"the right of the people peaceably to assemble"

[Vastator]

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!!!

 

[BluesLegend]

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.

 

[Hum Dinger]

funny how you RWNJs

What exactly do you know about my political opinions other than what you just assumed?

I very well may have been mistaken - it's usually RWNJs that defend the idea of being armed at protests.

 

[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?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

Why doesn't it?

 

[Hum Dinger]

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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

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.

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

 

[Hum Dinger]

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.

 

[Confounding]

No it doesn't.

I think you're a little confused boss. As long as you're not going out and hurting people you're perfectly within your rights being a raging intolerant bigot.

 

[2aguy]

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.

No....it all goes to the first one to use physical violence....and that is on antifa fascists....the guy who ran people over is also to blame, and should get the death penalty, if it can be shown he did this with the intent to murder people.

 

[Hum Dinger]

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.

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

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

 

[Hum Dinger]

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.

No....it all goes to the first one to use physical violence....and that is on antifa fascists....the guy who ran people over is also to blame, and should get the death penalty.

Anyone who uses violence should be arrested.

 

[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.

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.

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.

 

[ZZ PUPPS]

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.

Care to justify the throwing of a rock? That's assault with a deadly weapon, lefty.

 

[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.

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.

No....it all goes to the first one to use physical violence....and that is on antifa fascists....the guy who ran people over is also to blame, and should get the death penalty.

Anyone who uses violence should be arrested.

Using violence in defending your self is not against any law.

 

[Confounding]

I very well may have been mistaken - it's usually RWNJs that defend the idea of being armed at protests.

You shouldn't lump people together and categorize your world like that. People are varied, and to assume less is ignorant.

 

[JGalt]

This ain't the 60's anymore.

 

[ZZ PUPPS]

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.