NH: More Free Staters arrested in spat with Feds

[The Real Hawkeye]

The Second Amendment applies everywhere (well, except CA, NY, NJ and a few other places), the Fourth, the Sixteenth and so on. Why shouldn't the First?

I don't think the President--any President--or any other elected official's security is so threatened by peaceful protestors that you can make any case for "free speech zones". That concept smells to me like an attempt to stiffle dissent.

+1 to that!

 

[Fletchette]

Personally, I do not understand the animosity some people here have towards the Free Staters; if it is too annoying for people to protest with signs and demonstrations, what should people do to regain freedom?

I think it is a bit hypocritical for someone to spend hours each day on this forum, complaining about the government taking our rights away, and occasionally talking about the purpose of the Second Amendment (armed resistance to the govenrment) and then not even show up to a little protest. Or worse, berate those that do!

So tell me, what exactly are we supposed to do to get our country back?

 

[ArmedBear]

So tell me, what exactly are we supposed to do to get our country back?

Put on some nice clothes. Run for office. The LP is often looking for people who will run for various things.

Or help someone else who is running. We have little money since we don't get donations from big companies or organizations.

Study, learn, get articulate. Learn to talk with people, learn to talk on the radio, learn to talk to reporters. Write press releases, or help others to. Blog.

Talk to your neighbors. Plant the seeds of libertarian thinking. Show that you're a smart, educated adult -- just like you do when you want them to see gun owners as upstanding citizens rather than dangerous dirtbags.

You might be surprised at how many more people you can reach that way than you can by marching around with a silly poster and dirty clothes. People won't know if you're from PeTA, Worker's World Party, ANSWER, or anywhere else, because they won't even look. They'll just ignore you.

Go ahead and protest. I'm not trying to stop you. But please try not to undermine the sincere efforts of serious, intelligent grownups when you do it.

 

[JohnBT]

"I'm sure you were all for the AWB and any other gun-control bill that happens to crop up, right? "

You making this stuff up as you go or is someone writing it for you? Get a new writer before you embarrass yourself any further with your blatan <> insults.

Regarding the 1st Amendment: Go yell fire in a crowded theater. Go slander or libel someone. Go...well you get the idea. There is no such thing as absolute free speech. As the law now stands, there is no absolute right to bear arms everywhere you'd like.

John
NRA Endowment Member
Member www.vcdl.org

 

[ArmedBear]

Dada,

You are either part of the solution or part of the problem, waving signs about secession is not helping matters any.

Bingo!

Liberals do have a point. "The way it used to be" was that we had slavery, then segregation, laws governing women's clothing (not just indecent exposure), laws against birth control, laws governing sex positions used by married couples, etc. That's hardly what Libertarians want to return to!

If you want to preach libertarian ideals, you have to do so in a way that people who aren't already in the choir will understand, and maybe even embrace. "Secession" and "the way it was" won't sell well, even to people who are libertarian to the core, because the message just isn't getting across that way.

It's important to be understood. Communication is about being understood, not being proud to have "spoken your mind" and alienated more people. Libertarians need to get over ourselves.

 

[Mad Chemist]

Though in response to this, I would think that an actual assassin would be more likely to wear a SUPPORTIVE shirt, just as I think that the most likely vehicle for a domestic carbombing would be an obnoxiously huge, giant new SUV with American-flag window silkscreening.

The guy yelling "I hate you!" can only come up and take a swing at you, you expect it. It's the one praising you who can stab you in the back when you least expect it. And I would expect the Secret Service to know that, too? So I don't think the shielding from protest shirts really has much to do with security.

Exactly. To think that the real threats out there do not practice and understand these tactics is ignorant. A real threat is likely to be of the "grey man" type. He looks just like everyone else, blends seemlessly into a crowd, and does not draw attention to himself.

Free Speech Zone? That's a little too Orwellian for my tastes.

JH

 

[Herself]

I'm part Cherokee myself, thanks.
And who wants a bunch of moonbats coming into their peaceful state and harassing the police, thus shortening the cops' temper in general? Or worse, arriving in a new state and declaring that their new state should secede? 'Scuse me?

'Scuse you for what, for suggesting that newcomers don't enjoy the same freedom of speech that you do? 'Scuse you for believing you have some right to the status quo that trumps other people's right to peacably assemble? Not gonna 'scuse dat. You've got no right to stifle other people's civil rights on the basis of your own speculation and personal philosophical comfort. Nobody has that right -- not you, me or the Free Staters. We all have to put up with the goofy things one another does.

If you move somewhere, _you_ should adapt to the local way of life, not the other way around, otherwise you become just like the Suburban Soccer Moms who move into McMansion subdivisions in former farmland and woods, complain that the local general store is 'unsanitary', petition for a supermarket, and demand that hunters stop shooting where they can hear them.

...Or maybe you become just like the nasty Europeans who refused to adapt to the Indian way of life; like the nasty Irish who brought over their boiled potatos and corned beef, like the nasty Italians with all their gosh-awful food and caterwauling opera..... Or the Amish, those stubborn souls, how dare they not adapt? Make up your own list. It will be long. The States can claim blue jeans, jazz and the internet as local inventions; most of the rest of it was brought here by immigrants.

Ain't a one-way street. Humans affect their environment and are affected by it -- and we each form part of other people's environment. NH gets several thousand immigrants from the blissninny states every year, too, which is why I didn't move there. It's only a matter of time until the Vermont/Mass mindset will win out. A few Free Staters will only serve to slow the process down. Think of them as leaven in tinfoil hats!

Those McMansions? Some local sold that land, and it's an odds-on bet that local developers built 'em. Better take the matter up with them, not the soccer Mom; she would not be there if there wasn't a home to buy.

History does not freeze just 'cos you or I are in the world. Things never stop changing and if all you're going to do is stand there, watch and complain, you deserve your fate.

--Herself

 

[GTSteve03]

You making this stuff up as you go or is someone writing it for you? Get a new writer before you embarrass yourself any further with your blatantly ignorant juvenile insults.

Ad hominem much?

Regarding the 1st Amendment: Go yell fire in a crowded theater. Go slander or libel someone. Go...well you get the idea. There is no such thing as absolute free speech. As the law now stands, there is no absolute right to bear arms everywhere you'd like.

So like I said, I guess you're OK with that too, right? The government should put limits on our rights over and above what the Constitution lays out.

Your examples with the 1st show that you still have that right, you just must face the consequences of your actions. In this case, you don't even have the right to express your freedom of speech, you are carted away by the SS and placed in a restricted area, solely because of what you think.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

"I'm sure you were all for the AWB and any other gun-control bill that happens to crop up, right? "

You making this stuff up as you go or is someone writing it for you? Get a new writer before you embarrass yourself any further with your blatantly ignorant juvenile insults.

Regarding the 1st Amendment: Go yell fire in a crowded theater. Go slander or libel someone. Go...well you get the idea. There is no such thing as absolute free speech. As the law now stands, there is no absolute right to bear arms everywhere you'd like.

John
NRA Endowment Member
Member www.vcdl.org

This is a common misunderstanding. There is no law against shouting FIRE in a crowded theater. If, however, you are guilty of a hoax which a reasonable person would anticipate leading to injuries, then you are liable both criminally and civilly for those injuries and damages. The same goes for defamation, i.e., you are not liable for speaking, but for the damage that was done as a direct result of your speech, which damage should have been anticipated by a reasonable person. Being able to protest in an area that will actually matter, on the other hand, goes to the very heart of free speech.

 

[Art Eatman]

Slow down, cut back on using emotionally laden words, and quit insulting each other.

Or you're gonna have to start over.

Art

 

[Herself]

Oh, Daaaaaad...!

Okay.

 

[JohnBT]

"Be cruel, bad-nasty and evil: Make somebody think."

I was trying. Oh well.

John

P.S. - 1. Destitute of knowledge

 

[progunner1957]

Let me make sure I've got this straight...

Okay, lessee...

"Free speech zones" are out of sight and earshot of the President. That means the area around him is a "Free Speech Denied Zone," except for the President - of course, he still has the right to free speech.

The Secret Service, aka "The SS" (Lordy, how they need some new initials ) decides who to corral in the "free speech zone" -by what means?? What they look like, you say?? But isn't that picking the corralees by the dreaded, evil, homophobic, xenophobic, racist, anti-woman, anti-child, kitten drowning method known as PROFILING???

So lemme see if I got this right:
1.) Denying freedom of speech is okay when the President is coming.
2.) Profiling is okay when the President is coming. It is not okay at the airport, where it might save hundreds of lives of We The Pee-ons, who are expendable in order to preserve the holy liberal/socialist concept of political correctness.

Just want to make sure I've got all this straight...

 

[joab]

Just because Amendment 1 says "free exercise thereof," doesn't mean you can't exercise your freedom of speech anywhere?

"The free exercise there of" is referring to religion. They weren't even praying much less exercising their religion

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

The first also states

or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Like I said they had already been there for some time. They say simply taking pictures judging by there later actions I have trouble blindly taking their word for that.

As I also said, maybe their reputations preceded them
Here's the rest of the text of the first amendment lest I be accused of selective pasting

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

 

[gc70]

Maybe someone needs to explain to me v_e_r_y s_l_o_w_l_y why keeping protesters from participating in Presidential events is such a bad thing.

If, for some bizarre reason, I actually wanted to go and hear the President speak, I would not want some whackjobs disrupting the event. To me, it would be an issue of freedom of association - by a group of people who actually wanted to listen to what the President had to say - rather than an issue of freedom of speech - by a few whackjobs who disrupted everyone else's activity because they could not get any attention on their own.

So, I am a little bemused by the 'Free Speech Zone' complaints. Since when was crashing someone else's party a "right?"

Public protests were effective for the civil rights movement and against the war in Vietnam. But they were most impressive and effective when they were massive and consistent and drew public and media attention away from the 'official' event that was being held elsewhere.

 

[yucaipa]

I know this is a stupid Question,but I'm a little confused.

Is secession the "official" policy of 'freestaters', 'libertarians' both,neither ?

Or are these guys just doing there own thing ?

 

[Herself]

Neither. Secession isn't an option.

 

[Derby FALs]

Maybe someone needs to explain to me v_e_r_y s_l_o_w_l_y why keeping protesters from participating in Presidential events is such a bad thing.

How about it was a Clinton Administration idea?

 

[gc70]

How about it was a Clinton Administration idea?

Stupid me! <sound of self slapping forehead>

 

[publius]

1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

You can peaceably assemble over here in this cage, far from any possibility that your message will somehow be heard by the President, or worse, the cameras. Please note that this is NOT an abridgement of your right to peaceably assemble. It's just a little restriction designed to ensure proper propaganda control in front of the cameras, but that's not an abridgement. Really. It's not. Bill Clinton said so, and W has confirmed it, so it must be true.

 

[joab]

I'll check but I'm pretty sure juvenile temper tantrums in public are not going to be considered peaceable assembly in just about any state or by any reasonable adult

 

[Sungun09]

Last time i checked

the first amendment still existed.

If the president doesn't want to hear dissent, he should stay home.

 

[JohnBT]

"Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Would someone be so kind as to link me up with the law Congress passed that has violated the 1st Amendment rights of the protesters who were arrested. According to the articles the protesters were arrested by the locals, not the Feds.

John

 

[GTSteve03]

Maybe someone needs to explain to me v_e_r_y s_l_o_w_l_y why keeping protesters from participating in Presidential events is such a bad thing.

Here's how I am seeing things based on the 1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ... or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The protestors had a grievance with the government (about what I can't imagine, maybe Bush eating puppies or something?), which is headed by the President, and they wanted to petition the government to hear them out.

Now, as far as I know just about the only way to speak to Pres. Bush in person is to go to one of his public rallies, as he's not want to meet with people very often otherwise, especially not outside his home while on his many vacations... but I digress.

These people were entirely prevented from an audience with the President in order to have their grievances heard. Is this not on its face a direct violation of that 1st Amendment?

 

[GruntII]

I find the concept of free spech zone rather repugnant to the constitution. We edge more towards a beneviolent police state every day.