The end of freedom of assembly

[_canpakes]

At least Breitbart is not backing down.

From playing you, no.

Black Lives Matter will not back down or rest until it is either stopped by someone gutsy enough to call them out or until it gets what it wants: a bloody revolution leading to a socialist/anarchist America.

Lol. How does that work, exactly?

Thinking things out critically is not the strong suit of Breitbart readers.

[_The CCC]

http://www.smithsonianchannel.com/shows ... 817/138608

Any questions?

[_EAllusion]

Lol. How does that work, exactly?

Anarcho-syndicalism? First, BLM finally gets police officers to wear body-cameras and stops prosecutors from falsifying evidence with impunity. Next, it is revolutionary industrial union takeover. It's all too obvious.

You know, Ajax thinks every single thing the government does outside of enforcing a massive police/military state is illegitimate. He's the closest thing to an actual anarchist on this board. You'd think that would make him the most friendly to a movement he sees as bringing the US close to anarchy.

[_ajax18]

So freedom of assembly as long as you espouse socialism and Democrat party views. Anyone else can be violently shut down because of their rhetoric.

I doubt the founding fathers ever thought the day would come when advocating enforcing the border would mean you forfeit your right to freedom of assembly.

[_EAllusion]

I doubt the founding fathers ever thought the day would come when advocating enforcing the border would mean you forfeit your right to freedom of assembly.

"Enforcing the border" is an awfully cheeky euphemism for calling Mexicans rapists and inflaming racial hatred, advocating torturing and killing the families of Muslims suspects of terrorism, and generally promising to be a Mussolini-esque strongman.

You don't understand the US Constitution or American values. Protesters no more violates freedom of assembly than criticism violates freedom of speech.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

The right to hold public meetings and form associations without interference by the government.

How is the government interfering with Drumpf's freedom to assemble?

- Doc

[_ajax18]

How is the government interfering with Drumpf's freedom to assemble?

Ultimately the government did not in this case. The police would have allowed Trump to go forward and hold the rally but they advised him not to do so. The fact was that the protesters would have come in to the meeting, started throwing punches and possibly worse. When the police or any Trump supporter hits back, then it's Trump and his supporters to blame for the violence.

What if a bunch of rednecks were to do the same thing at a Bernie Sanders rally? Just considering the way it would be covered in the press, prosecuted in court, etc. should be evidence enough of the huge double standard here.

Trump has kind of left it up to his supporters to carry on the fight, knowing that if we don't, our rights will continue to be eroded away. I'm not sure we have the power to really stop it at this point. We should have been fighting and using this kind of rhetoric a long time ago. While Trump's support is refreshing. It looks like too little too late.

[_canpakes]

So freedom of assembly as long as you espouse socialism and Democrat party views. Anyone else can be violently shut down because of their rhetoric.

I doubt the founding fathers ever thought the day would come when advocating enforcing the border would mean you forfeit your right to freedom of assembly.

Seems that Trump merely canceled a rally, but did not forfeit his right to freely assemble with anyone.

Trump isn't stupid. He knows that if he held that rally, and MoveOn or some other organization loudly interrupted it, that the reaction from his own supporters would likely become aggressive and violent... and that such behavior would not bode well for his campaign. Otherwise, the perfect strategy would be to go ahead with the rally on schedule, let those evil libruls disrupt it to their heart's content, and have himself and his supporters merely stand by politely, demonstrating themselves to be the paragon of reason and restraint. This would turn the tables on those crazy socialists, right?

But, that's not going to happen. Trump knows that he has little control over the worst element of his support. That same element is exactly the contingent of his supporters most likely to trample the 'right to free assembly' of others, as they have demonstrated several times already.

[_canpakes]

We should have been fighting and using this kind of rhetoric a long time ago. While Trump's support is refreshing. It looks like too little too late.

Trump supporters are already using this rhetoric, and Trump supporters are already assaulting folks that they disagree with at rallies. What other special rights were you looking to have that you feel is representative of proper American values?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

So, the title is misleading. This kind of rhetoric is no better than what the protesters are doing.

- Doc