First Amendment Areas.

[Wells]

You're right, they've never said that. But that wasn't the point.

I'll put it like this. If they said, "the First Amendment= The Government can infringe on your right to protest by forcing you to protest in a caged off area" then their ruling is invalid. What matters at that point is whether the people are willing to ignore said ruling or not.

Invalid according to what authority? This has jack shit to do with your claims they don't have the authority to interpret the constitution. Which has jack shit to do with your bizarre claim that the 1st amendment is absolute. Really all this has been is a string of you making ludicrous claims over and over.

[Deleted]

A protest uses words, not guns. Bringing guns to a protest is not peaceful.

They never used their guns. They brought them incase they needed them for self defense.

[Cthulhu 2020]

SCOTUS interprets it but does not always have the final say when it comes to it (we the people do.).

By VOTE or according to the first amendment which you hold so dear, by "petitition", not lawless violence of a bunch of rednecks shoving guns in the faces of federal workers.

[Templar 331]

You're right, they've never said that. But that wasn't the point.

I'll put it like this. If they said, "the First Amendment= The Government can infringe on your right to protest by forcing you to protest in a caged off area" then their ruling is invalid. What matters at that point is whether the people are willing to ignore said ruling or not.

No, what matters is if the government agencies that are supposed to enforce that ruling do enforce it. You can kick and scream all you want about how wrong and unconstitutional it is, but you'll have the weight of the government bearing down on you.

[Wells]

They never used their guns. They brought them incase they needed them for self defense.

Again, gonna follow you around with a gun, just in case you attack someone. Don't worry, not a threat.

[Deleted]

Invalid according to what authority? This has jack shit to do with your claims they don't have the authority to interpret the constitution. Which has jack shit to do with your bizarre claim that the 1st amendment is absolute. Really all this has been is a string of you making ludicrous claims over and over.

Invalid according to the authority of the Constitution and the people.

This is a claim made by Alexander Hamilton, one of our founding fathers, not me. I simply support said claim.

- - - Updated - - -

Again, gonna follow you around with a gun, just in case you attack someone. Don't worry, not a threat.

Again, I'll probably file stalking charges.

[Wildtree]

A lot of people went there (the militias especially) to protest the attack on the original protesters first amendment rights. Guns cannot be considered automatically aggressive either. With logic like that police should be allowed to shoot a man on sight for openly carrying where he is allowed to openly carry a firearm.

Nope... The proper logic is to protest peacefully. That's the right granted through the amendment.
Weapons are not peace tools.
Flowers would be... Had they've thrown tailgate parties there, cranked up some music, dancing and stuff. They've had sent out a whole different message.

[Wells]

Invalid according to the authority of the Constitution and the people.

Oh goody we're back to "EVERYONE'S INTERPRETATION IS JUST AS VALID". Great.

- - - Updated - - -

Again, I'll probably file stalking charges.

Missing point.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I don't really give a fuck about the militia's lives if they open fire, but the BLM guys are just doing their jobs.

I don't either, and I agreed, but when faced with violence the average federal worker isn't hired to take bullets, so they pulled out. As someone else said they have other ways of enforcing this law.

[Mayhem]

i´m equally amazed and confused this ended without a whole lot of people dead

[Templar 331]

They never used their guns. They brought them incase they needed them for self defense.

And that crazy logic is why gun toting rednecks are so mistrusted.

"I'm going to go interfere with the government doing their job! And if they want to harm me they'll have to talk to ma gun!"

There was zero need for self defense in this situation. The feds weren't going to shoot protesters. They were there for the cattle.

[Deleted]

By VOTE or according to the first amendment which you hold so dear, by "petitition", not lawless violence of a bunch of rednecks shoving guns in the faces of federal workers.

You are making things up if you actually believe that they were shoving guns into the faces of Federal Workers. Actually, I'm pretty sure it was the Federal workers who were doing that to the unarmed and peaceful protesters.

Non-violent methods should always be the first method. Sadly the will of the people through voting could be disregarded. It's never happened in this country, so I don't think we should worry about that too much. (Basically this would mean voting in a President and a Congress who would ignore the Supreme Court).

[Cthulhu 2020]

They never used their guns. They brought them incase they needed them for self defense.

They brought them to intimidate federal workers. When protesters physically put themselves in the way of the operation, you and I both know that if federal workers had so much as touched protesters to move them out of the way, bullets would have begun flying. That is not peaceful.

[Deleted]

Nope... The proper logic is to protest peacefully. That's the right granted through the amendment.
Weapons are not peace tools.
Flowers would be... Had they've thrown tailgate parties there, cranked up some music, dancing and stuff. They've had sent out a whole different message.

Weapons kept the Feds from doing any actual aggressive actions. I'm pretty sure they actually kept the peace.

[belfpala]

i´m equally amazed and confused this ended without a whole lot of people dead

Government took the high ground for once. It is actually pretty amazing.

[Deleted]

And that crazy logic is why gun toting rednecks are so mistrusted.

"I'm going to go interfere with the government doing their job! And if they want to harm me they'll have to talk to ma gun!"

There was zero need for self defense in this situation. The feds weren't going to shoot protesters. They were there for the cattle.

The Feds were armed to the teeth and had been pointing sniper rifles at the protesters before.

[belfpala]

Weapons kept the Feds from doing any actual aggressive actions. I'm pretty sure they actually kept the peace.

I'm going to do a few somersaults to shake this out of my brain.

[Wells]

Weapons kept the Feds from doing any actual aggressive actions. I'm pretty sure they actually kept the peace.

This is such a load of horseshit.

[Cthulhu 2020]

You are making things up if you actually believe that they were shoving guns into the faces of Federal Workers. Actually, I'm pretty sure it was the Federal workers who were doing that to the unarmed and peaceful protesters.

Non-violent methods should always be the first method. Sadly the will of the people through voting could be disregarded. It's never happened in this country, so I don't think we should worry about that too much. (Basically this would mean voting in a President and a Congress who would ignore the Supreme Court).

Non violent methods should be the first method? Did you completely fucking miss the protest zones that this entire thread is about? It seems people think obstructing federal workers is peaceably assembling, which if anyone actually believes that is an insult to their own intelligence.

[Templar 331]

Weapons kept the Feds from doing any actual aggressive actions. I'm pretty sure they actually kept the peace.

You can't be serious........... You think the government would just walk in, do what they want, and hurt anyone in their way?