Occupy Wall St. and the Second Amendment

[Fake Boris]

KH, you're a tool. It's obvious why they didn't want reporters.

[Aeson]

It's truly devious to let them stay until all their recording devices were lowbat...

[Elok]

KH, you're a tool. It's obvious why they didn't want reporters.

Like I said before, it seems clear enough that he didn't want it recorded. But this would be a natural reaction whether he planned to stay within the bounds of the law or not. It's always ugly when people are forcibly removed en masse.

[KrazyHorse]

KH, you're a tool. It's obvious why they didn't want reporters.

No, you ****ing idiot, it's not at all clear what happened. Reporters have no special privilege to be somewhere being cleared of all civilians. If they were allowed to stay on the edge of the park (which is less than a block across, btw) then I see no problem. If they were moved back some number of blocks then it was excessive. Either way, fools like you and oerdin are overdramatizing what appears to be a legitimate application of force by the cops. When the cops move a couple of hundred people (many of whom have previously demonstrated a willingness to assault police officers) and the biggest complaint is a few scratches, they have done their job well. NYPD Bloomberg ***** protestors and those desperately seeking a source of outrage

[Kidlicious]

Like I said before, it seems clear enough that he didn't want it recorded. But this would be a natural reaction whether he planned to stay within the bounds of the law or not. It's always ugly when people are forcibly removed en masse.

In a democracy it would be required of him.

[Kidlicious]

I don't know much about Vietnam, since I was a sperm at the time, but I always thought that by the seventies, there were three normal people sick of war for every one hippie holding a whatever-in for protest. That is, they didn't want peace "just to make those annoying protesters go away," everybody was actually sick of kids coming home in body bags.

I also doubt the staying power of this batch.

As one city council member put it "we don't like your protest because they force us to use police resources." You'll see. They will seek whatever solution they can find. Like I said, this is the beginning not the end.

[Uncle Sparky]

Seriously, for a second.
The 1st amendment gives the right to assemble allows people to gather for peaceful and lawful purposes and free speech. The 9th amendment gives Americans unspecifies rights. Could the 9th be argued as allowing people to supersede local bylaws - eg. the hours a park are opened?
And back to usual level of seriousness - Why shouldn't the protesters carry guns? They might find support from the Tea Party, which is also anti-Wall St.

[CultureClash]

It's truly devious to let them stay until all their recording devices were lowbat...

It would seem unlikely though that everyone would run into the same issue at the same time. Or am I missing something here?



__________________________________________________ ____________

I'm always looking for a funny status & dad jokes

[regexcellent]

Could the 9th be argued as allowing people to supersede local bylaws - eg. the hours a park are opened?

No.

The 9th amendment does not exist to limit the government in arbitrary and idiosyncratic ways.

And back to usual level of seriousness - Why shouldn't the protesters carry guns? They might find support from the Tea Party, which is also anti-Wall St.

You will find lots of support for their right to carry guns at the protest all around the country. That doesn't give them the right to actually use the guns. As it happens, New York City (and the State of New York as well, to a lesser extent) have fairly strict gun laws by American standards and without the proper permits, which are very difficult to acquire in NYC, this would be illegal. Whether the 2nd amendment protects the right to carry guns either openly or concealed is not an issue that has been decided by courts as yet. At the moment it is best to assume that it does not.

[Uncle Sparky]

In 2000, Harvard historian Bernard Bailyn gave a speech at the White House on the subject of the 9th Amendment. He said that the 9th Amendment refers to "a universe of rights, possessed by the people — latent rights, still to be evoked and enacted into law....a reservoir of other, unenumerated rights that the people retain, which in time may be enacted into law."

[Elok]

But that says "enacted into law." Presumptively by legislatures, not by protesters holding little jazz-hands councils in the parks. I had an argument about the ninth amendment not all that long ago, and I honestly think it's pretty silly to take something phrased like a disclaimer as a positive license to add new rights on the fly.

[KrazyHorse]

Does the ninth amendment also protect people's rights to squat in my apartment and not be evicted by police?

[giblets]

As long as they're protesting whatever it is you do, yes.

[Aeson]

It would seem unlikely though that everyone would run into the same issue at the same time. Or am I missing something here?

Yes.

[Elok]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15784439

Activists started the day by marching through New York's financial district and later attempted to "occupy" subway stations during rush hour.

From my admittedly limited experience with New Yorkers, I'm surprised that only the NYPD is beating the protesters.