Charlottesville too much freedom

[MargieRose]

Originally Posted by horses4courses

Go ahead....just abolish that 1st Amendment, Einstein.
Who needs dissenters when you have all the answers and knows what's best?

Oh brother! LWM just meant that protesters, ANY of them, should stay off of the streets...literally. They can protest somewhere where others' rights are not impeded, like possibly needing to get through in case of an emergency. Do you not understand what is the other side of that RIGHT?

[letswastemoney]

Originally Posted by MargieRose

Oh brother! LWM just meant that protesters, ANY of them, should stay off of the streets...literally. They can protest somewhere where others' rights are not impeded, like possibly needing to get through in case of an emergency. Do you not understand what is the other side of that RIGHT?

Yes, this is what I mean. You don't need to be on the streets to protest.

If you have to disrupt innocent people, then stand in front a building or something. It's better than blocking the street or shutting down a freeway.

[thaskalos]

When I initially posted here that "we have too much freedom in this country"...everyone jumped on me and reminded me about how "cherished" our freedoms are in this country...and how important it is for us to fastidiously preserve our "constitutional rights". But now I see that it has become acceptable to AMEND our "constitutional freedoms"...in order to satisfy whatever preconceived notions we might hold. Nice!

If people have the "right to assemble" in the street...then they should be free to assemble in the street. And if other people don't like it...then they can write about it to their congressperson.

[MargieRose]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

When I initially posted here that "we have too much freedom in this country"...everyone jumped on me and reminded me about how "cherished" our freedoms are in this country...and how important it is for us to fastidiously preserve our "constitutional rights". But now I see that it has become acceptable to AMEND our "constitutional freedoms"...in order to satisfy whatever preconceived notions we might hold. Nice!

If people have the "right to assemble" in the street...then they should be free to assemble in the street. And if other people don't like it...then they can write about it to their congressperson.

What is being amended? Does the constitution specifically say "right to assemble in the street"?

What it does say is "right of the people peaceably to assemble." How about on your driveway, at some group's will...maybe Antifa? I don't see any differentiation in the 1st Amendment about public or private property use.

Reasonableness and individual rights should prevail...without needing a specific amendment to the 1st. Amendment. No?

[davew]

I didn't think the first amendment was for the right to riot.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by MargieRose

What is being amended? Does the constitution specifically say "right to assemble in the street"?

What it does say is "right of the people peaceably to assemble." How about on your driveway, at some group's will...maybe Antifa? I don't see any differentiation in the 1st Amendment about public or private property use.

Reasonableness and individual rights should prevail...without needing a specific amendment to the 1st. Amendment. No?

When our forefathers created the constitution, they did so with the foresight that the power of the government could quickly become tyrannical if left ignored and unchallenged. When the people were granted the right to bear arms...it was with the intention that they should be able to defend themselves even against their own GOVERNMENT. And, when the people were given the right to "peacefully assemble"...it was with the intent that they could assemble in a manner whereby they wouldn't be easily ignored by the ruling class. When the citizens in other countries feel that their constitutional rights are being trampled upon by their own governments, then they take to the streets en masse...and entire cities are paralyzed as a result. That's how the citizens flex their collective muscle when their governments get tyrannical...and that's what is meant when we say that "democracy" means...'power to the people'. Surely you didn't think that "power to the people" means walking into a voting booth every 4 years or so.

[MargieRose]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

When our forefathers created the constitution, they did so with the foresight that the power of the government could quickly become tyrannical if left ignored and unchallenged. When the people were granted the right to bear arms...it was with the intention that they should be able to defend themselves even against their own GOVERNMENT. And, when the people were given the right to "peacefully assemble"...it was with the intent that they could assemble in a manner whereby they wouldn't be easily ignored by the ruling class. When the citizens in other countries feel that their constitutional rights are being trampled upon by their own governments, then they take to the streets en masse...and entire cities are paralyzed as a result. That's how the citizens flex their collective muscle when their governments get tyrannical...and that's what is meant when we say that "democracy" means...'power to the people'. Surely you didn't think that "power to the people" means walking into a voting booth every 4 years or so.

Nicely stated, Thaskalos; however, unfortunately, in today's society peaceful assembly is too often not the intention. Like Davew stated, to riot, often with deadly consequences, is the intention! No one has a right to impose potentially deadly force on our public streets...not in my book!

As to truly peaceful assembly, right-of-way should be a given and structured accordingly...LWM's point, and mine.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by MargieRose

Nicely stated, Thaskalos; however, unfortunately, in today's society peaceful assembly is too often not the intention. Like Davew stated, to riot, often with deadly consequences, is the intention! No one has a right to impose potentially deadly force on our public streets...not in my book!

Do you feel the same outrage when citizens misuse their "right to bear arms"...and innocent people die as a result? What "adjustment" are we prepared to make about THAT?

Yes...these constitutional rights sometimes fail to live up to their originally-intended purposes. But to carelessly temper with them leads to risking losing them altogether...and that's an even graver injustice, IMO.

[Tom]

Go ahead....just abolish that 1st Amendment, Einstein.
Who needs dissenters when you have all the answers and knows what's best?

Operative words being "peacefully assemble."

That rules out Ferguson, Baltimore, NYC, Wall Street, Mitch McConnel having dinner, Tucker' house.......you know, where they are NOT peaceful and they interfere with the daily lives and right of the 99% who think they are smelly idiots and would love to just piss on them?

[Tom]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

When I initially posted here that "we have too much freedom in this country"...everyone jumped on me and reminded me about how "cherished" our freedoms are in this country...and how important it is for us to fastidiously preserve our "constitutional rights". But now I see that it has become acceptable to AMEND our "constitutional freedoms"...in order to satisfy whatever preconceived notions we might hold. Nice!

If people have the "right to assemble" in the street...then they should be free to assemble in the street. And if other people don't like it...then they can write about it to their congressperson.

Except that in the street is not spelled out in the constitution. Other people have business in the streets. Blocking them is NOT peaceful.

[Buckeye]

You have the Right of peaceably assemble and that's about it.

[MargieRose]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Do you feel the same outrage when citizens misuse their "right to bear arms"...and innocent people die as a result? What "adjustment" are we prepared to make about THAT?

Yes...these constitutional rights sometimes fail to live up to their originally-intended purposes. But to carelessly temper with them leads to risking losing them altogether...and that's an even graver injustice, IMO.

It is my understanding that the "right to bear arms" is meant for self-defense...nothing needs to be tampered with, there. Use of arms for any other purpose, other than for recreational hunting purposes, perhaps, should be punishable to the fullest extend of the laws...laws that need to be explicit, made harsher and fully enforced...no exceptions that I can think of, including stupidity, accidents and mental illness and at any age. Harsh, but maybe a start!

[Tom]

People who misuse firearms and people who misuse the right to assemble are both breaking established laws - and should be arrested. Nothing special need occur. Just follow the laws.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by MargieRose

What it does say is "right of the people peaceably to assemble." How about on your driveway, at some group's will...maybe Antifa? I don't see any differentiation in the 1st Amendment about public or private property use.

The founders held that we have the basic human rights of life, liberty, and property, and that your rights exist only to the extent that they do not infringe on the rights of others.

You can't "assemble" on my property without my permission. That infringes on my property rights.

You can't assemble on public property without the permission of the public, in the form of the public's representatives, the government. The courts have ruled that the government can make reasonable and nondiscriminatory restrictions on the use of public property. Assembling in the streets infringes on the property rights of the public.

[MargieRose]

Originally Posted by Clocker

The founders held that we have the basic human rights of life, liberty, and property, and that your rights exist only to the extent that they do not infringe on the rights of others.

You can't "assemble" on my property without my permission. That infringes on my property rights.

You can't assemble on public property without the permission of the public, in the form of the public's representatives, the government. The courts have ruled that the government can make reasonable and nondiscriminatory restrictions on the use of public property. Assembling in the streets infringes on the property rights of the public.

With the 'public' being each and every individual, it seems that we agree.

To reiterate: As to truly peaceful assembly, right-of-way should be a given and [the streets] structured accordingly...LWM's point, and mine.