RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech

RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Real0ne -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/19/2017 10:48:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji I write pretty fucking good contracts for things in my field. As I said before, asked and answered. Your response should then be started something like, "I believe the power we are discussing are..." No, dont bother with a leading question, that tactic wont work. My proper response is Asked and Answered. I said: "in lawyer speak, 42 U.S. § 1983". Its not my problem you do not understand it and turn down my offer to guide you to the argument. You want to play lawyer then figure it out for yourself. That said my original statement now qualified stands undisputed.

tamaka -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/19/2017 11:04:37 PM)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983

LadyPact -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/19/2017 11:05:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Made2Obey Most bases require civilians to surrender any firearms in their possession at the gate before entering, and then pick them up on the way out if the base has a no firearms policy. Otherwise you are invited to turn about and not enter the base. Well, you're closer, but still not entirely correct. For example, when we lived on post, I could have absolutely bought a hunting rifle, brought said hunting rifle on post to be kept in military housing, as long as I met the requirements set by Federal law. I would have to declare the weapon, prove it's legal purchase, etc, etc. Same thing goes for areas like target shooting, personal protection, or historical pieces. Ownership is not the same as carrying. That's where the distinction is being missed. I could have said weapon in military housing ONLY. That means mine or if I went to visit a neighbor. (Perhaps another shooting enthusiast, whatever.) Pretty much, every other building on the installation was seen as a Federal building, just as much as your (if you are in the USA) local Post Office. Commissary, PX, Annex, my husband's office building, so on and so forth.

Made2Obey -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/19/2017 11:10:11 PM)
§ means "Section"

Lucylastic -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/19/2017 11:13:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Made2Obey To be honest I think the basic premise of this thread is flawed. In the history of the US guns have rarely been used to suppress free speech. The last example I can think of where protesters were actually shot was at Kent State in the late 60s. Some might think it was Waco, but the Branch Davidians weren't protesting and were in violation of existing firearms laws , so that's not a free speech issue. Sure there have been plenty of more recent examples of guns being present at protests or speeches, but unless they are actually used you can't really say they were there to stop free speech. Besides, they are often carried by both sides of the issue making their effect pretty much a draw. In any case, I can not think of a single occasion when a speech or protest did not continue simply because one side showed up with guns, at least not since Kent State. Considering how many occasions where that could have gone the other way and rampant shooting could have broken out, you'd have to say that guns have been pretty restrained in terms of opposing free speech. That hasn't been the case in other countries. (Think Tiananmen Square.) Unquestionably gun violence is an issue in this country, but it doesn't seem to factor into free speech issues much. you forget standing rock? or is that because they used rubber bullets?

Made2Obey -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/19/2017 11:13:52 PM)
I think the question was about random civilians carrying firearms onto base, not those living on base.

longwayhome -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/19/2017 11:16:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: ORIGINAL: longwayhome quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: ORIGINAL: BoscoX The car ramming the antifa crowd wasn't terrorism, it was a part of a gang fight wherein both sides were using deadly force I find myself wondering why people want to make the distinction between "terrorism" and "vehicular homicide?" (or maybe we'll end up with manslaughter even) ive only seen one quick clip of the car scene, but as I reflect on it more, I also wonder if the guy was bent on inflicting as much harm as possible on the protestors, why he didn't keep driving. he could have killed and injured many more. now please brain dead lefties---try not to turn that into my stating that's what I wished would have happened. think you could do that?? I just assumed he was scared of being dragged out of his car and beaten to death if he carried on driving so he got the hell out of there. Funny how a white supremacist driving a car at his political opponents is labelled a gang fight and not terrorism. Intent to maim or kill. Check. Causing panic or terror in a public place. Check Politically motivated. Check. Terrorism. Check. you have no idea of his motivations, intentions or hopes. No, I guess I don't. Perhaps he was driven mad by a bee in his car and drove at those people by mistake. But then since no-one who drove cars into crowds in Europe has talked we don't know their motivations either. To go right back to the OP the existence of guns carried in a public political show of strength constituted a threat to public safety and inhibited freedom of speech. It was an intentional act to show strength and intimidate people and quite possibly technically illegal depending on your reading of Virginia's gun laws. Toting guns at a public political demonstration infringes the civil liberties of others by inhibiting the right to free speech, just as driving a car at protesters does. Human and civil rights are a balance. It is the state government's responsibility to police public demonstrations in a way which allows people to express their views and protects the community from intimidation and harm. That's why there is a big difference between someone carrying a hand gun for self-defence and a group of protesters carrying weapons of any kind to a public march or protest. If people think the right to bear arms is about armed insurrection against the state or federal government then that is fine but they shouldn't expect to do that without being stopped (or indeed arrested or shot if things go wrong). The right to form a militia (if that is important to you) doesn't include the right for that militia to be unmolested by the government if it poses a potential threat. The founding fathers wanted to ensure that an over-powerful government could not disarm the population and leave it potentially powerless. No the guns were not used, but it is an act of supreme denial to believe that they were a neutral statement. Even if people support the right of individuals to own and carry firearms, it is a major escalation to go from that to defending the right of protesters to be armed in the expectation that it should be regarded as normal and provoke no response. To turn the argument on its head, just what did the Neo-Nazis have to be afraid of? And what did they think the consequence of using their guns would be? the right of free speech does not extend to the right to be agreed with or not to have others take serious exception to what you say. If you turn up with guns and so do your opponents you can't complain if the authorities decide that you have to be stopped. I don't agree with jlf1961 in general on gun ownership issues but I do agree with him that "the simple fact is that when a bunch of people show up at a 'peaceful demonstration' with bats, clubs, pepper spray and guns, their intent is anything but peaceful". Who started what is a moot point. As jlf1961 pointed out both sides were in violation of their permits and came expecting or wanting to incite trouble. The police were entitled to stop both demonstrations using whatever force was reasonable, as has happened on many other occasions and in many other countries in similar circumstances. The US is not the only country that has had to deal with far right protests, countered by demonstrations set up specifically to oppose them which have turned violent. The difference is that elsewhere when the police or military have acted decisively to prevent bloodshed there hasn't been the reaction there is here. You come to a protest tooled up, you live with the consequences. I have greater sympathy with the political views of one side here, but it falls way short of condoning armed mobs in the streets. That's not in the interests of anyone's civil liberties.

Made2Obey -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/19/2017 11:17:39 PM)
Rubber bullets are standard crowd control, or bean bags, but they are generally used when things have already gotten out of control, and not to prevent free speech beforehand.

Lucylastic -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/19/2017 11:19:38 PM)
so yeah, protesters have been shot, just not with killer bullets. thank you for clarifying

Real0ne -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/19/2017 11:21:48 PM)
yep they enacted that to bust the kkk LOL

Real0ne -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/19/2017 11:25:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: longwayhome To go right back to the OP the existence of guns carried in a public political show of strength constituted a threat to public safety and inhibited freedom of speech. prove it! good luck with that ungrounded theory Amercan have the right to bear arms. men and women with guns at protests never intimidated any other protest so prove it. [8\|]

tamaka -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/19/2017 11:32:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: longwayhome To go right back to the OP the existence of guns carried in a public political show of strength constituted a threat to public safety and inhibited freedom of speech. prove it! good luck with that ungrounded theory Amercan have the right to bear arms. men and women with guns at protests never intimidated any other protest so prove it. [8\|] I guess you could simply question people present.

Real0ne -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/19/2017 11:36:22 PM)
they are fucking terrified! Just look at all that fear! lots of armed protests in the US https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72aK2BFAJbQ and [img]https://preview.ibb.co/cyXuMk/c88_15_guns_tdndc5_66d4u.png[/img]

Made2Obey -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/19/2017 11:43:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: longwayhome To turn the argument on its head, just what did the Neo-Nazis have to be afraid of? Well, there is the fact that they have been physically attacked at just about every event they have held for at least two decades. Agree with them or not you'd have to agree that their expectation that they might need to defend themselves was legitimate.

Made2Obey -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/19/2017 11:55:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic so yeah, protesters have been shot, just not with killer bullets. thank you for clarifying Not until they had transformed from peaceful protesters into rioters though. There is a distinction.

tamaka -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/19/2017 11:57:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne they are fucking terrified! Just look at all that fear! lots of armed protests in the US https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72aK2BFAJbQ You know, this whole thing ties in very well with my premise that all of these things are being orchestrated to ultimately take away gun rights. I think protestors are showing up purposely with guns to undermine the argument that gun possession poses a threat to public safety. It makes a lot of sense now.

Made2Obey -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/20/2017 12:02:04 AM)
Tamaka I'd agree with that assessment. The anti-gun crowd seem to believe the the end justifies any means.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/20/2017 12:02:13 AM)
quote: I'm curious. Why do you think a private entity can, as you say, on their property, but Uncle Sam can't on HIS property? I'm wondering about your thought process. It's simple. I read the fucking Constitution, something you apparently have not. What's more, "Uncle Sam" has no property, it all belongs to the people, not the government.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/20/2017 12:06:07 AM)
quote: Right , being a civilian doesn't give you the right to carry on base. Correct, it is being a person that does.

Made2Obey -> RE: Charlottesville: Guns vs. Free Speech (8/20/2017 12:07:58 AM)
Diz Military bases fall under military law. It's not the same as civilian law.

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625