Join BayouShooter For Free
Brass

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst ... 234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 48
  1. #21
    ESSAYONS

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Horrible View Post
    It says *or* not *and*. Small difference but tyrants have a way of twisting words (and laws) like a pretzel to fit their political ends. Why give them more rope?

    You still haven’t addressed my basic point that there are enough laws on the books already to completely shut down this rioting. Local leaders simply choose not to do this for political reasons.

    More simply, I will use this quote to articulate where I am coming from on this "No man's life, liberty or property are safe while the Legislature is in session." - Gideon John Tucker
    Yes, it does say “or.” So what? It doesn’t matter.

    1. Any assembly (disorderly, orderly, or violent) that damages public or private property.
    2. Any assembly (disorderly, orderly, or violent) that causes injury to others.
    3. Any assembly (disorderly, orderly, or violent) that restricts the movement of others.
    4. Any assembly (disorderly, orderly, or violent) that intimidates others.

    Which one of those 4 are constitutionally protected actions?

    You can define orderly and disorderly however you want. Twist it to mean anything you can think of. That still won’t erase the other element necessary for making the action illegal. The law does not make a “disorderly protest” illegal so the definition of “disorderly protest” does not matter in the absence of the the other elements of the crime.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  2. #22
    On Target

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by thperez1972 View Post
    Yes, it does say *or.* So what? It doesn’t matter.

    1. Any assembly (disorderly, orderly, or violent) that damages public or private property.
    2. Any assembly (disorderly, orderly, or violent) that causes injury to others.
    3. Any assembly (disorderly, orderly, or violent) that restricts the movement of others.
    4. Any assembly (disorderly, orderly, or violent) that intimidates others.

    Which one of those 4 are constitutionally protected actions?

    You can define orderly and disorderly however you want. Twist it to mean anything you can think of. That still won’t erase the other element necessary for making the action illegal. The law does not make a *disorderly protest* illegal so the definition of *disorderly protest* does not matter in the absence of the the other elements of the crime.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Agree to disagree. Disorderly can be defined as any assembly of 7 or more where any of these elements exist. And can be twisted and enforced by future tyrannical Administrations to suppress dissenters. Don't forget that the left considers what they call "hate speech" as a form of "violence".

    You still have not articulated why this legislation is needed if the destruction of property, injuring of others, rioting, looting, etc are already codified in existing legislation? These riots we are seeing across the country are an enforcement issue and NOT a legislative issue. Those in power in these cities (Portland, Seattle, Konosha, NYC, etc) do not have the stones to do what is necessary to rid their cities of this BS. Adding more laws to the books will solve nothing.

    This is exactly why gun control simply doesn't work and is nothing more than virtual signaling with respect to actually stopping crime, but can, and is often used to punish otherwise law-abiding citizens exercising their God-given and Constituionally-protected rights.
    Last edited by Horrible; September 26th, 2020 at 07:54 AM.

  3. #23
    ESSAYONS

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Horrible View Post
    Agree to disagree. Disorderly can be defined as any assembly of 7 or more where any of these elements exist. And can be twisted and enforced by future tyrannical Administrations to suppress dissenters. Don't forget that the left considers what they call "hate speech" as a form of "violence".

    You still have not articulated why this legislation is needed if the destruction of property, injuring of others, rioting, looting, etc are already codified in existing legislation? These riots we are seeing across the country are an enforcement issue and NOT a legislative issue. Those in power in these cities (Portland, Seattle, Konosha, NYC, etc) do not have the stones to do what is necessary to rid their cities of this BS. Adding more laws to the books will solve nothing.

    This is exactly why gun control simply doesn't work and is nothing more than virtual signaling with respect to actually stopping crime, but can, and is often used to punish otherwise law-abiding citizens exercising their God-given and Constituionally-protected rights.
    I don’t know if we disagree or not. You’ve still not explained how the definition of “disorderly protest” makes any difference here whatsoever. You also mentioned a couple of times that a wild definition of “disorderly” would infringe on one’s right to assemble but you didn’t say which action or actions listed in the proposal it would infringe upon.

    And I did address the “need” for this law in post #19. It takes the actions penalties of actions and enhances them if performed as part of a mob.

    Now if you still want to “agree to disagree” so be it. But to be fair, bowing out of the conversation now with those unaddressed issues sounds more like an inability to back up your claim than a case of disagreement.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  4. #24
    On Target

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by thperez1972 View Post
    I don’t know if we disagree or not. You’ve still not explained how the definition of *disorderly protest* makes any difference here whatsoever. You also mentioned a couple of times that a wild definition of *disorderly* would infringe on one’s right to assemble but you didn’t say which action or actions listed in the proposal it would infringe upon.

    And I did address the *need* for this law in post #19. It takes the actions penalties of actions and enhances them if performed as part of a mob.

    Now if you still want to *agree to disagree* so be it. But to be fair, bowing out of the conversation now with those unaddressed issues sounds more like an inability to back up your claim than a case of disagreement.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    A "Disorderly" protest can be defined as almost anything. If a protester flies a Gadsen Flag during a protest, a leftist could identify that as racist and therefore "disorderly". Not much of a stretch as leftist have already identified this type of protesting as "hate speech".

    Post #19 identified enhanced penalties for existing law, which I have not yet commented on, but don't necessarily have any heartburn with. So, definitely not agree to disagree on that point. My focus has been the lack of definition and possibility/probability of abuse of "disorderly" and maybe even "violent" protest.

    And I object to being the one with burden of proof of anything here, although, I believe that I have provided such. Burden of proof should be upon those proposing new legislation, which by definition, limits the freedoms of its citizens. The burden of proof that these laws will do ANYTHING to prevent these riots from happening when they are ALREADY UNLAWFUL. Making them doubly illegal will not stop them. Enforce the existing laws before drafting new ones. That is my take. Still not seeing any response to this argument, hence my "agree to disagree" comment.

    The left excels at twisting words in legislation to meet their ends. The mental gymnastics are often mind-boggling. One may trust the current DeSantis Administration (DeSantis was a really good Congressman and has proven himself to be a great Governor) but I will remind everyone reading this that he very narrowly won the gubernatorial election against an openly avowed socialist and borderline Communist. I am not a citizen of FL but I fear for the freedoms of those that live in that state and would rather not rely upon the electorate to make a determination on what my or your rights and freedoms should be.
    Last edited by Horrible; September 26th, 2020 at 08:48 AM.

  5. #25
    ESSAYONS

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Horrible View Post
    A "Disorderly" protest can be defined as almost anything. If a protester flies a Gadsen Flag during a protest, a leftist could identify that as racist and therefore "disorderly". Not much of a stretch as leftist have already identified this type of protesting as "hate speech".
    Again, so what? The law doesn’t make a disorderly protest illegal.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  6. #26
    On Target

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by thperez1972 View Post
    Again, so what? The law doesn’t make a disorderly protest illegal.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Really? Maybe I misinterpreted? But this seems pretty clear to me:

    Prohibition on Violent or Disorderly Assemblies
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Prohibition.PNG  
    Last edited by Horrible; September 26th, 2020 at 08:58 AM.

  7. #27
    ESSAYONS

    User Info Menu

    Law Enforcement Protection Act

    Quote Originally Posted by Horrible View Post
    Really? Maybe I misinterpreted? But this seems pretty clear to me:
    Oh...so you’re one of those people who get all of your information from headlines while you ignore the substance. Ok. So what’s the penalty listed in the law for “disorderly protesting” when there’s nothing else involved?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  8. #28
    On Target

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by thperez1972 View Post
    Oh...so you’re one of those people who get all of your information from headlines while you ignore the substance. Ok. So what’s the penalty listed in the law for *disorderly protesting* when there’s nothing else involved?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    LOL. You don't know me, so please don't suggest that I am "one of those people"

    If there is no penalty, again haven't dug into the specs of the proposed law, then what the hell is the point of the legislation? Are we into virtue signaling? I thought that was the left's thing?

    Again, I sound like a broken record here, all that it is needed to stop this rioting insanity and madness is the state and local communities nutting up and enforcing existing law. No new rules or laws are needed. Continuing to add new laws for the purpose of adding laws and looking like you are "doing something" about a problem is a path to a police state. I don't want to speak for anyone else here, but I myself value my freedoms. We can't legislate our way out of these problems.
    Last edited by Horrible; September 26th, 2020 at 09:10 AM.

  9. #29
    ESSAYONS

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Horrible View Post
    LOL. You don't know me, so please don't suggest that I am "one of those people"

    If there is no penalty, again haven't dug into the specs of the proposed law, then what the hell is the point of the legislation? Are we into virtue signaling? I thought that was the left's thing?

    Again, I sound like a broken record here, all that it is needed to stop this rioting insanity and madness is the state and local communities nutting up and enforcing existing law. No new rules or laws are needed. Continuing to add new laws for the purpose of adding laws and looking like you are "doing something" about a problem is a path to a police state.
    If you don’t want to be called “one of them,” don’t act like one of them. The text of the proposed law was quoted above, post #2 I believe. The penalties are listed in the text but they may not be in bold. What’s the proposed penalty for a disorderly protest without any other action?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  10. #30
    ESSAYONS

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Horrible View Post
    If there is no penalty, again haven't dug into the specs of the proposed law, then what the hell is the point of the legislation? Are we into virtue signaling? I thought that was the left's thing?
    This has been covered before but the law enhances the penalties for crimes committed during a violent or disorderly protest.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •