now you're just raving. I'm not you all. I'm just me, and I'm not a gun grabber.
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?
Last edited by Winehole23; 02-25-2017 at 09:27 PM.
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 when the one you find sacred gets slaughtered as well. It's a well known condition, eventually they will come for you.
What fence am I straddling?
You suggested free speech is unnecessary.
Why do you think so?
What infringement of the 2nd Amendment do you think I was supposed to stand against?
Registration was there ab initio. So was limitation of the privilege. Has been all along.
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?
Just like speech, the right isn't absolute.
Neither. Both are appropriate.
Extending racketeering law to compass political expression is a bit of a stretch when adequate laws already exist for rioting.
What's your point?
Then we're good, why are you worried then about this thing in Arizona? Just say the 1st Amendment isn't absolute.
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 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 ? Folks are lucky no one has been shot and killed.
The new law is overkill, inequitable, and designed to quash political expression. I think it's bull , based on bull allegations that civil society hires professional rioters.
Police already enforce laws against public disturbances. Absent a compelling state interest, a fundamental political right ought not to be infringed.
That's your opinion. Blame it on the liberal s who cannot have a peaceful protest. Dude shows up to speak at a university through invite and ers try to burn the place to the ground. Arizona is known for radical moves to squash that kind of . No worries, the paid rioters can move to California.
The LE toolbox is sufficient. Preventing violence before the fact, based in mere su ion of wrongdoing, or the intuition it may happen isn't LE, it's tyranny.
The right to burn 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 on them else you can lose them. Folks might learn that term really is true, about it not being free.
No one's upholding the right to burn down.
The police can't shut you down just because they fear it "might" happen.
So it should be ok for masked assholes to destroy property and beat people down? Oh no, we cannot riot! Tyranny!
Sure they can. What are you going to do about it, riot?
Police can't shut your down 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.
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.
Police can't proleptically preempt political expression just because they think something bad might happen.That's Soviet style .
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote