• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

When the 1st Clashes with the 2nd

Caine said:
You still aren't getting it.....

Two guys, neither are Nazis..

One of these guys is walking with his smokin' hot girlfriend. The other guy "checks her out". Nobody else is around to witness it. The guy with the girlfriend punches him in the face and breaks his nose. The guy with the girlfriend gets arrested.

The guy with the girlfriend claims that the other guy made a sexist remark to his girlfriend and he was offended by it so he punched him under this stupid defense. The girlfriend lies and sticks up for her beau. The judge lets the guy off.

He tells his friends. They too decide to assault people and get off the hook. They tell their friends........



Stupid ideas like this have a way of going well outside of their intent.
Click to expand...

Assault is a crime. Looking at someone is not. If the complainant were able to prove the assault, then the defendant should be convicted of the crime. You made a mountain out of a molehill.
 
fmw said:
Assault is a crime. Looking at someone is not. If the complainant were able to prove the assault, then the defendant should be convicted of the crime. You made a mountain out of a molehill.
Click to expand...

I think you just jumped into a conversation that you have no clue what we were actually discussing.

calamity thinks you should be able to assault someone for being offended.
 
Caine said:
I think you just jumped into a conversation that you have no clue what we were actually discussing.

calamity thinks you should be able to assault someone for being offended.
Click to expand...

He's right. You can. But there are consequences. Sorry for any confusion on my part.
 
fmw said:
He's right. You can. But there are consequences. Sorry for any confusion on my part.
Click to expand...

He was referring to legally. Without consequences.
 
This is interesting:

Bret Stephens: Repeal the Second Amendment

...
From a national security standpoint, the amendment's suggestion that a "well-regulated militia" is "necessary to the security of a free State" is quaint.
...
From a personal liberty standpoint, the idea that an armed citizenry is the ultimate check on the ambitions and encroachments of government power is curious. Consider the Whiskey Rebellion of the 1790s or the New York draft riots of 1863 — does any serious conservative think of these as great moments in Second Amendment activism?
...
Americans who claim to be outraged by gun crimes should want to do something more than tinker at the margins of a legal regime that most of the developed world rightly considers nuts. They should want to change it fundamentally and permanently.

There is only one way to do this: Repeal the Second Amendment.
...
They will cite James Madison, who noted in the Federalist Papers that in Europe "the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
...
I wonder what Madison would have to say about that today, when more than twice as many Americans perished last year at the hands of their fellows as died in battle during the entire Revolutionary War. My guess: Take the guns — or at least the presumptive right to them — away. The true foundation of American exceptionalism should be our capacity for moral and constitutional renewal, not our instinct for self-destruction.
Click to expand...

As Stephens says that idea seems (is) Mission Impossible. I'm leaning towards O'Reilly's 'price of freedom' view, at least for the short term.
 
calamity said:
People complain about how the locals and the state handled things in Charlottesville. Well, there was a reason for that. A big one.



So, one has to analyze this a bit. Free speech is a fundamental right, even crap Nazi speech. Carrying weapons is also a fundie right, granted, with some limitations. But...

What is not a right, IMO, is the right to terrorize or the right to make life a living hell for the people in a community, including law enforcement. So, where do we draw the line? And, what do we do if the speech is so egregious that physical and/or armed confrontations are almost inevitable...if not even the actual intent of said speech?
Click to expand...

Your point is well made, but there is an underlying factor that no one considers.

It goes wayyyyy back and is due to an under appreciation for the NEED of ready and easy means for people to communicate about their differences, their needs and their wants. And it goes further.

Third parties not involved, but possessing the means to communicate to them all, misrepresent, manipulate, mislead and decieve in order to help yet other parties to get what they want, despite what that does to some people's ability to get what they need.

As soon as American society got big, media had an obligation to society to help people understand one another with whatever medium they happened to work in. The reverse happened. Commerce took control and media became only about money and power. The people's needs were barely considered in the long run, as long as the powerful calling the shots got what they wanted.

Dividing people to make profits actually became normal.

Free speech has a primary, ultimate PURPOSE that our western society has almost completely lost sight of. It biologically exists in our phylogenic DNA to assure that information vital to survival is shared and understood.
 
ChrisABrown said:
Your point is well made, but there is an underlying factor that no one considers.

It goes wayyyyy back and is due to an under appreciation for the NEED of ready and easy means for people to communicate about their differences, their needs and their wants. And it goes further.

Third parties not involved, but possessing the means to communicate to them all, misrepresent, manipulate, mislead and decieve in order to help yet other parties to get what they want, despite what that does to some people's ability to get what they need.

As soon as American society got big, media had an obligation to society to help people understand one another with whatever medium they happened to work in. The reverse happened. Commerce took control and media became only about money and power. The people's needs were barely considered in the long run, as long as the powerful calling the shots got what they wanted.

Dividing people to make profits actually became normal.

Free speech has a primary, ultimate PURPOSE that our western society has almost completely lost sight of. It biologically exists in our phylogenic DNA to assure that information vital to survival is shared and understood.
Click to expand...
That's an interesting angle which I have not considered--when free speech and profiteering collide. One thing it brings front and center. Is speech free, if it has to be paid for to produce and receive it?
 
calamity said:
That's an interesting angle which I have not considered--when free speech and profiteering collide. One thing it brings front and center. Is speech free, if it has to be paid for to produce and receive it?
Click to expand...


LOL! Correct, I don't think either of us is going to invest too deeply in an oxymoron rather than recognizing the natural law facts.

Most importantly is recognizing the pretentious theatre that government and commerce have constructed and operate feigning honor for a vital right.

We need to own that right like the air we breath is an unalienable right. Such rights deprived need not kill us over night to be recognized, if it destroys us over 10 generations we are just as gone.
 
Rand Paul, who I'm not sure I like, too polarized in politics now for me, wrote this, which is really very good.

"Your rights are who you are, your rights are what you are, your rights are in your DNA - and the government can, quite frankly, get over it." - Sen. Rand Paul, MD​
 
Wisdom said:
It would have been perfectly legal for the authorities to ban all guns from the demonstration, just as authorities can ban guns at other political rallies. Guns can be banned from state government property without violating the 2nd Amendment, especially when there are safety concerns.

How many people want to bet that the same authorities would never condone a Black Lives Matter group to show up more heavily armed than the police, as the neo-Nazis did here?

The authorities have an obligation to also protect the free-speech rights of the counter-demonstrators, and that includes making sure that they are not intimidated by neo-Nazis being more heavily armed than the police. The neo-Nazis intentionally show up armed as they did in the hopes that this will intimidate people to the point that they will not show up to counter-protest them, which effectively denies them their freedom of assembly under the First Amendment.

First Amendment rights have always been given greater protection than Second Amendment rights.
Click to expand...

Depends on the State, the Stat of NH allows Concealed and or open carry anywhere albeit Schools and City Hall / Court.

As a matter of fact when Obama was a candidate a big to do happened when a man had an AR 15 on his back in the audience as Obama spoke.


This is not NH, I'll try and find that one too

Man carries assault rifle to Obama protest -- and it's legal - CNN.com
 
Marco Montana said:
Depends on the State, the Stat of NH allows Concealed and or open carry anywhere albeit Schools and City Hall / Court.

As a matter of fact when Obama was a candidate a big to do happened when a man had an AR 15 on his back in the audience as Obama spoke.


This is not NH, I'll try and find that one too

Man carries assault rifle to Obama protest -- and it's legal - CNN.com
Click to expand...

Is that the jackass who had a pistol on his hip and a sign saying, "It's time to water the tree of liberty!"?
 
Last edited:
I find it interesting that so much is known and discussed about the negative aspects of free speech, while the most positive are rarely mentioned. Does this indicate a disability?

There are no threads here on that subject, except for perhaps the ones I've posted.
 
Yes, government has a compelling interest, if violence is planned, yes indeed. Amendment 1 covers only peaceable assembly. Law enforcement has a duty to keep it peaceable, and to use the proper amount of force necessary to do it. As for having guns at a peaceable assembly, I know that permits are often required. Maybe an answer lies in that direction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom