"the right of the people peaceably to assemble"

[miketx]

The democrats have turned deadly. Take care when you are around them.

[QUOTE="2aguy, post: 17916943, member: 50072.....and antifa have attacked peaceful protestors all across the country and have been lucky that they haven't killed anyone yet....

Your fellow poster disagrees. Maybe you two should get a room and fight it out.[/QUOTE]
Doesn't really look like you know what a disagreement is. Antifa are all liberals.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“the right of the people peaceably to assemble"

No right is ‘absolute,’ and all rights are subject to reasonable restrictions and regulation by government – including the rights enshrined in the First Amendment.

Jurisdictions have the authority to regulate or restrict protests and marches when such “regulations of the time, place, and manner of expression…are content-neutral, are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication.” (Frisby v. Schultz (1988))

 

[Hum Dinger]

Gotta go, Have a nice day....blah,,,blah..blah...

Please continue the discussion (Non-violently please!)

 

[LoneLaugher]

The first amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees:

"the right of the people peaceably to assemble"

When watching the videos of yesterday's protest and counter protest, a large number of the people at the protest were armed - many had helmets and shields as well as various weapons ranging from clubs to pepper spray to guns.

It's apparent that these people were at best anticipating violence, and may have intended to incite violence.
The Constitution does NOT have a right to violent protest. It does note cite a right to gather as an armed mob.

The violence at yesterdays protest would probably have been a whole lot less if no one on either side had weapons of any type, and if they did not any protective gear.

Even wearing protective gear shows that they are anticipating violence. Anyone who foes to a protest while anticipating violence has no right to go to that protest.

It seems that protest groups go far beyond their Constitutional right - if they intend to incite violence or even anticipate violence, they are no longer within their Constitutional rights.

In the future, if anyone shows up at a protest or counter protest with weapons or protective gear, they should immediately be arrested. If a sizable number have weapons or protective gear, the police should use whatever means necessary to end the protest!

Now point out how many people were shot yesterday. Mkay?

Apparently wherever there were weapons on display the Antifa assholes decided not to attack anyone.

Regardless of what weapon was used, a person was murdered yesterday. If no one had any weapons or protective gear, there would have been less violence and passions would not have risen to the level that hey did. Most likely no one would have been killed.

Wow! What utter nonsense. You think that this is the first time there's been violence at a protest?

Obviously this was not the first time there has been violence at protests.

That is why the police should confiscate any weapons or protective gear. If needed tey should arrest people who are armed, and if neede they should disperse the protest entirely.

Any reasonable cause for the police believing that a protest will turn violent should justify action by the police - or National Guard if needed.

2nd Amendment. the have a right to be armed. A protest doesn't become violent simply because someone is carrying.

Why does our state, which has liberal gun laws, prohibit concealed carry at protests?

 

[2aguy]

The democrats have turned deadly. Take care when you are around them.

[QUOTE="2aguy, post: 17916943, member: 50072.....and antifa have attacked peaceful protestors all across the country and have been lucky that they haven't killed anyone yet....

Your fellow poster disagrees. Maybe you two should get a room and fight it out.[/QUOTE]


No moron....antifa hasn't murdered anyone yet....but bernie sanders supporters tried to assassinate the President, tried to murder the Republican party baseball team and murdered two men in seattle......moron.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

To peaceably assembly yes, to be a racist stupid shit no.

People have a right to peacefully assemble - no matter how repulsive their views.

Any counter protests must be peaceful.

They are entitled to their views, their actions on the other hand are restricted by Constitutional Law.

I am missing your point here, because I don't think you have one.

You assume the assembly was lawful, see "Unlawful Assembly".

What makes you think it was not a lawful assembly?

 

[2aguy]

Now point out how many people were shot yesterday. Mkay?

Apparently wherever there were weapons on display the Antifa assholes decided not to attack anyone.

Regardless of what weapon was used, a person was murdered yesterday. If no one had any weapons or protective gear, there would have been less violence and passions would not have risen to the level that hey did. Most likely no one would have been killed.

Wow! What utter nonsense. You think that this is the first time there's been violence at a protest?

Obviously this was not the first time there has been violence at protests.

That is why the police should confiscate any weapons or protective gear. If needed tey should arrest people who are armed, and if neede they should disperse the protest entirely.

Any reasonable cause for the police believing that a protest will turn violent should justify action by the police - or National Guard if needed.

2nd Amendment. the have a right to be armed. A protest doesn't become violent simply because someone is carrying.

Why does our state, which has liberal gun laws, prohibit concealed carry at protests?

Because they are clueless when it comes to guns and gun owners. As we keep pointing out.

 

[Dale Smith]

sob, sob.......sniffle, sniffle....... a leftard commie lost his life yesterday and how hilarious is it to watch the leftard clown posse pause and reflect as they grieve over losing a commie comrade.

I wish to help....is there a "gofundme" site? I wish to donate a plug nickel.......it's the least I can do and to be honest? The very least is all I WOULD do for a commie leftard.


(snicker)

 

[postman]

Because they are clueless when it comes to guns and gun owners. As we keep pointing out.

I dare you to exercise your 2nd amendment rights on a military base.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Regardless of what weapon was used, a person was murdered yesterday. If no one had any weapons or protective gear, there would have been less violence and passions would not have risen to the level that hey did. Most likely no one would have been killed.

They were murdered with an automobile, so perhaps they should have been banned all cars

 

[2aguy]

[QUOTE="2aguy, post: 17917113, member: 50072
Because they are clueless when it comes to guns and gun owners. As we keep pointing out.

I dare you to exercise your 2nd amendment rights on a military base.[/QUOTE]


You mean like Fort Hood...where a muslim terrorist targeted a gun free zone at the Fort and only when a good woman with a gun arrived was he stopped...like that?

How about the Dallas shooting....? There were people in the crowd visibly carrying AR-15 rifles marching right next to the local cops....and then the shooting from the black lives matter sympathizer started, and guess what, genius....those armed citizens got out of the way, with their pistols and AR-15s and let the police handle the shooter.....

At the giffords shooting.....there were two concealed carry permit holders there...and neither one used their weapon because the attacker was already taken down...

So again, you nuts don't know what you are talking about when it comes to normal American gun owners....

 

[The2ndAmendment]

To peaceably assembly yes, to be a racist stupid shit no.

Heil Hitler ******. Glory to Odin, May Thor's Thunder purge your blight from both our native and rightfully conquered lands.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The first amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees:

"the right of the people peaceably to assemble"

When watching the videos of yesterday's protest and counter protest, a large number of the people at the protest were armed - many had helmets and shields as well as various weapons ranging from clubs to pepper spray to guns.

It's apparent that these people were at best anticipating violence, and may have intended to incite violence.
The Constitution does NOT have a right to violent protest. It does note cite a right to gather as an armed mob.

Of course, they anticipated violence. Everyone on both sides knew it would be an emotionally charged event. You can't legally prevent people from bringing weapons of defense that are perfectly legal to have.

In any case, who really gives a shit what these people all do to each other? Let the trash takes itself out.

 

[Vastator]

Now point out how many people were shot yesterday. Mkay?

Apparently wherever there were weapons on display the Antifa assholes decided not to attack anyone.

Regardless of what weapon was used, a person was murdered yesterday. If no one had any weapons or protective gear, there would have been less violence and passions would not have risen to the level that hey did. Most likely no one would have been killed.

Wow! What utter nonsense. You think that this is the first time there's been violence at a protest?

Obviously this was not the first time there has been violence at protests.

That is why the police should confiscate any weapons or protective gear. If needed tey should arrest people who are armed, and if neede they should disperse the protest entirely.

Any reasonable cause for the police believing that a protest will turn violent should justify action by the police - or National Guard if needed.

No...if it is legal to carry a weapon in public...it is legal, and the police have no ability to disarm those people. They have complete ability to arrest violent attackers. And thank you for showing that you are more than willing to strip Rights away from people who have done nothing wrong. That is quintessential leftist thinking.

In Constituional law there are often conflicts between constitutional rights. The SCOTUS decides which rights 'trump' each other.

You may have the right to bear arms, but in the case of protests (assembly) the requirement that the protest be peaceful trumps the right to bear arms. YOu're right to bear arms is suspended while participating in a protest.

You have a choice whether or not to attend a protest. If you feel that you need to armed, you should not attend,

Case law citation required...

 

[Vastator]

You meet force with force. It has been that way since the dawn of time. The left bused paid counter protestors in. They came for one purpose. They wanted trouble, they got it. Simple as that.

You do not have the right to use force. It's the job of the police to meet force with force, not yours.

Then you are a total ******* retard. You just stated that no one has the right of self defense. Crawl back under your pink security blanket.

You have the right to use the minimal force needed tp protect yourself. You are not justified in taking aggressive action beyond that. If assaulted you should report it to police.

Wrong.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

to be a racist stupid shit no.

The first amendment does indeed afford you the right to be a stupid racist prick.

No it doesn't.

Yes, it does, dumbass, whether you like it or not. How "shocking" that a "small government" conservative now wants to police what people think.

 

[miketx]

The first amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees:

"the right of the people peaceably to assemble"

When watching the videos of yesterday's protest and counter protest, a large number of the people at the protest were armed - many had helmets and shields as well as various weapons ranging from clubs to pepper spray to guns.

It's apparent that these people were at best anticipating violence, and may have intended to incite violence.
The Constitution does NOT have a right to violent protest. It does note cite a right to gather as an armed mob.

Of course, they anticipated violence. Everyone on both sides knew it would be an emotionally charged event. You can't legally prevent people from bringing weapons of defense that are perfectly legal to have.

In any case, who really gives a shit what these people all do to each other? Let the trash takes itself out.

I agree with all but your last two sentences. You see that's what the coward politicians do each time blacks riot and loot and burn, innocents always get hurt and the governments job is to protect it's people. In each case of black lawlessness, politicians allowed it to continue. in this case they tried to shut it down before it even got started. Clearly the government and the media are biased against whites.

 

[postman]

At the giffords shooting.....there were two concealed carry permit holders there...and neither one used their weapon because the attacker was already taken down...
....

Actually that's a good example.

Armed Giffords hero nearly shot wrong man

The new poster boy for this agenda is Joe Zamudio, a hero in the Tucson incident. Zamudio was in a nearby drug store when the shooting began, and he was armed. He ran to the scene and helped subdue the killer.

"I came out of that store, I clicked the safety off, and I was ready," he explained on Fox and Friends. "I had my hand on my gun. I had it in my jacket pocket here. And I came around the corner like this." Zamudio demonstrated how his shooting hand was wrapped around the weapon, poised to draw and fire. As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. "And that's who I at first thought was the shooter," Zamudio recalled. "I told him to 'Drop it, drop it!'"

But the man with the gun wasn't the shooter. He had wrested the gun away from the shooter. "Had you shot that guy, it would have been a big, fat mess," the interviewer pointed out.

Zamudio agreed

 

[2aguy]

At the giffords shooting.....there were two concealed carry permit holders there...and neither one used their weapon because the attacker was already taken down...
....

Actually that's a good example.

Armed Giffords hero nearly shot wrong man

The new poster boy for this agenda is Joe Zamudio, a hero in the Tucson incident. Zamudio was in a nearby drug store when the shooting began, and he was armed. He ran to the scene and helped subdue the killer.

"I came out of that store, I clicked the safety off, and I was ready," he explained on Fox and Friends. "I had my hand on my gun. I had it in my jacket pocket here. And I came around the corner like this." Zamudio demonstrated how his shooting hand was wrapped around the weapon, poised to draw and fire. As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. "And that's who I at first thought was the shooter," Zamudio recalled. "I told him to 'Drop it, drop it!'"

But the man with the gun wasn't the shooter. He had wrested the gun away from the shooter. "Had you shot that guy, it would have been a big, fat mess," the interviewer pointed out.

Zamudio agreed

Yes...in the middle of a mass public shooting.....He Didn't Shoot the other guy, he simply disarmed him without firing a shot....making my point...thank you. Again, you guys have a belief about gun owners you made up in your brains that has no bearing in reality....

 

[Vastator]

At the giffords shooting.....there were two concealed carry permit holders there...and neither one used their weapon because the attacker was already taken down...
....

Actually that's a good example.

Armed Giffords hero nearly shot wrong man

The new poster boy for this agenda is Joe Zamudio, a hero in the Tucson incident. Zamudio was in a nearby drug store when the shooting began, and he was armed. He ran to the scene and helped subdue the killer.

"I came out of that store, I clicked the safety off, and I was ready," he explained on Fox and Friends. "I had my hand on my gun. I had it in my jacket pocket here. And I came around the corner like this." Zamudio demonstrated how his shooting hand was wrapped around the weapon, poised to draw and fire. As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. "And that's who I at first thought was the shooter," Zamudio recalled. "I told him to 'Drop it, drop it!'"

But the man with the gun wasn't the shooter. He had wrested the gun away from the shooter. "Had you shot that guy, it would have been a big, fat mess," the interviewer pointed out.

Zamudio agreed

An example of a sound decision by a responsible gun owner. Well done!