"the right of the people peaceably to assemble"

[Carter Malone]

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!

Sorry......the blame for that goes to antifa, the left wing democrat thugs. They have shown over and over that they are willing to attack and beat anyone they disagree with. It is no surprise that this caused the other fascists, the so called White Nationals to come prepared to defend themselves.....

During the election it was revealed that the Democrat National Committee paid two men, bob craemer, and scot foval, to organize people to go to Trump rallies to incite violence, they took credit for closing down Trump's rally here in Chicago, and for shutting down the highway at the other rally.....they did this with directions from the DNC director of special events, who recieved his marching orders straight from the hilary campaign....these two men also visted the White House a number of times and bob craemer is married to jan shakowski, a long time Illinois democrat politician.

This is not alleged, it is admitted to on video...




Bob craamer and scot foval left their jobs when that video came out.

You also have the various riots, beatings and attacks by antifa at Trump events, and at various colleges where Conservative speakers were giving speeches.....Berkely, U.C. Irvine.....they beat people, they sprayed people with pepper spray, they destroyed property, attacked police......

So to put this in equal measure on the white national fascists is not true or accurate, the democrat antifa fascists have demonstrated that they are violent and hateful and willing to attack peaceful people attending rallies....

Any prohibition against weapons and protective gear at protest would apply equally to both sides of the protest.

No one has a constitutional right to gather as an armed mob.

No one did that. what are you blabbering about?

That's exactly what it was.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Auld Phart]

The alt right arrived ready to bash people, which they did. They were armed, crying long guns, ready to shoot people. Thankfully, they didn't but there's only reason they arrived at a "peaceful" protest carry clubs and guns.

Heather and other counter protesters were not carrying baseball bats, clubs, knives and guns.

Heather and other counter protesters obeyed the law. They hurt no one. They had the right to be there, as guaranteed by the US Constitution.

As Richard-H said, the constitution does not give the alt right thugs the right to to beat up and murder people but that's what they do.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

So, you're claiming the 'alt-right' came prepared for war, and immediately set upon unarmed, innocent, victims?

 

[Auld Phart]

to be a racist stupid shit no.

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

How so?

Quote the exact wording or case law to back up your claim.

.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

How do you know?

You really don't know anything. If you don't know what motivated him, then how on earth can you say it wasn't justified?

 

[koshergrl]

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!

Your premise is flawed in the basis that the protesters had every reason to believe that they would need to defend themselves. And they were right! Thread fail... NEXT!!!

If they believe that there will be a need to defend themselves, then they apparently believe that the protest will be violent.

They only have a right to peaceful protest. They do not have a right to violent protest.

So people who believe they will be attacked and who take steps to defend themselves are to blame for the violence of the people who attack them?

See this is the bs that proves the left is mentally ill, and needs to be institutionalized en masse.

 

[cnelsen]

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.

The driver of the car was triggered because the he hates liberals. Hates them so much he wanted to kill them. It's called "terrorism".

Thank you Doctor Brothers.

and, do you have anything but your opinion to back this up?

I love how when it's a Muslim terrorist you can't wait to call it terrorism but when it is obvious white supremacist hate, like the Batist Church terrorist, the Portland train stabbings, you deny the terrorist label.

Hate drives all terrorism. Hatred of Americans drives Middle East based terrorism. It has nothing to do with Muslim, and everything to do with hating Americans. Quite frankly, if you'd stayed the hell out of the Middle East in the first place, you wouldn't have a terrorism problem. No guarantees on the refugee problem but a good likelihood that no problem there either. It all goes back to the Shah of Iran.

but when it is obvious white supremacist hate,

have to agree with there, dragon lady.

if it wasn't for the hate of the white supremists that showed up to protest the removal of the statue, there would have been little or no violence.

They should be hated.
The irony is that these white supremacists are gathering in hopes of preserving the last vestiges of their forefathers who were defeated 152 years ago. Talk about being behind the times.

Fucking pathetic.

Their rally was for white unity. Why do you call it white "supremacy"? Is it intentional deception?

 

[Kosh]

There is no such "right" unless you are a far left religious follower.

Anyone not far left should never be allowed to protest or be able speak in public.

Once again the far left incites violence and they want to blame others for their actions.

 

[Norman]

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!

They had legal right to protest, and defend themselves against Antifa.

Indeed, if the right to peacefully protest was upheld, there would have been no need for self defense weaponry. However, even an idiot knows that Antifa will show up if any protest that they disagree with is arranged.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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!

They had legal right to protest, and defend themselves against Antifa.

Indeed, if the right to peacefully protest was upheld, there would have been no need for self defense weaponry. However, even an idiot knows that Antifa will show up if any protest that they disagree with is arranged.

Why have you taken sides with the Neo-Nazis?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Remember when there were protests against Ann Coulter appearing at Berkeley?

Remember how many RW'ers on USMB supported the protestors' right to free speech and assembly?

Yes, you're right, the number was about ZERO.

That is the point here. The partisans on the right have aligned themselves with the white supremacists because they are sympathetic to the POLITICS of the white supremacists. This is not about free speech and assembly rights.

 

[Vastator]

Remember when there were protests against Ann Coulter appearing at Berkeley?

Remember how many RW'ers on USMB supported the protestors' right to free speech and assembly?

Yes, you're right, the number was about ZERO.

That is the point here. The partisans on the right have aligned themselves with the white supremacists because they are sympathetic to the POLITICS of the white supremacists. This is not about free speech and assembly rights.

Yeah the keys are "protest", and "peaceably assemble". They applied for no permit. That makes them an angry mob, not protesters. And they were anything but peaceful. Do you remember the fires? I do...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Remember when there were protests against Ann Coulter appearing at Berkeley?

Remember how many RW'ers on USMB supported the protestors' right to free speech and assembly?

Yes, you're right, the number was about ZERO.

That is the point here. The partisans on the right have aligned themselves with the white supremacists because they are sympathetic to the POLITICS of the white supremacists. This is not about free speech and assembly rights.

Yeah the keys are "protest", and "peaceably assemble". They applied for no permit. That makes them an angry mob, not protesters. And they were anything but peaceful. Do you remember the fires? I do...

See what I mean? Automatically the white supremacist sympathizer concocts a distinction between the events so he can maintain his own defense of the neo-Nazis.

 

[Vastator]

Remember when there were protests against Ann Coulter appearing at Berkeley?

Remember how many RW'ers on USMB supported the protestors' right to free speech and assembly?

Yes, you're right, the number was about ZERO.

That is the point here. The partisans on the right have aligned themselves with the white supremacists because they are sympathetic to the POLITICS of the white supremacists. This is not about free speech and assembly rights.

Yeah the keys are "protest", and "peaceably assemble". They applied for no permit. That makes them an angry mob, not protesters. And they were anything but peaceful. Do you remember the fires? I do...

See what I mean? Automatically the white supremacist sympathizer concocts a distinction between the events so he can maintain his own defense of the neo-Nazis.

Fail...

 

[CowboyTed]

Having a means of defending yourself in a situation that might call for one is just smart. If it wasn't commonplace for protestors to get beat up and shot at by police officers maybe they wouldn't feel a need to defend themselves while using their first amendment rights.

So if the assembly was full of black people armed to the teeth is a getto neighbourhood complaining about police violence. You are still OK...

Get serious, a large group of armed people is a mob and if both sides were armed to the teeth you just need one idiot/nervious person to start a highly violent scence...

 

[Vastator]

Having a means of defending yourself in a situation that might call for one is just smart. If it wasn't commonplace for protestors to get beat up and shot at by police officers maybe they wouldn't feel a need to defend themselves while using their first amendment rights.

So if the assembly was full of black people armed to the teeth is a getto neighbourhood complaining about police violence. You are still OK...

Get serious, a large group of armed people is a mob and if both sides were armed to the teeth you just need one idiot/nervious person to start a highly violent scence...

Except one side was legal, and stationary. The other traveled to confront them. That makes them the agitators, and instigators and thus; they are responsible for the violence.

 

[eddiew37]

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.

Unfortunately, you are quite wrong. The presence of Americans legally exercising their right to keep and bear arms, kept the violence much lower than it could have been. And you have no idea what actually went on in the driver of that cars head. Authorities are keeping a tight lid on it until they can figure it all out.

They know what this white nazi had on his computer and we all know of Nazi ,alt right slime in OUR WH Your lid is not so tight

 

[jon_berzerk]

leftist fascists once again shutting down free speech and lawful assembly

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The driver of the car was triggered because the he hates liberals. Hates them so much he wanted to kill them. It's called "terrorism".

Thank you Doctor Brothers.

and, do you have anything but your opinion to back this up?

I love how when it's a Muslim terrorist you can't wait to call it terrorism but when it is obvious white supremacist hate, like the Batist Church terrorist, the Portland train stabbings, you deny the terrorist label.

Hate drives all terrorism. Hatred of Americans drives Middle East based terrorism. It has nothing to do with Muslim, and everything to do with hating Americans. Quite frankly, if you'd stayed the hell out of the Middle East in the first place, you wouldn't have a terrorism problem. No guarantees on the refugee problem but a good likelihood that no problem there either. It all goes back to the Shah of Iran.

but when it is obvious white supremacist hate,

have to agree with there, dragon lady.

if it wasn't for the hate of the white supremists that showed up to protest the removal of the statue, there would have been little or no violence.

They should be hated.
The irony is that these white supremacists are gathering in hopes of preserving the last vestiges of their forefathers who were defeated 152 years ago. Talk about being behind the times.

Fucking pathetic.

Their rally was for white unity. Why do you call it white "supremacy"? Is it intentional deception?

Why do you deny that these groups are white supremacists?
Whatever the purpose of their protest, they are white supremacist groups.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Remember when there were protests against Ann Coulter appearing at Berkeley?

Remember how many RW'ers on USMB supported the protestors' right to free speech and assembly?

Yes, you're right, the number was about ZERO.

That is the point here. The partisans on the right have aligned themselves with the white supremacists because they are sympathetic to the POLITICS of the white supremacists. This is not about free speech and assembly rights.

That is exactly right. The difference is the marchers have the balls to admit their proclivity toward racial purity while many who support them do not. Truly deplorable.

 

[Vastator]

Remember when there were protests against Ann Coulter appearing at Berkeley?

Remember how many RW'ers on USMB supported the protestors' right to free speech and assembly?

Yes, you're right, the number was about ZERO.

That is the point here. The partisans on the right have aligned themselves with the white supremacists because they are sympathetic to the POLITICS of the white supremacists. This is not about free speech and assembly rights.

That is exactly right. The difference is the marchers have the balls to admit their proclivity toward racial purity while many who support them do not. Truly deplorable.

No. The difference is that the left feigns ignorance as to what people are supporting, in an effort to paint all republicans as racist. But everyone sees through your bullshit.