zlacker

>>Kapura+(OP)
Police who refuse to identify themselves and carry no markings used against an administration's political opponents sure sounds like something everyone should be opposed to, no matter their political camp.

If someone thinks that's a healthy part of a democracy, I'd be real curious about your reasoning.

>>Pfhrea+7u
I'd rather they be counterbalanced with a well-armed citizenry, such as the "cosplaying" the article insultingly describes.

>>madeng+xw
That makes things a lot more volatile: you have one side with a LOT more guns, armored vehicles, and aircraft — all you need is one mistake for them to start thinking force protection and a whole bunch of people are in the crossfire. When the dust settles, a lot of people will believe this says the protests were an Antifa army even if the first shot came from the other side.

>>acdha+oz
The right to peaceably assemble does not include the right to assemble for the purpose of violence.

>>0x8BAD+ZF
The first amendment does not include the word "peaceably."

>>x3n0ph+SH
Edit: (Full text of the First Amendment that I could find)

"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."

It doesn't need to. Just as it doesn't need to have a provision for yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre. But such actions will have consequences.

Congress has the authority "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;". Assembling for the purpose of violence is by definition an insurrection. So if the First Amendment said nothing of peaceably assembling, we can assume it is meant so, otherwise the Constitution would say nothing of insurrections.

>>0x8BAD+tK
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...