Just as incorrect as always, at least you're consistent.

1) All those things aren't rights, voting is. To remove a constitutional right should take more that a racist whim or the lack of a document. That should end your argument right there, but rationality and understanding my country's constitution isn't your strong suit.

2) buying smokes or liquor....not if you're over 25 or know a place.

3) getting a job....nope, only to get non cash job or benefits

4) getting a gun....not if it's a private sale

5)renting a house....nope, not true at all

6)getting married....not common law or religious marriage

7) I doubt you have an honest clue what's required to receive public assistance, but it's not a driver's license

Poor people don't do much of the rest of what you mention, they use cash, don't own a car, and don't travel.

These false excuses for violating the constitution and placing targeted obstacles in the path of mostly minorities to keep them from voting are brought to you by the anti voting rights party, Republicans, every election since voter protection was lifted and they could legally go after minorities voting rights again.
Odd, they weren't an issue before the court removed the coverage formula, making it nigh impossible to enforce voting rights.....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965

...the reason being, had the right implied this was their plan, or even a concern of theirs, the supreme court would have ruled that the protections are still needed and not removed said "coverage formula", which would bar most states from enacting any voting requirements, as they had historically proven and been ruled to be blatantly racially motivated.

Since that decision, republican led legislatures have tried everything but reinstating literacy tests to disenfranchise minorities. Voter id laws and voter purges based on minor clerical errors (errors made by the same people who then decide the error makes the registration invalid, errors that happen 3/4 of the time to minorities in areas with less than 30% minority populations, while whites in the same areas are 1/4 the errors caught, but almost 3/4 the population) these purely Republican sponsored laws are blatantly targeting minorities because Republicans don't represent minorities so don't expect their votes.

Except that YouTube (a private company) refusing to host his videos isn't at all equivalent to the government dragging him away and silencing him against his constitutional rights. Obvious, perhaps, but worth saying anyway, given that's how the alt-right have been portraying his "takedown". Also, he was only banned from Twitter for a week and is back spewing his hateful dangerous lies on that platform as if nothing happened, with the tacit approval of its CEO, who loves the clicks.

@eric3579 -- I agree that that is a sticking point. I have trouble buying it because there are already limitations on the "right to bear arms".

The 2nd amendment:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


Certainly, one could argue that licensing / registration of firearms would count as infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. However, "arms" is rather unspecific. Merriam Webster defines it as "a means (such as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially : firearm".

The government has already decided that limiting the access to some "arms" is fine, and doesn't infringe on the constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms. For example, in many states it is "legal" to own a fully automatic, military use machine gun. BUT:
1) It had to be manufactured before 1986
2) Said machine gun has to be registered in a national database
3) The buyer has to pass a background check

So there's 3 things already infringing on your constitutional right to bear a specific kind of "arm". A firearm -- not a missile, grenade, or bomb or something "obviously" ridiculous. And actually, even "destructive devices" like grenades are technically not illegal to own, but they require registration, licenses, etc. that the ATF can grant or refuse at their discretion. And their discretion generally leads them to NOT allow civilians to exercise their right to bear that particular sort of "arm".

If those limitations / exceptions aren't an unconstitutional infringement on the right to bear arms, certainly reasonable expansion of the same sort of limitations might also be OK.

I empathize with pro-gun people's fear of "slippery slope" escalating restrictions; the potential to swing too far in the other direction. But at some point you gotta see the writing on the wall. To me, it seems like it would be better for NRA-types to be reasonable and proactive so that they can be part of the conversation about where and how the lines are drawn. In other words, accepting some reasonable "common sense" limitations (like firearm licensing inspired by driver's licensing) seems like a good way to keep any adjustments / de-facto exceptions to the 2nd amendment reasonable (like the laws about machine guns). Otherwise, you're going all-in. With a not particularly good hand. And that's when you can lose everything (ie., 2nd amendment removal rather than limited in sane ways that let responsible people still keep firearms).

?
So, do you disagree with his point, or just think people are so outrageously out of control that saying anything anyone might find offensive is asking for trouble? Kind of like any woman not wearing a burka is asking to be raped?
Do you mean you think people have a right to never be offended, and that right trumps the constitutional right to free speech?
You're going to need to explain that one to me.

Restricting access to this type of technology through laws and regulations is not the answer. If you try to prevent bad people from slaughtering their enemies en-masse using technologically advanced and highly efficient means, they're just going to do it another way. Will you outlaw knives or trucks next?

And if only the government has this weapon, then you have no means to fight back when they come to take your rights away. We have a constitutional right to arm ourselves against a hypothetical tyrannical government.

The only way to stop a bad guy with autonomous murder drones is a good guy with autonomous murder drones.

Perhaps not directly, but you certainly implied it by saying they would arrest you for just not talking.(Edit: I took that as an endorsement)

Again, you simply don't understand rights if you say it's ridiculous, uncalled-for behavior to actually exercise them, which is precisely what she did.

1 1/2 years on duty is not inexperienced or rookie IMO.
EDIT: Nor is being inexperienced or a rookie any excuse for violating civil rights....it's sad that I think that needs to be stated explicitly.

Exercising your legal right to not say a word, because saying any word has PROVEN REPEATEDLY to be enough to cause exactly the kind of trouble you say she's inviting by being silent, is absolutely NOT instigation. It is being patriotic and standing up for your hard won rights. My forefathers actually fought and died to secure those rights, it is my duty to defend them by using them, as is the case with every American citizen. Period. (I am inflexible in this line of thought, as it conforms to everything I was taught to believe about citizenship, patriotism, and respect)

Before they manhandle her, she tells them she's a lawyer and has no duty to speak....enough? If not, why?


You said "I don't think saying "hello, how are you?" and "no, I don't know why you pulled me over." are going to incriminate you...", I explained why you are wrong in that assessment (as did others by pointing you to a video that explains it in detail and much better than I can). There's no question, it's not an opinion, it's historical, verifiable fact. Talking to police can get you in more trouble than remaining silent, but I do agree it's prudent to explain to powertripping ignorant cops what's happening....with a pre-printed card you let them read through your closed window that simply says "Any questioning must be in the presence of my lawyer, and I won't respond, standing on my constitutional right to refuse any self incrimination." or something close to that. I'm usually willing to simply and flatly say " I can't talk to you without my attorney" and they go away, but that's because I'm a pussy.

That would be great, who should I speak to about changing that culture of ours?

As far as letting people fly, I never said I agree with it. I was referring to it because President Obama used it as an example. I said, somewhat sarcastically, that it wasn't a constitutional right. I never said we SHOULD ban people from flying.

I absolutely do not think we should limit a person's ability to travel based on an arbitrary list, especially since this incident pretty much proves that it doesn't necessarily stop terrorists. If a gun ban was in place, the shooter would still have been able to get weapons because he was removed from the list for some unknown (as of yet) reason.

Yes, in hindsight the Patriot Act should never have been passed. That is one of the main points of what I have been saying. We are in a crisis situation and people are knee-jerking the way they did after 9/11. Do we really need to have our government pass the Patriot Act Part Deux?

I understand the anger, the sadness, even the rage we all are feeling right now because of this incident. I've tried to remain relatively calm and not release vitriol on anyone I've replied to. I'm sure that I might have angered quite a few by not caving on my stance, but I refuse to back down because someone is pissed at me. I am not a member of the NRA. I am a fiscal conservative, a constitutionalist, and yet still a liberalist when it comes to personal life styles or choices. I've voted Republican, Democrat, Independent, and Libertarian. I think the fact that Paul Ryan ignored a possible discussion on gun laws is a bunch of horseshit. We should be able to at least talk about things, even if we might not agree with each other.

@Mordhaus

"We have always been a gun violence culture up until the post WW2 era. Think frontier, wild west, duels, and mafia shootouts. We glorify violence everyday, we even give sickos who shoot up groups of people mass media coverage. "

Don't you think that that idea is outdated in 2016? Fine, that's the culture. Change the fucking culture.

When I grew up in Ireland, nobody gave a second thought to driving drunk. Sunday after church, people went to the pub, had a few pints with the neighbours, the kids played space invaders and then the whole family got back in the car and drove home.

And most of the time, it was absolutely fine. People got home, there was the occasional accident, but ya know, what can ya do?

Until it wasn't fine. And it took decades, but eventually, it became socially unacceptable to drive drunk.

"I'm just extremely leery of package deals like lets ban everyone who ends up on a list from having weapons based on a government decision."
I get that. But be reasonable. You're ok with not letting people fly, but you draw the line at owning weapons?

That is some fucked up list of priorities. I would be far more concerned with restricting someones right to travel (essentially restricting their freedom of movement, or a lighter form of incarceration) than whether they can own a gun.

You say that owning a gun is a constitutional right whereas travel isn't. I say that freedom of movement is a fundamental basic human right... oh, look at that, Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights!
"Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state."

I'm completely willing to say that it should be a lot harder to put someone on this kind of list, but there's no way the right to own a weapon is more important than freedom of movement.

Finally, re: slippery slopes
"The Patriot Act, meant to be a well intended set of rules to help us protect ourselves, has been perverted to lessen quite a few of our rights."

The Patriot Act wasn't a slippery slope, it started at the bottom of the slope and went straight over a fucking cliff. It should never have been passed in the first place.

That is not the point. Government works a certain way and rarely is it in the favor of individual liberties. We knee jerked after 9/11 and created the Patriot Act, you know, the set of rules that gave us torture, drone strikes/raids into sovereign nations without their permission, and the NSA checking everything.

If you ban people from one of their constitutional rights because they end up on a government watchlist, then you have set a precedent for further banning. Then next we can torture people in lieu of the 5th amendment because they are on a watchlist (oh wait, we sorta already did that to a couple of us citizens in Guantanamo). The FBI fucked up and removed this guy from surveillance, even though he had ample terrorist cred. That shouldn't have happened, but should we lose our freedom because of their screw up?

But hey getting on a plane isn't a constitutional right, but apparently being able to murder the fuck out of your fellow citizens is!
*related=http://videosift.com/video/Obama-isnt-looking-to-disarm-you

Should I?

/ducks

In all seriousness though, no, I don't really have an answer to your question. What I like about Sanders is that he seems to call 'em like he sees 'em, instead of pandering to what he thinks will get him the most votes like most politicians (cough Hillary cough). So, I guess the best way to find an answer would be to examine what he says (and how he has voted) about constitutional issues.

I suppose that if I had to guess the most likely "constitutional right" that his opponents would call him out for NOT wholeheartedly supporting would probably be the 2nd amendment. He has said (and voted) that he is in favor of an assault weapons ban on guns that are "only designed to kill people". And that he wants "common sense gun control legislation" enacted.

Fox News would probably say that means that he is radically opposed to some of our constitutionally guaranteed rights and protections. You can decide for yourself whether you agree or not.


I should note that aside from my first line here "answering a question with a question", I'm not trying to be snarky in my reply here and wasn't trying to be in my first reply to you either. I just wasn't clear from the context of your original post if you were asking a question or if you "had an agenda". Now I get it. I think.

"Basic constitutional rights and protections that have made us a great and free country".

Is he a cherry picker in regards to which constitutional rights and protections should be maintained?

Well, it appears to me that there has to be a better way of handling things than that two-striper decided.

I do know that people complain when outsiders crash their 'territory'.

I thought most of the black kids did do as they were told, which was to sit on the ground. Some of the black girls got mouthy or something which led to physical force.

Too many people now are being taught to disobey the cops, so the verbal escalates to the physical and everyone loses. White people do it too..."I know my constitutional rights!" etc etc etc

And Genji, I don't know if Bob was being racist to you, I'm sure you'll be the arbiter of that, regardless. If Bob wasn't being racist, then I'm sure you'll find someone who will, or has, or will be.

Bottom line is, the cop was suspended because he made a bad situation worse. The other cops don't like that shit either because they have to deal with it too.

But I'm not going to paint all cops as racist just because one might be, as opposed to you guys, who like to paint all cops as racist, just as I don't consider all black people to be troublemakers, just because a few are.

Also, not all black people consider themselves victims as GK does.

Update: the officer who pulled the gun has resigned.

Okay, yes, the cop is a puffed up dick but so is this smart ass kid who appears to be on a power trip of his own after spending the day perusing infowars in his parents' basement. It is obnoxious to hold a phone up in someone's face while having a conversation with them. The fact that he is acting within his constitutional rights doesn't make him any less of a prick.

There are laws that prohibit displaying Nazi-symbols (like the swastika), hate speech, especially if it calls for violent action (like "Kill all Jews"), as well glorifying or defending actions of the Nazis.

But since they learned to stay clear of this in public they have the constitutional right to free speech and there is no way to forbid their stupid demonstrations.