No protest; no guns: Tampa, Florida asks, 'How much of the Bill of Rights can we

[evsnova74]

No protest; no guns: Tampa, Florida asks, 'How much of the Bill of Rights can we get rid of?' — RT

 

[J_Wales]

Hey... Just more "common sense" regulations on the natural rights documented in the First and Second amendments. Lots of folks here support "common sense" regulation of their rights. See here:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...09386-do_you_support_the_first_amendment.html

and here:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...8779-do_you_support_the_second_amendment.html

for examples.

For the record, I am not I one of them.

 

[cobber]

I like it. How about the Governor suspends the writ of habeas corpus 'for the duration'?

I am a 'reasonable regulator' (time/manner/place/felon/some mental disorders) per J Wales above. But there is no legitimate rationale to suspend State and federal law here. There is no conceivable nexus between the convention (or any gathering in the city) and a 'need' to suspend State and federal law. The city council needs to retire en masse for even thinking this makes sense.

Interesting how this video is from the Russian English-language news service. What lesson is Tampa sending the world about the BoR here?

 

[booey50]

Well since the REPUBLICAN governer has already called for a look into the stand your ground law(for no good reason) I bet he does sign some order. All for the safety of his Republican brothers (IN PURPLE OF COURSE).

 

[IndyDave1776]

The problem revolves around steel bars. The mayor and city council are on the wrong side of the bars.

 

[CalebToNowhere]

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/ne...uses-to-ban-guns-during-rnc-convention-050212

He refused to sign the order.

 

[hooky]

Scott wrote that "it is unclear how disarming law-abiding citizens would better protect them from the dangers and threats posed by those who would flout the law."

He actually got it right.

 

[Caleb]

+1 to him

 

[sgtonory]

I like it. How about the Governor suspends the writ of habeas corpus 'for the duration'?

I am a 'reasonable regulator' (time/manner/place/felon/some mental disorders) per J Wales above. But there is no legitimate rationale to suspend State and federal law here. There is no conceivable nexus between the convention (or any gathering in the city) and a 'need' to suspend State and federal law. The city council needs to retire en masse for even thinking this makes sense.

Interesting how this video is from the Russian English-language news service. What lesson is Tampa sending the world about the BoR here?

That is the issue with any regulation give them anything and they will keep taking more and more. The 2nd amendment clear says shall not be infringed! But there is still a responsibility as a gun seller as to who you sell a gun to. Any regulation is a infringement.

 

[J_Wales]

Scott wrote that "it is unclear how disarming law-abiding citizens would better protect them from the dangers and threats posed by those who would flout the law."


Well done Sir.

Many in your position and in positions within the central state would not know common sense if it beat them in the head with a sledge hammer.

Thus, Liberty is best preserved by following the Second Amendment.

 

[Wreaver]

Good for him and not bending to what I'm sure is some mounting pressures given the whole stand your ground attack in FL currently.

 

[Scutter01]

"Free speech zones" (oh, I'm sorry, they're "Clean Zones" now) are just as abhorrent. My Free Speech Zone used to be called "The United States". Now, it's a 10x10 sq. ft. section of dirt 1/4 mile away from the elite, where you can safely protest without worrying about coming into view or earshot of your elected representatives.

 

[mike8170]

"Free speech zones" (oh, I'm sorry, they're "Clean Zones" now) are just as abhorrent. My Free Speech Zone used to be called "The United States". Now, it's a 10x10 sq. ft. section of dirt 1/4 mile away from the elite, where you can safely protest without worrying about coming into view or earshot of your elected representatives.

This^^^^ The citizens used to be able to peaceably assemble for a redress of grieveances, therefore, the elite need to hear what is said. But I am really torn on situations such as the Westboro Baptist Church, in fact, I don't even know how to word it.

 

[Scutter01]

This^^^^ The citizens used to be able to peaceably assemble for a redress of grieveances, therefore, the elite need to hear what is said. But I am really torn on situations such as the Westboro Baptist Church, in fact, I don't even know how to word it.

There's nothing to be torn on. If you support it for you, you support it for everyone. Even the people you don't want to hear from. ESPECIALLY the people you don't want to hear from.

 

[mike8170]

There's nothing to be torn on. If you support it for you, you support it for everyone. Even the people you don't want to hear from. ESPECIALLY the people you don't want to hear from.

That is why I am torn. Families of KIA are not the government. What grievance are they addressing to private citizens?

 

[Bill of Rights]

That is why I am torn. Families of KIA are not the government. What grievance are they addressing to private citizens?

The problem is that you're looking at, IMHO, the wrong part of the 1A:

Amendment I 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.

As amended by the 14A, the bolded and underlined text applies to the states as well, and thus, it doesn't matter if military families are the gov't or not. It's not the redress of grievance, it's the freedom of speech, whether in assembly or individually.


When I was a boy, I heard, even in South Texas, about the (Neo) Nazis marching in Skokie, IL. Growing up in a Jewish household, I'm sure you can imagine that we didn't agree with their message, but the fact is simple that they have a right to say what they want to say and to be heard, just as everyone else has a right to ignore them or, as the PGRs do to the Kansans you named, to counterprotest and rev their motorcycle engines to drown them out.


Yes, it truly sucks that the closed-minded and bigoted and hate-filled minorities can still spew their bile, but how much worse would it suck to have that right disallowed to others as denying it to them would set precedent to do?


Let them spew. Let them be drowned out, or better, let them be exposed for the rectal orifices they are.


Oh, and a Bible quote seems applicable here, and partially in context as well:


"By their fruits shall ye know them."




Blessings,
Bill

 

[Timjoebillybob]

"Free speech zones" (oh, I'm sorry, they're "Clean Zones" now) are just as abhorrent. My Free Speech Zone used to be called "The United States". Now, it's a 10x10 sq. ft. section of dirt 1/4 mile away from the elite, where you can safely protest without worrying about coming into view or earshot of your elected representatives.

Are you referring to the federal "trespass law"? The one that can put you in the pen for 1-10 years.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr347enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr347enr.pdf

When I was a boy, I heard, even in South Texas, about the (Neo) Nazis marching in Skokie, IL.

Blessings,
Bill

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ukFAvYP3UU

 

[Eric05]

Just think if the Liberal wack jobs commited as much time to keeping people who carry ILEGALLY off the streets than they do law-abiding card carrying Americans, the world would be a better place. O wait... we might offend someone by doing that. Or be considered. God forbid we walk the streets completely safe.

 

[Scutter01]

Are you referring to the federal "trespass law"? The one that can put you in the pen for 1-10 years.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr347enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr347enr.pdf

No, I'm referring to our National Parks that now have a fenced off area in the back of wherever visitors arrive and congregate. It's the so-called "free speech zone" where you're "allowed" to hold your protest. It's usually very small and very out-of-the-way so that you don't disturb park visitors. More and more places are starting to have those, especially politically-sensitive conventions and such where people are likely to show up to protest. Because you can't have protesters having their message heard by the attendees. That would be a security risk.

 

[IndyDave1776]

No, I'm referring to our National Parks that now have a fenced off area in the back of wherever visitors arrive and congregate. It's the so-called "free speech zone" where you're "allowed" to hold your protest. It's usually very small and very out-of-the-way so that you don't disturb park visitors. More and more places are starting to have those, especially politically-sensitive conventions and such where people are likely to show up to protest. Because you can't have protesters having their message heard by the attendees. That would be a security risk.

Absolutely. I would say that those in positions of authority have come to the conclusion that free citizens are a risk to their security.