"the right of the people peaceably to assemble"

[bodecea]

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)

"sob, sob....sniffle, sniffle.....a leftard commie lost his life yesterday and how hilarious it is....." Sums up the Alt-Right trumpanzees.....

 

[bodecea]

Tell that to the antifa thugs throwing urine and starting fights.

As I've said the prohibition against violence applies to everyone equally.

Yet, when you have proof of how violent liberals are, it's only prudent to be armed. Cry and wail about it all you want, NOTHING will change that and we are NOT going to be disarmed.

Obama and Democrats fomented lawlessness and division, well here we are. Without division and lawlessness, bigotry and intolerance the Democratic party would not exist.

Obama! Obama! Obama!

Adults are talking

I see that you had to remind yourself of that fact.

 

[cnelsen]

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.

If no one, White supremacists or anti-fascists had weapons or protective gear, the worse that would happen would be fist fights.

Are you saying that white supremacists are such a bunch of pussies that can't handle a fist fight with a bunch of liberals?

No one has a constitutional right to gather as an armed mob - regardless of which side they're on.

Wasn't the driver of the car triggered by someone throwing a rock?

I don't know, but a report on an a British site, possibly "The Mirror" said so. I linked it in a post yesterday. Never heard anything else about it. But from the video, even if he was hit by a rock, he sure went a long way to ram those people.

Right. Not excusing his actions. Just pointing out the OPs soft ground to make this about being "armed".

 

[Fenton Lum]

Can't wait for Lovely Lucy to came along again, complain that this is all being used to make rabid alt right ideologues look like racists, and then tell me to "go out and find some Jungle Bunnys to play with".

 

[cnelsen]

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.

If no one, White supremacists or anti-fascists had weapons or protective gear, the worse that would happen would be fist fights.

Are you saying that white supremacists are such a bunch of pussies that can't handle a fist fight with a bunch of liberals?

No one has a constitutional right to gather as an armed mob - regardless of which side they're on.

Wasn't the driver of the car triggered by someone throwing a rock?

I don't think anyone knows what led to this driver killing a person. Either way, getting hit by a rock or whatever else does not justify what he did.

Right, but if it was a thrown rock that triggered him, your argument about protective gear and all seems seems irrelevant.

 

[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)

"sob, sob....sniffle, sniffle.....a leftard commie lost his life yesterday and how hilarious it is....." Sums up the Alt-Right trumpanzees.....

I have just as much concern for a commie leftard as you leftards had for the ones attacked by Antifa using bicycle chains and pepper spray because some other group was exercising THEIR 1st amendment rights. Funny how these ANTIFA folks just show up on buses any time anywhere....I wonder who is funding that????

 

[Dale Smith]

Goddamn you are screwed up in the head, please emigrate to Canada. Illegals are a net loss to our country, its been studied, not just a net loss its a HUGE net loss. Never mind the thousands of Americans they kill, rape, rob, assault, identify theft, drug trafficking.

They are only a burden if you don't count their contributions. Their net revenue to the government is a $7 billion tax surplus. They also provide countless services at costs that average americans can afford. And with unemployment at a 17 year low, you can't even pretend they're taking jobs from anybody.

100 hundred percent WRONG.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

This weekend, he declined to directly condemn the White Supremacists for their acts of terror.

What ACTS (or act) of terror was that?

 

[Nosmo King]

This weekend, he declined to directly condemn the White Supremacists for their acts of terror.

What ACTS (or act) of terror was that?

Like the terrorist attacks in Nice and London, a terrorist used a vehicle to kill.

 

[Auld Phart]

This weekend, he declined to directly condemn the White Supremacists for their acts of terror.

What ACTS (or act) of terror was that?

Like the terrorist attacks in Nice and London, a terrorist used a vehicle to kill.

all those guns there, and the only death was a hit and run?

Scary

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Like the terrorist attacks in Nice and London, a terrorist used a vehicle to kill.

I saw a teen who was scared by the violent liberal mob, trying to get the hell out.

But you did say ACTS of terror.

 

[Nosmo King]

This weekend, he declined to directly condemn the White Supremacists for their acts of terror.

What ACTS (or act) of terror was that?

Like the terrorist attacks in Nice and London, a terrorist used a vehicle to kill.

all those guns there, and the only death was a hit and run?

Scary

As if you can dismiss sparks around a powder keg and there was no explosion. Sparks are then deemed safe around powder kegs?

 

[Dale Smith]

a couple things spring to mind in the aftermath of the events in Charlottesville this weekend. Take them with a grain or two of salt.

I don't see how carrying guns to a protest is anything like peaceable assembly, as guaranteed under our laws. Bringing your weapons is picking a fight. Some on this board refer to carrying weapons as carrying 'inanimate objects' and the fear of them is irrational. Meanwhile, these armed protestors are there to defend an inanimate object, namely the statue of Robert E. Lee. They simply cannot have it both ways.

After terrorist attacks, Trump is usually on his Ywitter account before any facts are released condemning "Radical Islamic terrorist" for the crime. This weekend, he declined to directly condemn the White Supremacists for their acts of terror.

Reasonable Conservatives should not be lumped in with the pile of human debris that is the White Supremacist movement. Yet some of those reasonable Conservatives wonder why reasonable Muslims do not condemn the acts of unreasonable violent Muslims. Sauce for the goose, folks. If you want Muslims to condemn terrorism by Muslims, isn't it only fair that you lend a full throated condemnation of unreasonable Conservatives? I understand that you don't want to be included with White Supremacists. I think reasonable Muslims feel the same way.

Certainly appears that it was ANTIFA that started the violence to begin with. Throwing urine on people, using pepper spray, throwing balloons filled with pink paint. It certainly appears to be a massive set up for sure.

 

[Auld Phart]

This weekend, he declined to directly condemn the White Supremacists for their acts of terror.

What ACTS (or act) of terror was that?

Like the terrorist attacks in Nice and London, a terrorist used a vehicle to kill.

all those guns there, and the only death was a hit and run?

Scary

As if you can dismiss sparks around a powder keg and there was no explosion. Sparks are then deemed safe around powder kegs?

sparks?

again...

all those guns, and the only death was a hit and run.

 

[Nosmo King]

a couple things spring to mind in the aftermath of the events in Charlottesville this weekend. Take them with a grain or two of salt.

I don't see how carrying guns to a protest is anything like peaceable assembly, as guaranteed under our laws. Bringing your weapons is picking a fight. Some on this board refer to carrying weapons as carrying 'inanimate objects' and the fear of them is irrational. Meanwhile, these armed protestors are there to defend an inanimate object, namely the statue of Robert E. Lee. They simply cannot have it both ways.

After terrorist attacks, Trump is usually on his Ywitter account before any facts are released condemning "Radical Islamic terrorist" for the crime. This weekend, he declined to directly condemn the White Supremacists for their acts of terror.

Reasonable Conservatives should not be lumped in with the pile of human debris that is the White Supremacist movement. Yet some of those reasonable Conservatives wonder why reasonable Muslims do not condemn the acts of unreasonable violent Muslims. Sauce for the goose, folks. If you want Muslims to condemn terrorism by Muslims, isn't it only fair that you lend a full throated condemnation of unreasonable Conservatives? I understand that you don't want to be included with White Supremacists. I think reasonable Muslims feel the same way.

Certainly appears that it was ANTIFA that started the violence to begin with. Throwing urine on people, using pepper spray, throwing balloons filled with pink paint. It certainly appears to be a massive set up for sure.

Do you believe ther was no blame to be placed on the WhiteSup

a couple things spring to mind in the aftermath of the events in Charlottesville this weekend. Take them with a grain or two of salt.

I don't see how carrying guns to a protest is anything like peaceable assembly, as guaranteed under our laws. Bringing your weapons is picking a fight. Some on this board refer to carrying weapons as carrying 'inanimate objects' and the fear of them is irrational. Meanwhile, these armed protestors are there to defend an inanimate object, namely the statue of Robert E. Lee. They simply cannot have it both ways.

After terrorist attacks, Trump is usually on his Ywitter account before any facts are released condemning "Radical Islamic terrorist" for the crime. This weekend, he declined to directly condemn the White Supremacists for their acts of terror.

Reasonable Conservatives should not be lumped in with the pile of human debris that is the White Supremacist movement. Yet some of those reasonable Conservatives wonder why reasonable Muslims do not condemn the acts of unreasonable violent Muslims. Sauce for the goose, folks. If you want Muslims to condemn terrorism by Muslims, isn't it only fair that you lend a full throated condemnation of unreasonable Conservatives? I understand that you don't want to be included with White Supremacists. I think reasonable Muslims feel the same way.

Certainly appears that it was ANTIFA that started the violence to begin with. Throwing urine on people, using pepper spray, throwing balloons filled with pink paint. It certainly appears to be a massive set up for sure.

are you suggesting that there is no blame to be placed on the White Supremacists?

 

[Nosmo King]

This weekend, he declined to directly condemn the White Supremacists for their acts of terror.

What ACTS (or act) of terror was that?

Like the terrorist attacks in Nice and London, a terrorist used a vehicle to kill.

all those guns there, and the only death was a hit and run?

Scary

As if you can dismiss sparks around a powder keg and there was no explosion. Sparks are then deemed safe around powder kegs?

sparks?

again...

all those guns, and the only death was a hit and run.

How can carrying weapons to a protest be seen as "peaceable assembly"?

 

[Peach]

a couple things spring to mind in the aftermath of the events in Charlottesville this weekend. Take them with a grain or two of salt.

I don't see how carrying guns to a protest is anything like peaceable assembly, as guaranteed under our laws. Bringing your weapons is picking a fight. Some on this board refer to carrying weapons as carrying 'inanimate objects' and the fear of them is irrational. Meanwhile, these armed protestors are there to defend an inanimate object, namely the statue of Robert E. Lee. They simply cannot have it both ways.

After terrorist attacks, Trump is usually on his Ywitter account before any facts are released condemning "Radical Islamic terrorist" for the crime. This weekend, he declined to directly condemn the White Supremacists for their acts of terror.

Reasonable Conservatives should not be lumped in with the pile of human debris that is the White Supremacist movement. Yet some of those reasonable Conservatives wonder why reasonable Muslims do not condemn the acts of unreasonable violent Muslims. Sauce for the goose, folks. If you want Muslims to condemn terrorism by Muslims, isn't it only fair that you lend a full throated condemnation of unreasonable Conservatives? I understand that you don't want to be included with White Supremacists. I think reasonable Muslims feel the same way.

The American Fascists must NOT be compared to American conservatives, I agree.

 

[Dale Smith]

a couple things spring to mind in the aftermath of the events in Charlottesville this weekend. Take them with a grain or two of salt.

I don't see how carrying guns to a protest is anything like peaceable assembly, as guaranteed under our laws. Bringing your weapons is picking a fight. Some on this board refer to carrying weapons as carrying 'inanimate objects' and the fear of them is irrational. Meanwhile, these armed protestors are there to defend an inanimate object, namely the statue of Robert E. Lee. They simply cannot have it both ways.

After terrorist attacks, Trump is usually on his Ywitter account before any facts are released condemning "Radical Islamic terrorist" for the crime. This weekend, he declined to directly condemn the White Supremacists for their acts of terror.

Reasonable Conservatives should not be lumped in with the pile of human debris that is the White Supremacist movement. Yet some of those reasonable Conservatives wonder why reasonable Muslims do not condemn the acts of unreasonable violent Muslims. Sauce for the goose, folks. If you want Muslims to condemn terrorism by Muslims, isn't it only fair that you lend a full throated condemnation of unreasonable Conservatives? I understand that you don't want to be included with White Supremacists. I think reasonable Muslims feel the same way.

Certainly appears that it was ANTIFA that started the violence to begin with. Throwing urine on people, using pepper spray, throwing balloons filled with pink paint. It certainly appears to be a massive set up for sure.

Do you believe ther was no blame to be placed on the WhiteSup

a couple things spring to mind in the aftermath of the events in Charlottesville this weekend. Take them with a grain or two of salt.

I don't see how carrying guns to a protest is anything like peaceable assembly, as guaranteed under our laws. Bringing your weapons is picking a fight. Some on this board refer to carrying weapons as carrying 'inanimate objects' and the fear of them is irrational. Meanwhile, these armed protestors are there to defend an inanimate object, namely the statue of Robert E. Lee. They simply cannot have it both ways.

After terrorist attacks, Trump is usually on his Ywitter account before any facts are released condemning "Radical Islamic terrorist" for the crime. This weekend, he declined to directly condemn the White Supremacists for their acts of terror.

Reasonable Conservatives should not be lumped in with the pile of human debris that is the White Supremacist movement. Yet some of those reasonable Conservatives wonder why reasonable Muslims do not condemn the acts of unreasonable violent Muslims. Sauce for the goose, folks. If you want Muslims to condemn terrorism by Muslims, isn't it only fair that you lend a full throated condemnation of unreasonable Conservatives? I understand that you don't want to be included with White Supremacists. I think reasonable Muslims feel the same way.

Certainly appears that it was ANTIFA that started the violence to begin with. Throwing urine on people, using pepper spray, throwing balloons filled with pink paint. It certainly appears to be a massive set up for sure.

are you suggesting that there is no blame to be placed on the White Supremacists?

Like fighting back? If these pro-confederate douches had been allowed their first amendment right to have their little protest and not been attacked, nothing would have happened. Are you saying that ANTIFA is not to blame nor are they to blame in the past for counter-protesting at events having nothing to do with the confederate statute issue????

 

[Peach]

This weekend, he declined to directly condemn the White Supremacists for their acts of terror.

What ACTS (or act) of terror was that?

Like the terrorist attacks in Nice and London, a terrorist used a vehicle to kill.

all those guns there, and the only death was a hit and run?

Scary

The ONLY death caused by the Fascists; rather blase are you not?

 

[bodecea]

This weekend, he declined to directly condemn the White Supremacists for their acts of terror.

What ACTS (or act) of terror was that?

You don't feel that that Alt-Rightie running his car into the crowd was an act of terror?