supergoat52
Sixth Man
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2009
- Messages
- 731
- Reaction score
- 1,280
- Points
- 93
That is admirable, at it's very best. You forget to think about the psychological and societal damage that can and does happen as a result of these people, as small of a crowd they may be. It's not always about the presence of physical violence.
We simply no longer have the wish to protect ourselves in the most fundamental of ways. Our priorities are definitely out of order.
I agree with the majority of what you are saying, but the point many of us are trying to make is that if you and i were arguing whether these were peaceful protests or not in a court of law, i would win hands down. Many protests cause some degree of psychological damage, often that's the point (see pro-life demonstrations). I am not forgetting these things, none of us are.
From what i understand you agree that i would win the peaceful argument in court, but you think those laws should be changed. Perhaps, but i don't think you are grasping, or at least acknowledging how big of a shift in philosophy that is for the constitution. That quote Malt posted would no longer apply and would have to be amended. You would literally be changing the Bill of Rights for the sake of 40 people. My point, and from what i understand the other people in this thread arguing with you, is that the bill of rights and what it stands for is more important than pissing these 40 people off, who would just find a new avenue to annoy/psychologically harm people.