5 ms·

If the government is unlawfully seizing your property, why aren't you at your property defending it with your gun, rather than engaging in a rally downtown? Be

by vacri 9y ago

If the government is unlawfully seizing your property, why aren't you at your property defending it with your gun, rather than engaging in a rally downtown? Besides, it's pretty clear that their issue is the 'intent on committing violence' bit, not the 'freedom of odious speech' bit. You're free to start your own civil liberties legal team though, and I'm sure the ACLU will give some pointers on how to set up. Edit: more on point: 2nd Amendment advocates talk a big game about defending the 1st Amendment with it. How many times have we seen the 1st actually defended by citizens exercising the 2nd? Or any of the rest of the bill of rights? When has the US government backed down on a course of action because of armed citizens? Anything recently?

refurb 9y ago
I'it's not defending the 1st amendment, but I'd say Ruby Ridge is a good example of some defending their rights via the 2nd amendment. Of course that didn't stop the gov't from killing the man's unarmed, innocent wife.
- vacri 9y ago
  The 2nd amendment didn't work for them. They got their 'victory' (money << couple of dead people) through the courts later on.
dredmorbius 9y ago
That's actually a fairly weak rebuttal. If the government is acting in a way you don't like, making a substantial presence known and credibly presenting a large set of allies is useful. Though that need not be an armed response. Case in point from today's headlines: In Durham, NC, a large group of citizens presented themselves as having torn down Slaver Rebellion statues in the city. Something of an "I am Spartacus" moment. (Though that original example ended poorly.)
- vacri 9y ago
  Why should the ACLU defend the rights of a group intent on causing violence to other citizens? You could argue that their name actually means they should work to prevent that group from getting support, given that that group wants to infringe on the civil liberties of others.
  - dredmorbius 9y ago
    I'd hoped you might realise that this was the aspect I was referring to: "If the government is unlawfully seizing your property, why aren't you at your property defending it with your gun, rather than engaging in a rally downtown?" Again: in that context as written, the question is "why engage in group action" (a rally downtown) rather than individual action (at your property ...)?" And the answer is: rallying", that is, "regrouping with your allies" (etymology: those you rally with), is politically* more powerful. Now, if that rally involves a show of armed force, we're back to the ACLU's decision here. But that wasn't the situation you'd posed, or that I was responding to. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=rally&allowed_in_frame=0 http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=rally&allowed_in_fr... http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=ally&allowed_in_frame=0 http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=ally&allowed_in_fra...

by vacri 9y ago

refurb 9y ago

I'it's not defending the 1st amendment, but I'd say Ruby Ridge is a good example of some defending their rights via the 2nd amendment. Of course that didn't stop the gov't from killing the man's unarmed, innocent wife.

vacri 9y ago
The 2nd amendment didn't work for them. They got their 'victory' (money << couple of dead people) through the courts later on.

dredmorbius 9y ago

That's actually a fairly weak rebuttal. If the government is acting in a way you don't like, making a substantial presence known and credibly presenting a large set of allies is useful. Though that need not be an armed response. Case in point from today's headlines: In Durham, NC, a large group of citizens presented themselves as having torn down Slaver Rebellion statues in the city. Something of an "I am Spartacus" moment. (Though that original example ended poorly.)

vacri 9y ago
Why should the ACLU defend the rights of a group intent on causing violence to other citizens? You could argue that their name actually means they should work to prevent that group from getting support, given that that group wants to infringe on the civil liberties of others.
- dredmorbius 9y ago
  I'd hoped you might realise that this was the aspect I was referring to: "If the government is unlawfully seizing your property, why aren't you at your property defending it with your gun, rather than engaging in a rally downtown?" Again: in that context as written, the question is "why engage in group action" (a rally downtown) rather than individual action (at your property ...)?" And the answer is: rallying", that is, "regrouping with your allies" (etymology: those you rally with), is politically* more powerful. Now, if that rally involves a show of armed force, we're back to the ACLU's decision here. But that wasn't the situation you'd posed, or that I was responding to. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=rally&allowed_in_frame=0 http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=rally&allowed_in_fr... http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=ally&allowed_in_frame=0 http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=ally&allowed_in_fra...