Afraid of the people: Arizona racketeering bill includes political protests

[Winehole23]

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

[Winehole23]

241 years of cons utional liberty totally notwithstanding

[Winehole23]

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

[Winehole23]

more than two? too many!

[DMC]

they will, based on bull 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]

all that verbiage about right to assemble to pe ion 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 ing 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 cons utionally 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 ing 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 cons utional 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 ing child. Let me know when your balls drop.

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