Where is the National Guard?

[Umbran]

The Jerusalem is a Jewish city and the Jews had been displaced from there prior to being restored to their home after WWII.

Histrionically, the land of Palestine has been held by, well, just about everybody: Ancient Egyptians, Canaanites, Israelites, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Ancient Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, the Arab Rashidun, Umayyad, Abbasid and Fatimid caliphates, Crusaders, Ayyubids, Mamluks, Mongols, Ottomans, the British, and modern Israelis and Palestinians. If there's a place on the planet that could be said to not reallybelong to one people, it's Palestine.

But, let us take as granted that they had been displaced. That displacement happened a long time ago. We are then in "two wrongs don't make a right" territory - displacing modern residents to make up for a wrong of prior centuries isn't really just to the modern people who have made their lives there. So, kinda naturally, they're cheesed off.

I'm just saying that the current extremist movement (ISIS, Al Shabob (sp) and others) is religious first and foremost, and political second.

I think you are operating under the misapprehension that these things are cleanly separable. Note that separation of politics from religion is, as far as history is concerned, a pretty modern concept. Even if we put it into a document in 1789, much of the rest of the world simply doesn't hold to the concept. When you are talking about a religious state, there is no primary and secondary.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Histrionically, the land of Palestine has been held by, well, just about everybody: Ancient Egyptians, Canaanites, Israelites, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Ancient Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, the Arab Rashidun, Umayyad, Abbasid and Fatimid caliphates, Crusaders, Ayyubids, Mamluks, Mongols, Ottomans, the British, and modern Israelis and Palestinians. If there's a place on the planet that could be said to not reallybelong to one people, it's Palestine..

yeah, that argument never made sense to me. Palastine clearly has as much of, if not more claim to Jeruselum than the Jews do. It was what? Over 1000 years that the Palastinians lived there? If you're gonna say the land should go back to the Jews, you also have to say that the US should give all of the land back to the Native Americans. After all, that's MUCH more recent displacement than Israel.

 

[Ryujin]

There have been children spotted there now, which I'm sure gives the feds reason to not do anything crazy.

I think that those are more properly referred to as "shields."

 

[Umbran]

Histrionically...

I must laugh at myself here. I meant "historically". Histrionically is a different animal.

 

[Ryujin]

I must laugh at myself here. I meant "historically". Histrionically is a different animal.

When talking politics, either may be equally applicable.

 

[Janx]

I think ignore and wait is the proper response at this point, but I also don't think they should just be able to go home. They should be arrested and charged.

Unarmed protesters are arrested all the time if they are doing something they shouldn't, like blocking roads or whatever. Usually they are just charged with a misdemeanor offence, but that's because they were never a threat to anybody, just a nuisance.

Likewise these guys aren't harming anyone, but they are being a nuisance and it is costing taxpayer dollars to deal with them. They shouldn't be able to just pack up and go home because they have guns. Quite the opposite really.

I think per your last statement we might be on the same page...

From a CHL training perspective, the moment you have a gun on your person, your nature as a threat to other people changes. With a weapon concealed, you are obligated to not escalate a situation, etc, because otherwise, the other guy's lawyer will say you were seeking to be a Hero ala the George Zimmerman incident.

If you have a weapon visible, you are inherently affecting any interaction with another person. That person is now keenly aware that you could kill them, and that puts them in a position of apprehension and fear.


I am a fan of licensed conceal carry and of killing bad guys if they attack you.

I am not a fan of open carry (though there's a few cases where it would be handy in hot Texas) because of the fear stance. A lawyer could easily argue that I am intimidating somebody by displaying a weapon. Given that TX law covers lawful use of Force, but not Deadly Force to include displaying a weapon to a trespasser, I conclude that showing a weapon (being armed like these guys), is bad.

Note: obviously laws differ in other states, but by illustrating how TX laws seem to view aspects of being armed, it at least demonstrates points at least one legal body considered.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Administrative law isn't going to change too much. Representatives just don't have the depth and breadth of knowledge they need to craft statutes in highly technical arenas, especially partnership taxation, which is widely regarded as the most complex set of tax rules in the U.S. tax system.

Doesn't matter one bit if it's unconstitutional. Beside, what a great reason to simply the tax code.

If the right to bear arms is absolute and no common sense applies then people who are sent to prison for violent crimes have the right to bear arms in prison. Somehow I don't think the founding fathers were that stupid.

Nothing I said implied any of this. Don't jump to conclusions. But the restriction on inmates being armed is still a restriction of their civil liberties. It's deemed necessary and proper, but it doesn't change that it's a restriction. However, even with that said, we aren't talking about inmates with your ideas, are we?

So it should be entirely without consequences to shout fire in a crowded theater, to incite a riot, to slander someone personally and/or professionally, and to make false police reports? After all, if you can't say whatever you want whenever you want without any consequences whatsoever it's not really free speech right?

Huh, the "fire in a crowded theatre" trope. You're batting 1000 on the censor trope watchlist!

The actual quote, from Justice Holmes in 1918, was used as justification for imprisoning people that questioned the draft during WWI under the Espionage Act. It was a horrid justification and a bad ruling. That was overturned in '68 during the Brandenburg trial, which now governs both your 'fire in a theater' and 'incite a riot' cases. The speech must incite imminent lawless action to not be protected. So you can actually tell people they should riot, and then they can actually riot, and you could be protected so long as you didn't tell them to riot immediately before they riot. If you say, 'we should riot!' and two days later there's a riot, Brandenburg says you're protected. So, in your first two cases, the answers are: fire in a theater -- most likely this is fine, it would be a rare situation where this was actionable; inciting a riot -- again, in most cases, unless you're in front of an angry mob and directing them to riot right now and they do, you're still safe.

Ain't free speech wonderful? Well, no, I guess you don't think so.

As for slander, that's not criminally actionable, and it's pretty hard to slander someone. Opinion is entirely protected, so I can say that I think you (a random you) are a cheat and a liar and do bad work, and that's protected even if I put it up on your website as a comment (or on Yelp, a great place for these cases). Now, if I allege facts that are false, I'm in trouble.

Filing a false report also has the same issues -- so long as I don't file knowingly false facts, I'm good. But, yeah, in that case, causing someone else to lose their civil liberties (by being arrested under false information) is the issue, not that the speech is inherently bad.

No, it is not all about trans discrimination. Trans discrimination is simply highly illustrative because of the breadth of that discrimination: housing, employment, restroom usage, etc. There's also racial discrimination as seen in several voter suppression laws. There's sexual orientation discrimination, though the Supreme Court somewhat recently took a nice step in removing some of that. There's religious discrimination, with Trump wanting to screen potential entrants to the U.S. based on their religion as a recent example of proposed discriminatory policy. And, I'm sure that's just the tip of the iceberg: as a white person I know that I haven't encountered most of the discrimination that's out there.

I'm not aware of any voter suppression laws. Seems like a bad nomenclature to use.

But I saw what happened to Brendan Eich. Those pesky right wingers!

Never heard of it before. After reading the Wikipedia entry about it, I can really only say that I don't know enough about the disorder and those who suffer from it to comment on it with any real insight.

\
cool.

 

[Umbran]

I'm not aware of any voter suppression laws. Seems like a bad nomenclature to use.

Nobody is passing any laws and intentionally calling them "voter suppression laws" when they try to get them passed.

There are laws that have been passed, or proposed, that would have the effect of suppressing voting among some groups. The most notable recent such cases I can think of were claimed to be voter identification laws, supposedly intended to eliminate voting fraud. Not that the voting fraud was occurring at a rate such that any recent election would have been impacted, mind you. And a couple of legislators have gotten caught on camera within memory, referring positively to the suppression of a minority groups votes as a desired effect.

 

[Sacrosanct]

And as I expected, the local Paiute tribe is decrying this occupation.

So not only are these idiots occupying land that no rancher has owned in 100 years, but they are damaging sacred native American relics as well.

At this point, they just need to turn the power off. Pipes will freeze, there won't be any heat, and life will be pretty miserable.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Nobody is passing any laws and intentionally calling them "voter suppression laws" when they try to get them passed.

There are laws that have been passed, or proposed, that would have the effect of suppressing voting among some groups. The most notable recent such cases I can think of were claimed to be voter identification laws, supposedly intended to eliminate voting fraud. Not that the voting fraud was occurring at a rate such that any recent election would have been impacted, mind you. And a couple of legislators have gotten caught on camera within memory, referring positively to the suppression of a minority groups votes as a desired effect.

Ah, so it's the opinion held that instituting voter ID, like Europe does, is intended to be voter suppression? K.

SCOTUS disagrees, btw, and has allowed some voter ID laws to stand.