BS: Pre-emptive Strike on 1st Amendment

Subject: BS: Pre-emptive Strike on 1st Ammendment
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 11:26 AM

Last Friday, during the IMF protests 649 people, who were protesting peacfully and legally were corraled by the Washington, D.C. Police, detained & arrested for "supposed" intent to commit a crime. In this group, were reporters and even a memeber of the Secretary of State's staff who was taking photographs.

This arbitrary act has been labeled the "Ramsey Plan", named after the Police Chief, Charles Ramsey.

It is my opinion, that this kind of premeditated behavior by the police, sends a chilling message to those whomight want to exercise their Ist Ammendment right of expression. I would understand if the particular group had been told to move or warned that they would be arrested or if they were actually doing something illegal, but they weren't. They just happen to be folks in one area of a larger protest.

I think it is very important that the "terorist" don't turn us into terrorist against our own people. Hey, their are plenty of folks out there Hell-bent on hurting us that we need police to keep an eye on. And there are lots of crooks and killers and theives that society needs proteaction from but arresting those folks who are leagally voicing their feelings is not a step forward in our little domocratic experiement, folks.

Now, who will be first to tell me just how wrong I am. But before you do, remember that the political pendulum swings so there are precedence involved here.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-emptive Strike on 1st Ammendment
From: Blues=Life
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 11:35 AM

Bobert,
I'm in the unusual situation of agreeing with you ;-)
I am opposed to arresting peaceful protesters, probably because I grew up going to protests with my folks. Throw a rock, and you're out of here, but peaceful dissent is the American way. I may disagree with you, but I'll fight to the death for your right to express yourself.
Peace,
Blues

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-emptive Strike on 1st Ammendment
From: JedMarum
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 11:56 AM

Peaceful and legal protestors, have been known to break store windows and start fires - threatened to shut the city down in the pre-protest rhetoric, stated that the tens of thousands of protestors they were bringing would stop traffic and wreack havoc on the city. These sweet and loving, caring folks had no reason to expect the DC police to be concerned.

It is true that only a few hundred protestors actually showed up, but they did throws bottles at police, they did break windows and they did sit and lay don in the street, tied/taped together in order to stop traffic ... and why should they expect to be arrested??

Don't be foolish Bobert - they tried their best to bring out the ire of the DC police and it failed. Your comments here only underscore the lunacy of their arguements.

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-emptive Strike on 1st Ammendment
From: JedMarum
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 11:57 AM

sorry - my comments above should begin with; "These Peaceful and legal protestors"

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-emptive Strike on 1st Ammendment
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 12:00 PM

On a couple of other threads, while others were deeply (and rightly) concerned about the bellicose intentions of the Bush administration, I made it a point to caution people not to be so distracted that they didn't notice what was happening domestically: the erosion of social programs and the laws being passed that negate the Bill of Rights and other portions of the Constitution.

Being a student of history and detecting a number of ominous parallels, I alluded to things that were going on in Germany in the 1930s. A few people took me to task for invoking the image of the nasty little man with the postage stamp mustache. I was not trying to say that Bush was that kind of monster. I was saying, however, that with the Patriot Act (already passed) and other "national security" laws that the Bush administration is trying to push through, they are setting the United States up for someone of that stripe to come along. And they are out there.

I hope I'm wrong, but so far, I stand by my warning. By undercutting the Bill of Rights, we're traveling a dangerous path.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-emptive Strike on 1st Amendment
From: GUEST,Amos
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 12:09 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-emptive Strike on 1st Amendment
From: GUEST,Amos
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 12:17 PM

Organized protest and civil disobedience are always done at risk of backlash.

But organized interference with the right of the people to peaceably assemble is a little too sacred to be entrusted into the hands of Chiefs of Police, who often don't think beyond the rude logistics.

We can count as a blessing they weren't at risk of their lives, as they would be in Iraq.

Ramsey will probably go down with Selma's own Theophilus Eugene "Bull" Connor as an icon of over-zealous police control, regardless of the justifications. THe intent to commit a crime is not grounds for arrest, prosecution, or any other civil action until the intent is manifested in action.

I shudder to think what my life would be like if I was held liable and actionable for all the criminal acts I have contemplated committing, including the radical elimination of assholes and the transporting of minors across state lines :>).

A

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-emptive Strike on 1st Amendment
From: DougR
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 12:51 PM

I lived in D. C. during the Viet Nam protests in 1970 when not, hundreds, but thousands of protestors were herded into JGK Stadium. Why? The protesters were trying to shut down the government. They didn't but they tried. I walked to my office from Georgetown and saw protesters who had rented Ryder and Hertz trucks, and were sweeping broken glass into the streets to disrupt traffic. Cars were turned over and set afire.

I believe people should be able to protest peacefully. Protests of the type I saw in Washington went well beyond that though.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-emptive Strike on 1st Amendment
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 01:25 PM

It should be noted here that the folks who chained themselves together to block traffic *were* arrested. And considering the level of destruction in past IMF demonstartion's two broken windows would hardly warrent arrrsting 649 people. For that matter, who's to say that the windows weren't broken by a "plant"? The FBI had lots of "plants* in the 60's that went around preachin violence, especially during the month preceeding and following Kent State.

But the folk who were arrested, form evey account I have heard, were just a chunk of folks that were chosen no more than a hunter chooses when he fires #12 bird shot at a group of geese overhead. Ramsey said in his defense, "Well, these folks siad that wanted to shut down the city." Apparently someone said that, plant or not, but the arbitrary nature in which this manuver was pulled off does not square with Ramsey's argument.

Don Firth is very much correct in his warnings that if democracy is to survive it will be because of the strength of the Bill of Rights. This fight should be every freedom loving's citizens fight. This isn't about whether or not Bush has the right to go to war, or airline security. This is about *your* right to express yourself, so long as it is done lawfully. I am not arguing the "Yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater" argument here. I'm talking about your rights.

And Doug, yes, there were some pretty stupid things that went down in the 60's, most notable the street riots in D.C. after the killing of Martin Luther King, but I was involved with many of the anit-war demonstrations and they were almost universally well behaved. My parents, including my Republican father, even marched in the Moritorium.

And lastly, on this point, those of us with some experience in protest ahve been preaching the importance of non-violence all a long. You'll remember a guy a few months ago that I went to battle with for his statement that we needed to destroy property to get attention.

Ya' can't square pacifism with violence...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-emptive Strike on 1st Amendment
From: GUEST,AHJ
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 01:49 PM

Ya' can't square pacifism with violence...

But Bobert!! What about a PR campaign on the theme "War IS Peace!"

Wouldn't that work???

A

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-emptive Strike on 1st Amendment
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 01:56 PM

Well, danged, "A"... I'll have to admit that I can't figure that one out at all, but I'll put the Wes Ginny slide rule on it and see what it comes up with....

It's a lot smarter on the trick questions than I am...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-emptive Strike on 1st Amendment
From: M.Ted
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 02:06 PM

Here in the vicinity, we had the opportunity to watch live, real time coverage on three channels, along with the national coverage and the cable/CNN-MSNBC stuff--the streets were completely empty, except for the small groups of protesters--they didn't have a chance against the cops, who descended on them, brutally in some cases, without provocation of any sort--

The police actions were significantly different than in past IMF protests--Even though there were greater numbers were involved, but the police tended mainly to act only when there were provocations

Make no mistake, this was not law enforcement--it was a message to dissenters--

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-emptive Strike on 1st Amendment
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 02:50 PM

In the world-famous WTO protests in Seattle in late 1999, the demonstrators (30,000 to 65,000 people, depending on whose estimate you chose to believe) consisted mostly of unions, churches, and environmental organizations, all determined that the protest be a peaceful one. Most of these organizations had checked with the city ahead of time and had march permits. Aware of the potential for trouble, most of these organizations had their own monitors to make sure that none of their members got too "enthusiastic" in their protesting. Things were proceeding peaceably (a few small skirmishes here and there, mostly initiated by police in riot gear, themselves getting a bit too "enthusiastic").

What caused all hell to break loose was when a small group of people, not affiliated with any of these organizations, began smashing windows and starting fires. They were soon joined by a group of masked, self-proclaimed "anarchists" who said they were from some sort of commune in Oregon and readily admitted that they had come to Seattle with the intention of causing trouble. Then other individuals, also not affiliated with any of the unions, churches, or environmental organizations, joined in just for the hell of it. There were about 200 real rioters in all. The police, wound up like a tight spring and out the control of their supervisors, waded into the crowd of peaceful protesters and started busting heads, firing rubber bullets, and throwing tear-gas grenades. At that point, some of the peaceful protesters ceased being peaceful.

The riot moved from downtown Seattle up to Capitol Hill, to within a few blocks of where I live. My wife and I, watching the proceedings on television, could hear yelling and what sounded like gunshots down on Broadway, four blocks away. Some people on 12th Avenue East were sprayed with tear gas by police when they stepped out on their porches to see what all the racket was about. We live on 13th Avenue East. We saw that on live television, so Barbara and I stayed put.

A lot of this was shown live on television. Several policemen wound up in very deep doo-doo later when charges were brought against them by people who were merely trying to stay out of the way were brutally assaulted. One news cameraman caught a policeman kicking a man in the crotch while he was trying to back away, and another video camera caught a policeman reaching into a car and spraying two women with tear gas. The two women had unknowingly driven into the scene of the riot, couldn't turn around, and had parked, trying to stay out of the way. These days you can often catch that sort of thing on videotape.

About two-hundred goons turned a peaceful protest by an impressive thirty- to sixty-five thousand people into a riot. The Powers That Be behind the WTO, and others, were happy to dismiss the whole thing as "mob violence." Had the protest preceded as planned, it would have been a powerful statement that could not have been ignored.

When feelings run high, it's not difficult for a very few people to turn a peaceful protest into a riot. Now, I'm not much for conspiracy theories, but I've always wondered who the first window-smashers and fire-setters might have been.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-emptive Strike on 1st Amendment
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 03:11 PM

Agree with you in principal on this one Bobert.

"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." Mark Twain


"A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away." – Barry Goldwater


"The sole purpose of our Constitution is to define the limited role of government in order to guarantee individual rights."
– Tom DeWeese


"The new laws passed by Congress in the name of fighting terrorism pose a greater danger to the civil liberties of
American citizens than to the operations of terrorists. Powers once assumed are never relinquished, just as
bureaucracies, once created, never die." -- Charley Reese

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-emptive Strike on 1st Amendment
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 03:21 PM

Well, I'll just throw out my Kent State experiences. I was the "rector" of the Radical Student Union at Vigniia Commonwealth University. Well, being "rector" only meant that the one who had permission of the group to yell "Chill Out " at another member when needed in order that the meetings would not break down. Well, the first meeting after the Kent State shootings was real interesting to say the least. But what I remember very vividly were two guys whose hair wasn't qutie as long and who I did not know.

Well, these two guys are both talking about torching the President of the colleges house. And I could see that they had a few folks half way believin' that this would be a good idea. Well, being "rector" I went a little beyong the "Chill out" duty to the "Get the F**k Out" duty and after some argument they left and afterward I asked if anyone knew these two guys and no one did, nor did we ever see them again on campus. Hmmmmmmmm?

And that, sadly, is a true story.

As non-violent activists we are going to have to be ready to step in and not let folks who do not share our agenda to change it. I know in my heart that should someone in a group try to initiate something that is just going to give the cops a reason to bust folks, that we're gonna have to do the bare minimum to stop them, even if it means two or three folks just grabbing em'. But more importrantly, we need to get the message out that violence is totally *unacceptable*.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-emptive Strike on 1st Amendment
From: GUEST,Just Amy
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 04:28 PM

I am too far from Washington to help but I see what is going on so I send my money to the ACLU. They are the only group in this country that was set up to preserve the Bill of Rights for all Americans not just those we agree with. (I also like that they piss people off but that is another story). Writing and discussion here is all well and good but if you really want to help, put your money where your mouth is.

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-emptive Strike on 1st Amendment
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 10:56 AM

Just, Amy: I also have contributed to the ACLU and thanks for the reminder because I am a tad remiss in my contributions. Will get on it today.

And thanks. I would hope that others will do the same.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-emptive Strike on 1st Amendment
From: Hrothgar
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 03:56 AM

"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." Mark Twain

I don't class myself as an authority on Mark Twain, but I can't help feeling that the expression "putting us on" is anachronistic.

It's still a good line, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-emptive Strike on 1st Amendment
From: Mark Cohen
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 05:58 AM

I'm with Bobert and Don on this one...and I have been for quite a while. I agree with Don...read the history of Germany in the 30s and you'll see it all started with laws. And scapegoats. And to take all this just a step farther [out], read C.S. Lewis' That Hideous Strength. I'm not a Christian, as Lewis was, but it does make you wonder, just a bit...

Aloha,
Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-emptive Strike on 1st Amendment
From: Troll
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 07:41 AM

You have a right to protest, Bobert. I'll back you up there because tomorrow I may be on the other side of the barricade with MY sign.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-emptive Strike on 1st Amendment
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 03:58 PM

troll:

Good to have you on board. This is one issue that folks who feel strongly on both ends have much to loose but then again, I think it is folks on both ends that make this little experiement of Jefferson and others workable.

You all keep firing and we will too but we need a little help from you all now. There's some folks who don't think folks should be able to protest or voice their opinions. I even spoke with an 78 year old woman who is a Republican in North Carolina and right conservative in her own right that feels that too much pressure is being put on folks to "shut up".

So keep your powder dry one eye open when you sleep on the issue...

Thanks.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-emptive Strike on 1st Amendment
From: Amos
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 04:14 PM

Say what you will....

but SAY it.


AJ

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-emptive Strike on 1st Amendment
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 04:16 PM

Destruction of property, which is what is being labelled as "violence" in this thread (and many others like it), has been a legitimate form of civil disobedience since the founding of the United States.

Y'all do recall a little thing called the Boston Tea Party?

Mayhem IS a centerpiece of shutting down operations, folks. If you are opposed to it, then I think those of us who consider it to be a perfectly legitimate form of protest know which side you are really on. The side of the police and the side of the politicians who voted for the Patriot Act, right?

Oh--and let's not forget the frenzy specialists, the mainstream media.

None of the activities described here resulted in physical harm to anyone.

The bombings in Afghanistan, and the blockade of Iraq on the other hand...

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-emptive Strike on 1st Amendment
From: beadie
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 04:44 PM

Guest:

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-emptive Strike on 1st Amendment
From: beadie
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 04:53 PM

Guest:   (sorry about the abortive post above)

You may want to rethink the phrasing of your thesis.

Mayhem is defined as the dismembering of a human to render her or him incapable of resisting the acts of the perpetrator. (cutting off a limb, slashing the face, etc.)

While I tend to agree that destruction of property has long been a standard approach for civil disobediance, mayhem (as defined this way) has been pretty uniformly rejected by all but the most radical and violent protestors of whatever stripe.

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-emptive Strike on 1st Amendment
From: DougR
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 05:49 PM

I will admit to two prejudices: those who would ban protests, and protesters who destroy property or hurt people (mayhem would certainly be a no no with me as described above).

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-emptive Strike on 1st Amendment
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 06:44 PM

Things are getting out of hand.
United falls the glory
And if you like, strike up the band
and listen to a story

Smashing things in anarchy
Alarms the guns and gasses
And forces we don't want to be
Will keep us off the grasses

Cops and riotteers will listen
To a billion rocks and bottles
But not for long will we a risen
Love a lawless dawdle

Destruction is a lawless thing
Whether 'rights' or private stuff
So let us to the table bring
The truth about the bluff

Boston tea and emnity
It seems went hand and hand
With certainty we fail to see
How time has changed our land...

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-emptive Strike on 1st Amendment
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 08:08 PM

There are only three reasons you get violence on a demo.

One is when you have people trying to provoke counter-violence by the authorities, with the idea that this is a way of getting people more stirred up and "radicalised". And also that this is the only way there is going to be any coverage in the media (which is actually true often enough, but not useful coverage.)

The second is when there are agent-provocateurs deliberately trying to turn a peaceful protest into something which needs suppressing. (That doesn't necessarily have to mean official government sponsored agents provocateurs.) And their cover is likely to be to use the rationale in the previous paragraph.

The third is where there is heavy handed policing - and that happens often enough, and not just in dictatorships. When it does there are normally likely to be some people who react violently. (And this can then get adjusted by the media. There was a classic case in the TV coverage of an episode in the British Miners Strike in the 80s - newsreels showed miners throwing coins and stones, and then the police charging on horses. In fact the vide had been doctored - the police charge came first, and the miners were in fact throwing things to try and drive off the horses.)

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-emptive Strike on 1st Amendment
From: Amos
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 08:11 PM

There is no consitutional protection for those who believe demonstration requires destruction of property.

It does not come under the heading of "peacefully assembling" in any party's book.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-emptive Strike on 1st Amendment
From: Chip2447
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 11:10 PM

    Just a bit off topic here, but still in my mind relevant. Why is it that each "SIDE" cries foul when they believe that one of their favorite Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America appears to be threatened, and in the next breath condems another Amendment.
    For instance, in this thread it happens to be the First, waiting for some Despot to come in and make themselves Dictator. I'll try not to lump everyone into the same category, but I would be willing a small wager that many of the people voicing their opinion in this thread are willing to sacrifice our Second Amendment rights. Which, gives the people a bit of power should some Despot declare themselves as dictator for life.
    The way that I see it, there is only one of the Original Bill of Rights that is not in danger of being swept aside, and that is subject to change.

    ARTICLE III
    No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner prescribed by law.

    Ladies and Gentlemen, If you are going to fight for one of them you have to fight for them all. You can't pick and choose, it's all or none. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts...

Chip2447

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-emptive Strike on 1st Amendment
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Oct 02 - 11:35 AM

If you loose the 1st Ammendment the others ain't too far behind... The 5th has taken a purdy good bashing also by Bush and Ashcroft. The 2nd is one for another entire thread which might be interesting, Chip, but not here, thank you.

And GUEST, if you are the "Bowling-ball-thru-the-store-front-window GUEST, I'm still not in the market for your kind of protest. These are not *Boston-Tea-Party-Times* and you won't get the numbers needed to get anyone's attention by baiting the police into busting folks heads.

If you think back to the Vietnam protests, it was the Moritorium that finally got the governemnt's attention and that was attended by the moms, pops and baby strolers. Those are the folks that scare the government.

Peace thru Non-violent Resistence

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-emptive Strike on 1st Amendment
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Oct 02 - 11:45 AM

"None of the activities described here resulted in physical harm to anyone."

GUEST, have you ever been kicked in the crotch? Or had tear gas sprayed directly into your face from six inches away?

Or consider the shop owner who gets his front windows smashed out and/or his shop set on fire? The shop owner may not suffer bodily harm, but if the damage was done during a demonstration for a particular cause, that might make me somewhat less sympathetic to that cause--certainly to the demonstrators.

Vandalism is vandalism. Trying to gain attention for a good cause by destroying other people's property seems counter-productive to me.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-emptive Strike on 1st Amendment
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 05 Oct 02 - 11:55 AM

Maybe it's violence. It could be... that violence IS the reason we need government... and the laws that support it. Anyone who uses violence reinforces the 'need' for tougher governmental control... which uses violence as a control mechanism. Don't go there... its rigged... unless you think Jesus was an idiot... ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-emptive Strike on 1st Amendment
From: Chip2447
Date: 05 Oct 02 - 01:21 PM

Bobert,
    If this thread is subjective on the erosion of the First Amendment only, then aren't you weakening said right by trying to limit my discussion on ALL of the Bill of Rights? I mentioned three of the ten Amendments, and you singled out the 2nd.
    Yes, I am pro Second amendment, I am for ALL of them. You seem to imply that my support for Constitution of the United States of America is nothing more than an attempt to bring up sore subject.
    It's not a case of just a pre-emptive strike on Number one, but the Erosion and degradation of them all that everyone should be concerned with.
    Bobert, I think that you are a hypocrite. You started this thread "Pre-emptive strike on the First Amendment." Yet, when some one makes a valid point you try to steer the conversation away from what you don't wish to hear. Thank you, but I will express my 1st amendment rights where ever, whenever and however I choose. If that happens to be in a forum discussing said Right then so be it.

Chip2447   

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-emptive Strike on 1st Amendment
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 05 Oct 02 - 02:35 PM

Bobert's soapbox consists of valid points... but he is so *f cking* pompous. This happens when being right becomes an ego trip, and other people simply become a means to being *righter*... I happen to like his point of view, however, and so its easy for me to overlook these pedantic qualities...
I am confused about this second amendment issue, and the great Bobert is shirking... will someone let me in on the deeper issue this represents? ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-emptive Strike on 1st Amendment
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Oct 02 - 02:36 PM

Chip2447, I don't think it's a matter of hypocrisy on Bobert's part. The ins and outs of the Second Amendment are so controversial to so many people that were it to be brought up here, it would probably result in hijacking this thread to the exclusion of the original intent. Sure, it's a part of the Bill of Rights, but I would suggest that if you wish to discuss the Second Amendment in particular, you should start another thread. Just an 1) opinion; 2) suggestion.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-emptive Strike on 1st Amendment
From: Chip2447
Date: 06 Oct 02 - 03:12 PM

Don,
    In my original post I mentioned three Amendments, the first, the second and the fifth. I'm not intenionally focusing on the 2nd alone. Once again, it's implied that I'm trying to hijack the thread, from the First to the Second. Once again I'll try to make my point. I'm trying to establish that its is not only the First that is taking a beating and that if the framers of the Constitution are so spot on right about one of the First Ten, they can't be 180 degrees out of phase with any or ALL of the others. My intentions are to focus on ALL ten. An assualt/pre-emptive strike on any one of them is an assualt on all of them.
    I'm proud to describe myself as an Independent, I don't blindly follow either of the U.S.'s major political parties. Regardless of one's political leanings the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are either ALL correct or they or not.
    My point once again, you cannot pick and choose. Defend them all, or attack them all. Collectivly.
    Everyone who reads this thread should try to get a grasp on the fact that my posts are NOT ABOUT the Second amendment. They are about the assualt on THE ENTIRE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Take your blinders off and READ what I wrote.
    FIGHT FOR THEM ALL OR NOT. THEY ARE NOT THERE FOR US TO PICK AND CHOOSE FROM.
    To anyone concerned, go ahead and try to steer me back into being a right wing gun nut trying to hijack this thread, I'll gladly refute your arguments. Anyone who has not been coerced into blindly following a particular flock of elephants or donkeys should be able to see that in focusing on me and my alleged "HIJACKING" of this thread, attention is drawn away from the fact that it appears that Freedom of speech is fine as long as you agree with (fill in the blank) and their cronies.

Chip2447      

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-emptive Strike on 1st Amendment
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Oct 02 - 04:15 PM

"According to the media elite's rulebook, when liberals rant it's called free speech; when conservatives rant it's called incitement to terrorism." – Bernard Goldberg

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-emptive Strike on 1st Amendment
From: GUEST,Guest, Bobert
Date: 06 Oct 02 - 06:08 PM

Chip: I am sorry if you misiniterpreted my comments about 2nd Ammendement issues being good fooder fro another thread. It was not meant to lesson it's imporatnce in the big scheme of things. Really, I am a gun owner and *former* NRA member. It's just that the original thread is about freedom of expression and assembly and I think there is a reason why it was penned first. Not to take away from any of the others but I think if one were going to impose on the other 9, then a good step would be to peal off the liberties expressed in the First Ammendment.

The point that I made about a second thread, if you will go back and reread it, only went as far as saying that perhaps that would be an interesting thread. If you took it any other way, I am truyely sorry, for that was not the intent.

"pompous" Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-emptive Strike on 1st Amendment
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Oct 02 - 07:53 PM

Point taken, Chip2447, and you are indeed right. As far as the Constitution is concerned, it's all of a piece and should be defended as such. An attack on any part of it is an attack on all of it. If we ever feel that something needs to be changed, the Constitution contains its own mechanism to do so. Amendments, (e.g., prohibition and its subsequent repeal). That way, and that way only.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-emptive Strike on 1st Amendment
From: Peg
Date: 07 Oct 02 - 01:51 AM

Oh, I can't wait until all of you see Michael Moore's new film "Bowling for Columbine."

peg (who saw it last week)

Subject: RE: BS: Pre-emptive Strike on 1st Amendment
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Oct 02 - 08:14 AM

Speakin' of the Ist Ammendment, Peg. As long as Michael Moore is still kickin' I know that it's still got some teeth.

Lookin' forward to the flick, myself.

Bobert