[HTML1]
wsj.com reports that America’s Number One Gun Grabber, NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg, has promised that he won’t tolerate the kind of violence Oakland PD faced when the Occupy protestors got mega-jiggy with it. While I appreciate the old law and order approach—while wondering why the protestors are allowed to illegally occupy their current 10-20 and commit crimes against each other with relative impunity—what does a politician surrounded by a security detail know about violence? Not enough to make it possible for”ordinary” citizens to carry a concealed weapon to defend themselves against thieves, robbers and flash mobs. Obviously.
The legality of the protestors occupation is a debatable discussion, if the private land owners allow them to squat in the park they are not trespassing, however the city has rules about how one may reside, or if they may reside, in an open area such as the park.
As to Mike’s cocoon he finds himself in, I bet a few single moms on their way home from a second job wish someone was watching their back with firepower. But they aren’t as important as the mayor of the greatest city on earth so they need to take care of themselves. And Mike doesn’t think they need guns to do that.
Good thing there are other places to live.
I also think that it is important to debate whether remaining in a park long-term/after closing or our First Amendment rights to free speech and to peaceably assemble should take precedence here. I would generally argue that, though it may create some inconveniences for city officials, businesses, and residents of the area,it is preferable to restricting First Amendment rights. If city ordinances prohibit the people from being able to peaceably assemble in public spaces to petition the government for a redress of grievances, then it would seem that these ordinances are actually unconstitutional. This logic is in the same vein as arguing that though firearms may cause a great deal of harm, it is more dangerous to society to take an aggressive approach in restricting Second Amendment rights.
Great Point, glad someone else is talking about this. A “permit” to protest (or really to own a gun too) is a license for something you already have permission to do (e.g. exercise amendments 1 and 2). You can’t kick people out of protests, that is ridiculous and oppressive. It is the right of the protesters to be an inconvenience. This isn’t Bahrain or Iran where you just bulldoze the square and kick everyone out.
Even if you don’t agree with them, there’s that whole thing about defending to the death their right to say it…
“If city ordinances prohibit the people from being able to peaceably assemble in public spaces to petition the government for a redress of grievances, then it would seem that these ordinances are actually unconstitutional.”
To me it would boil down to the key word, “peaceable.”
To me blocking streets, sidewalks, or just generally being an annoyance is not peaceable.
Such unruley actions hardly speak well of the assembled and I would think present their cause, whatever it may be, in a bad light.
It doesn’t matter to me how well their message is presented or recieved by the general public. Just leave me alone, stay out of my way. In other words,
be PEACEABLE.
Anything less is asking for trouble.
It is impossible to protest in a peaceable manner, as a protest itself is a conflict between a group of citizens and their government. Peaceable by definition is:
1 – Inclined to avoid argument or violent conflict.
2 – Free from argument or conflict; peaceful.
“Peaceable by definition is:
1 – Inclined to avoid argument or violent conflict.
2 – Free from argument or conflict; peaceful.”
By your definition protests are not protected by the Bill of Rights.
“the right of the people peaceably to assemble”
Its not my definition, it is the modern dictionary definition. Back when the constitution was written, a “fag” was a bundle of sticks, right? Google the word peaceable and that definition is at the top of the page.
I have to apologize. My last post was not clear.
“It is impossible to protest in a peaceable manner,”
Not protected, according to you.
Furthermore, I protest your assumption that it is impossble to protest in a peaceable manner. It is done all the time, peaceably protesting. Seen it first hand.
I think your confusing the words peaceable (or peaceful) with nonviolent.
This idea that First Amendment rights are somehow voided when their exercise causes any sort of disruption or annoyance to particular individuals is repellent. Peaceful protest will be disruptive and will be annoying to some, but that is just part of living in a free society.
Even if they are on private land, local zoning laws would typically not allow that type of long-term camping activity.
So are those zoning laws unjustly infringing on their right to protest?
A right to protest is not a blanket right to infringe on another’s right to civil order. The State has the right to maintain good order and discipline as well as public safety/health.
So in short you really can’t just do anything you want, where you want, because you want. And if that seems rough, put yourself in the otehr person’s shoes and you’ll wonder what the heck is going on here.
There is no right to civil order, for either a person or the state. Where is that right enumerated or what law cases support that position? At best you’ll find there is a duty or responsibility to maintain order. If you believe there is a right to civil order, then I suppose you don’t support the Boston tea party, there was a great deal violence on that day.
Where’s MY Personal Security Detail?
Mine is on my right hip.
+45
I see what you did there.
Robert, please try harder next time, if your going to do an article about the protests then do so. If your going to do an article about Bloomberg’s security detail, then do so. This is neither, nor does it really link the two together.
Personally I fully encourage Bloomberg and everyone else to send the police in with tear gas and clubs, for no reason other than to reinforce the resolve of the protestors and to further radicalize them. It does an excellent job of teaching them the only way they can affect change is through violence of their own.
My favorite movie line is from Starship Troopers, Mr/Sgt Rasczak says “…force, my friends, is violence, the supreme authority from which all other authority derives…Naked force has settled more issues in history than any other factor. The contrary opinion ‘violence never solves anything’ is wishful thinking at its worst. People who forget that always pay. They pay with their lives and their freedom.”
+1 for the great quote.
Even “peaceful” protest is the use of applied force. In our namby-pamby world, all force is considered bad bad bad. Barry Goldwater once famously said, “extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” He caught a lot of sh!t for being right.
The Occupy people can protest all they want; I just don’t want to hear the gnashing of teeth, the wailing and the rending of garments if some of them get hurt. Force is always met by force. That’s the way of the world. Accepting that immutable rule is the difference between real change-agents on the one hand and sunshine patriots and summertime soldiers on the other. My bet is that the Occupy movement is just sound and fury signifying nothing.
Moderation in the pursuit of justice in no virture? It used to be legal to torture people in the pursuit of justice; perhaps not in the US but it was never the less. And what about 4th and 5th amendments?
Force is not always met with force. A few weeks ago, the FOP in the Illinois area organized a protest, in an attempt to block public employee pension reform. Unsurprising they were not met with force. I find it ironic that the comments on Chicago Police blogs say they would like nothing more than to see a repeat of the ’68 DNC police riots as a response to the Occupy protests here, yet they protest so they can get a bail out for their pension.
Somewhat unrelated – I hope you have read Starship Troopers and not merely watched that piece of drek they filmed and called by that name.
The message of the book gets twisted by the movies.
Comments are closed.