part of the "two or more" clause.Legalism trumps freedom in your book. Nothing could be clearer.

[Winehole23]

Bow down to state power, serfs.

[Winehole23]

the state will tell you when and where and how you may express yourself

[Winehole23]

241 years of constitutional liberty totally notwithstanding

[Winehole23]

fuck all that verbiage about right to assemble to petition the government and free association. you scare us now.

[Winehole23]

more than two? too many!

[DMC]

they will, based on bullshit statutes. AZ isn't the only state trying to do this.

LE will abuse freedom until the courts stop them. and you're standing up for it.

I'm not standing up for it, just as you didn't stand up for infringements on the 2nd Amendment... you just didn't stand up against them.

[DMC]

fuck all that verbiage about right to assemble to petition the government and free association. you scare us now.

And "shall not be infringed upon"...

[DMC]

Legalism trumps freedom in your book. Nothing could be clearer.

I think the left deserves to suffer the slings and arrows of BoR infringement now, they lit the fire.

[Winehole23]

What limitation of the 2nd Amendment privilege got your knickers in a twist? It's been limited and regulated by the state from the very beginning. It's renascence as an individualized right is a relative novelty.

[Winehole23]

I think the left deserves to suffer the slings and arrows of BoR infringement now, they lit the fire.if you think such laws exclusively apply to the left, you're very mistaken. This statute will infringe on everyone's 1st amendment privilege

[Winehole23]

It's so odd for soi disant conservatives to be cheering on state power against free citizens, merely because they perceive the political opposition to be in the crosshairs.

[Winehole23]

It's normal for liberals, true, but one would think the prinicple would mean more than petty spite to those who feel oppressed by their government.

[Winehole23]

the solution to state oppression of the right to bear arms can't be to strengthen the hand of the state against political speech.

electoral majorities are ephemeral. your enemies may suffer at the hands of the police today while you cackle with glee, but someday they'll have their turn and laugh and sic the cops on you using the very same power.

[DMC]

if you think such laws exclusively apply to the left, you're very mistaken. This statute will infringe on everyone's 1st amendment privilege

Apply everything you say about this or that which you are about to say about it to the 2nd Amendment. Where was your outrage? Quid pro quo.

[boutons_deux]

"electoral majorities are ephemeral."

we'll see if the Dems get even the tiniest whiff of 218 in 2018 oe even 2020.

by 2018, the Repugs will have continued to defund govt into serious dysfunctionality, combined with Trash's destructive Cabinet fucking up if not actually abolishing their depts.

[Th'Pusher]

Apply everything you say about this or that which you are about to say about it to the 2nd Amendment. Where was your outrage? Quid pro quo.

The fact that you would not actively support protection of fundamental rights just to spite those who disagree with you politically is indicative of your lack of principles and sincerity.

[CosmicCowboy]

Problem with this is that freedom of assembly to seek redress of grievances is constitutionally guaranteed.

If Obama or some blue state similarly sought to limit the Tea Party, the howls of tyranny would have been dire and correctly so. But that didn't happen.

Please source even ONE tea-party event where a store was looted.

[Winehole23]

not alleged. LE can't target enforcement based on political viewpoint.

[DMC]

The fact that you would not actively support protection of fundamental rights just to spite those who disagree with you politically is indicative of your lack of principles and sincerity.

Basically what you did with the 2nd Amendment.

[DMC]

the solution to state oppression of the right to bear arms can't be to strengthen the hand of the state against political speech.

electoral majorities are ephemeral. your enemies may suffer at the hands of the police today why you cackle with glee, but someday they'll have their turn and sic the cops on you using the very same power.

You're late to the party. The lot of you are.

[DMC]

That's what I wanted in the first place. What are you going to do with that information? It does nothing for the individual, it's only a talking point for the left. With all the sensitivity against words these days, the 1st Amendment is up next. Maybe the CDC should do a study to see if barring certain types of speech affects hate crime stats in certain areas by tracking who says what and seeing if aggressive, offensive statements like "Make American Great Again" should be banned.

[Th'Pusher]

Basically what you did with the 2nd Amendment.

Not true. if I argued for limiting the right to own a gun, it wasn't out of spite for those who disagree with me but because I honestly believed it to be reasonable limit that could prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands.

Your position is petty and shows you're both unprincipled and unserious.

[CosmicCowboy]

Not true. if I argued for limiting the right to own a gun, it wasn't out of spite for those who disagree with me but because I honestly believed it to be reasonable limit that could prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands.

Your position is petty and shows you're both unprincipled and unserious.

Clearly, First Amendment rights shouldn't fall into the wrong hands either.

Only state approved people should have first amendment rights. See how that works?

[DMC]

Not true. if I argued for limiting the right to own a gun, it wasn't out of spite for those who disagree with me but because I honestly believed it to be reasonable limit that could prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands.

Your position is petty and shows you're both unprincipled and unserious.

"Shall not be infringed"

Limiting the right to peacefully protest... same thing.

Yes, anyone who shows you your own ass is morally corrupt, you fucking child. Let me know when your balls drop.

[Th'Pusher]

Clearly, First Amendment rights shouldn't fall into the wrong hands either.

Only state approved people should have first amendment rights. See how that works?

Don't be silly. Both you and I agree that the rights granted in both the first or second amendments aren't absolute. Their constitutional limits are a matter of degree. if you want to argue that only state approved people should have first amendment rights, be my guest and make that argument.

[Th'Pusher]

"Shall not be infringed"

Limiting the right to peacefully protest... same thing.

Yes, anyone who shows you your own ass is morally corrupt, you fucking child. Let me know when your balls drop.

So you're arguing the first and second amendments are limitless?

[DMC]

So you're arguing the first and second amendments are limitless?

Quite the opposite. I didn't start this thread. I even said above that they are not (learn to read). So why the uproar over this issue in Arizona? You're just another in the gradient of leftist posters who claim "dindu nuffin" when called on the carpet. One person makes a claim, another pops in to defend it and tries to play some tired ass plausible deniability card "I'm not the one who said that".

Here's an idea: don't interject if you don't hold that position.

[Th'Pusher]

Quite the opposite. I didn't start this thread. I even said above that they are not (learn to read). So why the uproar over this issue in Arizona? You're just another in the gradient of leftist posters who claim "dindu nuffin" when called on the carpet. One person makes a claim, another pops in to defend it and tries to play some tired ass plausible deniability card "I'm not the one who said that".

Here's an idea: don't interject if you don't hold that position.

I do hold the position that SB 1142 is unconstitutional bullshit. That I didn't argue against some undefined infringement on the second amendment fervently enough to appease you is irrelevant. Chances are I didn't believe it to exceed the constitutional limits both you and I agree can be applied to the second amendment.

I will say that I never argue for stripping people who disagree with me of their rights out of spite. That's the work of an unprincipled bitch.

[unleashbaynes]

Apply everything you say about this or that which you are about to say about it to the 2nd Amendment. Where was your outrage? Quid pro quo.

There is no need to be outraged about the second amendment. I can go to Academy and buy a gun right now. Quit being a faggot.

[Th'Pusher]

There is no need to be outraged about the second amendment. I can go to Academy and buy a gun right now. Quit being a faggot.

And this. Fucking gun boys have to draw a parallel with the second amendment in every debate.

[DMC]

I do hold the position that SB 1142 is unconstitutional bullshit. That I didn't argue against some undefined infringement on the second amendment fervently enough to appease you is irrelevant. Chances are I didn't believe it to exceed the constitutional limits both you and I agree can be applied to the second amendment.

I will say that I never argue for stripping people who disagree with me of their rights out of spite. That's the work of an unprincipled bitch.

Your cherry picking of rights you need and don't need is duly noted, and you'll get what you deserve out of it.

[DMC]

There is no need to be outraged about the second amendment. I can go to Academy and buy a gun right now. Quit being a faggot.

You can march down the street and protest right now, what's your point, faggot?

[DMC]

And this. Fucking gun boys have to draw a parallel with the second amendment in every debate.

When you rely on utility to give a shit about the BoR, you get what you get. This is what you get.

[Th'Pusher]

Your cherry picking of rights you need and don't need is duly noted, and you'll get what you deserve out of it.

I'm not cherry picking rights. We both agree the BoR is not unlimited. We just disagree on where those limits should be applied.

[Th'Pusher]

When you rely on utility to give a shit about the BoR, you get what you get. This is what you get.

Are you ok with infringing on the second amendment rights of the mentally ill?

[DMC]

Are you ok with infringing on the second amendment rights of the mentally ill?

Like you, for example?

[Th'Pusher]

Like you, for example?

Clever.

You won't answer the question because you know utility must be applied to the BoR.

It's been fun porking you again...

[DMC]

Clever.

You won't answer the question because you know utility must be applied to the BoR.

It's been fun porking you again...

If utility must be applied, then I have no use for the 19th Amendment.

It's interesting that you cannot offer a take without a retraction in the form of an edit.

[Th'Pusher]

If utility must be applied, then I have no use for the 19th Amendment.

It's interesting that you cannot offer a take without a retraction in the form of an edit.

Utility is applied to the 19th amendment. Call all citizens vote irrespective of their sex?

Anyway, you're flailing now.

FYI - My my last edit was to correct a spelling error...agin to again. Don't read too much into it.

[Adam Lambert]

Utility is applied to the 19th amendment. Call all citizens vote irrespective of their sex?

Anyway, you're flailing now.

FYI - My my last edit was to correct a spelling error...agin to again. Don't read too much into it.

this faggot is obsessed with pointing out edits and doubleposts as if he gets consolation points in a losing argument.



edit - added "faggot"

[Th'Pusher]

^ I just noticed the call/can typo, but I'll leave it. Don't need DMC reading anything into it.

[DMC]

Utility is applied to the 19th amendment. Call all citizens vote irrespective of their sex?

Anyway, you're flailing now.

FYI - My my last edit was to correct a spelling error...agin to again. Don't read too much into it.

Utility only applies to the individual. You don't find utility in the 2nd Amendment because you're not a gun owner. If you are a gun owner, it's apathetic in nature, therefore you don't feel compelled to defend it. I am male so the 19th Amendment doesn't' apply to me personally, but I would still defend it since I defend the BoR without cherry picking which amendment I feel is outdated and therefore irrelevant.

Maybe you should proofread your post before you post. You know, think first, type next, verify and submit.

[Th'Pusher]

Utility only applies to the individual. You don't find utility in the 2nd Amendment because you're not a gun owner. If you are a gun owner, it's apathetic in nature, therefore you don't feel compelled to defend it. I am male so the 19th Amendment doesn't' apply to me personally, but I would still defend it since I defend the BoR without cherry picking which amendment I feel is outdated and therefore irrelevant.

Maybe you should proofread your post before you post. You know, think first, type next, verify and submit.

:lol you're all over the place. Is the bill proposed in the OP unconstitutional or not?

I will absolutely defend any fundamental right that I believe to be infringed upon unlawfully regardless of whether or not it personally affects me as is evidenced by the fact I'm not affected by the proposed bill in the OP.

The reality is that you're a gun boy. You drew a shitty parallel because you wanted to make the thread about one of the few things you know and you've been chasing your tail and shitting your pants ever since.

[DMC]

:lol you're all over the place. Is the bill proposed in the OP unconstitutional or not?

When you're cornered you seem to pretend to be clearing things up as if your opponent is confused. I'm not confused. I know you didn't defend the 2nd Amendment.

As for your deflection, with a new Supreme Court, I guess we'll see. Neither you nor I can do anything about it, but at least I'm not here pulling excuses out of my ass for infringing upon the 1st Amendment.


I will absolutely defend any fundamental right that I believe to be infringed upon unlawfully regardless of whether or not it personally affects me as is evidenced by the fact I'm not affected by the proposed bill in the OP.
:lol sure you will. You're merely toeing (or for you, towing) the liberal line here.


The he reality is that you're a gun boy. You drew a shitty parallel because you wanted to make the thread about one of the few things you know and you've been chasing your tail and shitting your pants ever since.
The he reality is that liberals created a condition in politics where constitutional rights could be infringed upon by a nanny state government who has our best interests in mind. After all, you wouldn't want freedom of speech falling into the wrong hands. The pen is mightier than the sword.

[Th'Pusher]

When you're cornered you seem to pretend to be clearing things up as if your opponent is confused. I'm not confused. I know you didn't defend the 2nd Amendment.

As for your deflection, with a new Supreme Court, I guess we'll see. Neither you nor I can do anything about it, but at least I'm not here pulling excuses out of my ass for infringing upon the 1st Amendment.
:lol sure you will. You're merely toeing (or for you, towing) the liberal line here.

The he reality is that liberals created a condition in politics where constitutional rights could be infringed upon by a nanny state government who has our best interests in mind. After all, you wouldn't want freedom of speech falling into the wrong hands. The pen is mightier than the sword.

Cornered? You're delusional.

Liberals suck. Blah, blah, blah.

You're spent.

[DMC]

Cornered? You're delusional.

Liberals suck. Blah, blah, blah.

You're spent.

Th'Pussy's typical exit strategy: claim false victory and look for easier prey :lol

[Th'Pusher]

Th'Pussy's typical exit strategy: claim false victory and look for easier prey :lol

So one last thing since you're too much of a pussy to take a stance on whether the bill in the op is unconstitutional; do you support the bill proposed in the op? Try to leave the second ammendment out of your thought process as you seem to be severely emotionally invested in that particular amendment.

[DMC]

So one last thing since you're too much of a pussy to take a stance on whether the bill in the op is unconstitutional; do you support the bill proposed in the op? Try to leave the second ammendment out of your thought process as you seem to be severely emotionally invested in that particular amendment.

I don't live in Arizona. You'd like to leave the 2nd Amendment out, wouldn't ya? :lol

[boutons_deux]

11 states, all red/slave, are attempting to criminalize dissent, freedom of assembly

[Th'Pusher]

I don't live in Arizona. You'd like to leave the 2nd Amendment out, wouldn't ya? :lol

Pussy won't take a stance :cry

[unleashbaynes]

You can march down the street and protest right now, what's your point, faggot?

Hey look, you made a post that's on topic! Was that so hard?

And to answer the question, the point is that this unconstitutional bill would infringe upon that right to protest. Faggot.

[DMC]

Hey look, you made a post that's on topic! Was that so hard?

And to answer the question, the point is that this unconstitutional bill would infringe upon that right to protest. Faggot.

The 1st Amendment isn't absolute.

[Winehole23]

who said it was? it's not fair to hold permit holders responsible for violence unaffiliated people commit.

[Winehole23]

You're late to the party. The lot of you are.People get in where they fit in. There's no requirement that people agitate for all rights equally, or all at once. There isn't even an inconsistency there.

People pick and choose what's important to them. Just because I didn't ride your particular hobby horse doesn't mean I think the 2nd Amendment is inconsequential, nor does it render my advocacy of the 1st moot.

Your desire to see the left suffer doesn't trump anything -- it's pure petulance at best, pure sadism at worst.

[Winehole23]

who said it was? it's not fair to hold permit holders responsible for violence unaffiliated people commit.I'll go one further: such a statute induces people who disagree with parade permit holders to commit violence, knowing the organizers will be held legally responsible for it.

[Winehole23]

expanding racketeering law to include properly permitted political expression in the total absence of evidence of coordination between civil society and violent criminals tortures the law and chills protected speech.

[Winehole23]

civil authorities already have the power to protect public order and detain violent criminals. the law is unnecessary and admit it: it's crafted to deter protests.

[Winehole23]

when electoral majorities change, it can be used to preempt your political speech, or those of a like mind. are you cool with that DMC?

[Winehole23]

Which privilege is more integral to a free, equitable political process, free speech, or the right to bear arms?

[Spurminator]

"The First Amendment isn't absolute" therefore I'm cool with any degree of infringement. Don't touch muh 2nd Amendment tho.

- DMC

[Winehole23]

I'm still interested to hear how DMC thinks the 2nd Amendment has been unreasonably infringed. Apart from depriving mentally unstable people, no bill of particulars has been offered.

[Winehole23]

Heller made the 2nd Amendment an individualized right for the first time ever in what, 2008? Seems to me he has the trend wrong.

[DMC]

People get in where they fit in. There's no requirement that people agitate for all rights equally, or all at once. There isn't even an inconsistency there.

People pick and choose what's important to them. Just because I didn't ride your particular hobby horse doesn't mean I think the 2nd Amendment is inconsequential, nor does it render my advocacy of the 1st moot.

Your desire to see the left suffer doesn't trump anything -- it's pure petulance at best, pure sadism at worst.

Ok then, no need for me to advocate for all rights equally or at once. Carry on.

[DMC]

"The First Amendment isn't absolute" therefore I'm cool with any degree of infringement. Don't touch muh 2nd Amendment tho.

- DMC

You do realize the quotes indicate what I actually said, right?

[DMC]

who said it was? it's not fair to hold permit holders responsible for violence unaffiliated people commit.

Let one nutjob shoot up a school and every leftist on here is calling for a ban on guns, for everyone, even permit holders.

Do you have a permit to protest?

[Winehole23]

Have any of these come to pass?

[Winehole23]

You're bitching about shit that didn't happen. I'm bitching about something that is.

Can you discern the difference?

[Winehole23]

How has the 2nd Amendment been infringed?

[DMC]

Have any of these come to pass?

That's beside the point. The left perhaps isn't as politically powerful as the right, so they cannot infringe as much as they'd like. I don't advocate for infringement of any rights, but the left sure as hell does. Deal with your own house first. Don't expect the right to not giggle at you for being freaked out about a proposed amendment violation, assuming there was one. We've dealt with it for decades.

[DMC]

You're bitching about shit that didn't happen. I'm bitching about something that is.

Can you discern the difference?

It's a proposal.

There have been countless proposals to ban guns in some form or another, but when the right bitches about that it's :cry muh guns :cry

[Winehole23]

It's not beside the point. Actual infringement of the BoR counts for more than merely intended, and failed, attempts to do so.

[Winehole23]

Can you not tell the difference between proposed and actual infringements of liberty?

[Winehole23]

To hold them equal is absurd.

[Winehole23]

you never weighed in as to whether free speech or gun ownership is more central to normal political process. do you have an opinion about this, DMC?

is one more integral than the other?

[Th'Pusher]

Let one nutjob shoot up a school and every leftist on here is calling for a ban on guns, for everyone, even permit holders.

Do you have a permit to protest?

:lol at this hyperbolic asshole. I think the extent of the proposed legislation after sandy hook was universal background checks and closing the gun show loophole. I'd hardly call that a ban on guns.

[Winehole23]

"people were talking about"

[CosmicCowboy]

:lol at this hyperbolic asshole. I think the extent of the proposed legislation after sandy hook was universal background checks and closing the gun show loophole. I'd hardly call that a ban on guns.

And the sandy hook shooter wouldn't have been stopped by either proposal. But never let a good tragedy go to waste, right?

[Winehole23]

when electoral majorities change, it can be used to preempt your political speech, or those of a like mind. are you cool with that DMC?

[Winehole23]

nm

[DMC]

:lol at this hyperbolic asshole. I think the extent of the proposed legislation after sandy hook was universal background checks and closing the gun show loophole. I'd hardly call that a ban on guns.

Why is there always some gun legislation proposed after a shooting? You seem ok with it. Therefore free speech legislation proposed after riots seems to be inline with things you are already ok with.

[DMC]

you never weighed in as to whether free speech or gun ownership is more central to normal political process. do you have an opinion about this, DMC?

is one more integral than the other?

Without one you cannot protect the other. The 1st and 2nd Amendments go hand in hand. I don't feel compelled to chase the red herring of "pick a right to support".

[Winehole23]

"electoral majorities are ephemeral."

we'll see if the Dems get even the tiniest whiff of 218 in 2018 oe even 2020.

by 2018, the Repugs will have continued to defund govt into serious dysfunctionality, combined with Trash's destructive Cabinet fucking up if not actually abolishing their depts.the destruction of the administrative state may not be as popular as you think. however technocratic and paternalistic, it takes care of people. they'll miss the goodies.

[Winehole23]

Without one you cannot protect the other. The 1st and 2nd Amendments go hand in hand. I don't feel compelled to chase the red herring of "pick a right to support".how often have US citizens used guns within their own country to secure domestic liberty versus free speech in the normal political process?

[Winehole23]

I did say normal political process. you changed the question.

[Winehole23]

when was the last time the US faced an exogenous or internal threat that could only be answered by individual citizens exercising their 2nd Amendment rights?

[Th'Pusher]

Why is there always some gun legislation proposed after a shooting? You seem ok with it. Therefore free speech legislation proposed after riots seems to be inline with things you are already ok with.

I am ok with universal background checks and closing the gun show loophole. I believe these to be a reasonable limits on the second amendment.

Conversely, I think the limits outlined in the OP are flatly unconstitutional.

It's really that simple. You're free to disagree and we can openly engage and debate our differences. Unfortunately, You're too much of a pussy to even take a position on the OP.

[Winehole23]

in other words, what is the 2nd Amendment for, and how has the state prevented you from accomplishing the ends for which it was contemplated?

[pgardn]

when was the last time US citizens used guns within their own country to secure domestic liberty?

Well there were the brave men who took over the bird station. Made a famous stand until the craving for twinkees brought them down.

Cliven Bundy, and many other American heroes. The list is quite exhaustive.
The guy that hid under the tarp and got shot, martyred himself for the 2nd amendment. The bikers in Waco exerted their influence over Waco and protested by shooting each other. Then the police shot them for good measure. Chicago has made a statistical Security statement of sorts by shooting each other and bystanders. The religious nuts in Waco made an Alamo type massacre possible. Just to illustrate the government could use overwhelming force.

[Winehole23]

Without one you cannot protect the other. The 1st and 2nd Amendments go hand in hand. I don't feel compelled to chase the red herring of "pick a right to support".I didn't say pick one. I only asked which is more intrinsic to political liberty in the normal course of events.

[Winehole23]

Well there were the brave men who took over the bird station. Made a famous stand until the craving for twinkees brought them down.

Cliven Bundy, and many other American heroes. The list is quite exhaustive.
The guy that hid under the tarp and got shot, martyred himself for the 2nd amendment. The bikers in Waco exerted their influence over Waco and protested by shooting each other. Then the police shot them for good measure. Chicago has made a statistical Security statement of sorts by shooting each other and bystanders.self-defense against criminals isn't insignificant.

[Winehole23]

protecting one's life and one's home with guns is traditional. less necessary now than at any time in our history, but it's an element of liberty, not to be disdained.

[pgardn]

self-defense against criminals isn't insignificant.

Well in some of the cases I mentioned it's kinda difficult to tell who the criminals are. So the tactic of labeling the other side criminals can be conveniently used to shoot each other.

[Winehole23]

I would argue the 2nd Amendment is less important for collective freedom than free speech. Free speech and public opinion sway the state in ways individualized gun ownership does not.

[Winehole23]

Well in some of the cases I mentioned it's kinda difficult to tell who the criminals are. So the tactic of labeling the other side criminals can be conveniently used to shoot each other.for better and for worse, that's part of the traditional liberty.

[DMC]

I didn't say pick one. I only asked which is more intrinsic to political liberty in the normal course of events.

The term "which is more" infers "one", which only two are offered.

[DMC]

I would argue the 2nd Amendment is less important for collective freedom than free speech. Free speech and public opinion sway the state in ways individualized gun ownership does not.

You suppose the democratic process would exist without threat of force.

[Winehole23]

You suppose the democratic process would exist without threat of force.I'm talking about the present order, not some hypothetical one. Do you suppose the state trembles in fear of the martial force of the citizenry?

Seems to me it's more pliable to political expression than the implied force of the country.

[Winehole23]

tangentially: in the present juncture, would gun owners more likely ally with a tyrannical state against faggoty liberals and hippies, or take arms against it?

[DMC]

I'm talking about the present order, not some hypothetical one. Do you suppose the state trembles in fear of the martial force of the citizenry?

Seems to me it's more pliable to political expression than the implied force of the country.

What has political expression ever done to quell tyranny without the threat of opposing force?

[DMC]

tangentially: in the present juncture, would gun owners more likely ally with a tyrannical state against faggoty liberals and hippies, or take arms against it?

I tend to think most Americans would close ranks against a tyrannical government, because difference of political opinion doesn't separate family when tyranny has historical implications, not just talking points. The hippies and liberals wouldn't be able to do much. Most of the military is conservative, and I tend to think they would refuse to attack their own people.

[Winehole23]

What has political expression ever done to quell tyranny without the threat of opposing force?Martial force? Gun toting citizens making it happen with their guns?

In US History much has been done for the sake of collective freedom without the threat of martial force.

Civil rights for women and non-whites in the 20th century was accomplished (mostly) without martial force. Many rights have been bestowed legislatively and judicially, and yes, by dint of changing social mores.

Do you deny it?

[Winehole23]

I tend to think most Americans would close ranks against a tyrannical government, because difference of political opinion doesn't separate family when tyranny has historical implications, not just talking points. The hippies and liberals wouldn't be able to do much. Most of the military is conservative, and I tend to think they would refuse to attack their own people.The military would militate against tyrannical government while we all shoot at each other. Not so implausible.

Seems to indicate the US military does not tremble before the force of the country, which mitigates your point somewhat, but I don't necessarily disagree.

[Winehole23]

Force isn't everything. Society and culture count too.

[Winehole23]

Force enforces the law. Official custom, if you like.

But it does not dictate usage. How people treat one another and what they do is always somewhat outside what force would require.

[Winehole23]

The force of public opinion, usage if you like, is a force unto itself. It may be martial, it may not be. In any case (short of total annihilation) it is not eradicable by force.

[Winehole23]

in other words, what is the 2nd Amendment for, and how has the state prevented you from accomplishing the ends for which it was contemplated?deserving of an answer, though you're by no means required to give it, DMC.

[rasuo214]

when was the last time the US faced an exogenous or internal threat that could only be answered by individual citizens exercising their 2nd Amendment rights?

Did you ever consider that one discourages the other?

[Winehole23]

I did. I asked for an example.

Do you have one?

[DMC]

Martial force? Gun toting citizens making it happen with their guns?

It's a simple question. If you need to neuter the facts to suit narrative, why bother?


In US History much has been done for the sake of collective freedom without the threat of martial force.

Ok, I'm waiting.


Civil rights for women and non-whites in the 20th century was accomplished (mostly) without martial force. Many rights have been bestowed legislatively and judicially, and yes, by dint of changing social mores.

Do you deny it?
How were civil rights violations the same as tyranny, when it's the federal government who stepped in?

[DMC]

in other words, what is the 2nd Amendment for, and how has the state prevented you from accomplishing the ends for which it was contemplated?

Are you saying that as long as modern individual interpretation of the amendments allow them to squeak by as being spiritually intact, they are indeed not being infringed upon?

What's the spirit of the 1st? How has the state prevented you from accomplishing the ends for which it was contemplated? Don't we still have a free country?

When are you going to realize everything you apply to the second amendment can just as easily be applied to the first?

[DMC]

Force isn't everything. Society and culture count too.
Fine, leave your doors unlocked and dismiss your police force. Let's see how much culture you get exposed to without the threat of opposing force.

Force enforces the law. Official custom, if you like.

But it does not dictate usage. How people treat one another and what they do is always somewhat outside what force would require.
Virtue signaling never stopped an attack.

The force of public opinion, usage if you like, is a force unto itself. It may be martial, it may not be. In any case (short of total annihilation) it is not eradicable by force.
Public opinion doesn't do anything to protect my family. Public opinion is mob mentality, it's something to be wary of, something to arm yourself against.

[Winehole23]

Your advice is worth exactly what I paid for it. I'll keep my own counsel.

I never said that force is negligible. Nor that the 2nd Amendment or the police force is dispensible.

You seem to think it tawdry when others mischaracterize what you say in order to scorn and dismiss it, but you do it often enough yourself.

[Winehole23]

Sure enough, all the bitching worked.

The AZ speaker won't put the bill on the calendar.

[Winehole23]

Are you saying that as long as modern individual interpretation of the amendments allow them to squeak by as being spiritually intact, they are indeed not being infringed upon?

What's the spirit of the 1st? How has the state prevented you from accomplishing the ends for which it was contemplated? Don't we still have a free country?

When are you going to realize everything you apply to the second amendment can just as easily be applied to the first?Occurred to me as I was posting. It's a fair point. We apparently agree.