As usual, NS reads only what he wants to read. In my previous answer, Lanier is quoted, ” If you're coming here to break the law, we'll take action.” She is talking about breaking the law. Breaking the law is a requirement for civil disobedience. Thus this is refering to civil disobedience.
She is not saying it is illegal to protest. A protest does not break the law. In fact, if the marchers were protesting with a permit to make it legal, the taxpayers would likely be paying the police overtime for their security details. Funny how that works in a (liberal) democracy.
NS needs to read up on law, philosophy, and a bit of history. Maybe then his rants will make sense? Nah….
People conduct civil disobedience in the form of protest knowing full well they will/could be arrested, which is part of the point of the civil disobedience in the first place.
And this protest is not about exercising their 2nd amendment rights BECAUSE OPEN CARRY IS NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION ! Hence, they will be open carrying in DC where it is illegal ! It’d be the same if you are driving from an open carry state to a state where it is illegal, you get out of your car with your gun showing, boom, you’re arrested for breaking the law in that state !
What don’t you get here ?
CO: NS asked you “Is a state free to "pass a law" outlawing abortion, CO?” I guess NS never heard of the Supreme Court. NS really ought to get a radio show on the AM dial between 2 AM and 6AM in the morning.
individual states can regulate/limit the use of abortion, or create “trigger laws”, which is a law that makes abortion illegal within the first and second trimesters, but would only be take effect and be enforced after Roe is overturned by the US Supreme Court. Currently, 6 states have trigger laws and 3 other states have laws intending to criminalize abortion.
CO: You said states are free to pass whatever laws they want. THen I ask you a specific question and now you start telling me about restrictions on states from passing laws, contradicting yourself. Add in that the constitution is silent on abortion, like it is silent on “open carrying” however keeping and bearing arms is a lot closer open carrying than complete silence in the constitution is to abortion. Isn’t it?
Dezl: Read what CO has written, then read my response. Don’t selectively read it for what you want it to say, read it for what he wrote.
They are free to make their own laws…States have passed laws to restrict late term abortions, require parental notification for minors, and mandate the disclosure of abortion risk information to patients prior to the procedure. And Roe v. Wade used the 14th amendment OF THE CONSTITUTION.
See how you pick and choose things cause you can’t respond to other comments. States pass their own laws regarding open carry and the death penalty and you say nothing. You ‘re trying to change the subject to abortion cause you have nothing left to say about the TOPIC OF THE THREAD.
But you aren’t free to pass laws that are unconstitutional. The 14th amendment is completely silent re: abortion though. In fact the “right of privacy” isn’t in it either. Not exactly the case with the second amendment, is it?
States can pass whatever laws they want on the death penalty, because the constitution permits the death penalty, but doesn’t require it. However when a state violates people’s second amendment rights via legislation, it is violating their constitional rights.
I’m not changing the topic. I am proving you are wrong.
Dezl: Why haven’t you responded on Lanier? She said that protesting is civil disobediance, not breaking the law. I replied to you giving examples that under Lanier’s views she would have arrested Rosa Parks because Rosa Parks was breaking the law by sitting in the front of the bus. Apparently Rosa Parks would only have been allowed to not be on the bus and hold up a sign, presuming she got a permit if required.
@NS, you asked, “Dezl: Why haven't you responded on Lanier? She said that protesting is civil disobediance, not breaking the law. I replied to you giving examples that under Lanier's views she would have arrested Rosa Parks because Rosa Parks was breaking the law by sitting in the front of the bus. Apparently Rosa Parks would only have been allowed to not be on the bus and hold up a sign, presuming she got a permit if required.”
I did respond on Lanier. She did not say what you report she said. She did not say taht civil disobediance is not breaking the law. Just the opposite. She said, “If you're coming here to protest government policy, great. If you're coming here to break the law, we'll take action." Thus protesting allowed, she said that was great. This is because protest is legal. But she followed up that brekaking the law is something else. And that something else is civil disobedience: breaking the law and expecting to be charged as such. What is it you still don’t understand.
Per your second comment, “Lanier's views she would have arrested Rosa Parks because Rosa Parks was breaking the law by sitting in the front of the bus. Apparently Rosa Parks would only have been allowed to not be on the bus and hold up a sign, presuming she got a permit if required.”
I assume Lanier would have arrested Parks because she was breaking the law, committing an act of civil disobedience. I agree, as you stated that if she had a permit to protest, that would have been legal, and therefore (by law) not arrested.
FWIW: I can’t and won’t try to rephrase my response over and over because someone can’t understand it.
Lanier exactly said that civil disobedience involves PROTESTING, and not breaking the law. Rosa Parks broke the law when she refused to give up her seat. That was her act of protest. That’s no different than protesting DC’s gun laws by breaking the law. Lanier would have arrested Rosa Parks because ROsa Parks could have held up a sign on the street without actually violating the segregation on busses rules. That is what Lanier is telling Kokesh to do.
Are you suggesting Rosa Parks could have gotten a permit to sit in the front of the bus? I was referring to a permit to actually have a protest, the holding up signs type. Her act of protest was illegal permit or not because she broke the law. Lanier is saying that’s not a proper method of civil disobedience. But Lanier’s concept of civil disobedience is following the rules you don’t agree with. She has no concept of what civil disobedience is.
I guess I’m not allowed to post on this thread anymore…awesome. Good to see it applies to everyone else too.
The court ruled 7-2 that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th extended to a woman’s decision to have “The A-word”.
All states have legal “G-word” owners, so therefore, no states are violating the 2nd.
DC isn’t a state, but until Heller it was illegal to have a handgun.
If they can createa right of privacy then a right to the a word from it, out of thin air, then do you think it is more likely or less likely a right to open carry from the EXPLICIT second amendment?
Perhaps the second amendment has penumbras for you to consider as well if you are going to use “penumbras” to create rights out of thin air?
I include DC in my original comment and yes, you are right concerning handguns, but not all guns.
I think its less likely that open carry will come from the 2nd…don’t know why though.
And I’m not creating rights out of thin air.
In DC prior to heller you COULD have a rifle at home, but you couldn’t actually use it. If you used it self defense, you would be prosecuted. You could only have the rifle at home to be used at shooting ranges.
How do you “keep and bear” arms without openly carrying them?
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.