Armed protesters demonstrate inside Michigan state capitol

[Infidel144]

You do realize that none of what you posted overturns the Supreme Court cases i referenced right?

I do realize that I did not say that it overturned the case you reference.

You do realize that, don't you?

[Cope]

Hyperbole at best but no where near you claimed. You claimed plenty of people in this thread advocated for the suspension of the 2A. I'm waiting for those quotes.

I claimed that "there are plenty of people in this thread who've sought to imply that the Michigan protesters incriminated themselves by virtue of being armed. See, for instance, post #42 which falsely claims that "the simple act of organized carrying of a loaded rifle alone during a protest is a threat against the state". In response to such comments I highlighted that, irrespective of the quarantine, states do not have a right to suspend the 2nd. Amendment." The point of my comment was to indicate, first that these protesters were exercising their constitutionally (2A) rights, and second that said amendment would have to be suspended in order for their behaviour to even be considered as be terroristic.

It de facto implies it with the mention of involuntary quarantine. You have cited nothing legal wise to support your argument.

I don't see any part of the Bill of Rights which is necessarily violated by the imposition of an involuntary quarantine. Emergency measures - whatever they may be - do not simply invalidate the Constitution.

No it wouldn't. As i cited, the Supreme Court allows states to involuntarily quarantine people. That would mean being able to break up and arrest protesters violating rules like quarantine or social distancing. You do read all of that article right? It cites modern examples as well.

I'm not going to continue arguing over a speculative case. Non of the examples you've cited indicate that executive orders, either from state governors or the president, supersede the the First Amendment (or any other part of the Constitution). As I indicated above, the use of certain crowd control measures to enforce social distancing rules within an assembly may be legitimate; any attempt to ban peaceful assemblies, to suspend habeas corpus (sans a rebellion), to declare protesters as "terrorists", to withdraw citizens' voting rights or to "throw people in Guantanamo" would not be.

[PointOfViewGun]

Of course the government ensures life, but not at the expense of other lives. That is the problem here. If I want to sacrifice my welfare to help others, that is my individual choice. And trust me, if the government wouldn't interfere as they do right now, people who have the means would voluntarily stay home and find solutions. Some people, however, do not have the means or their own health is at risk due to the present government regulations. The government is essentially sacrificing one segment of the population to safe another. This should never happen.

Nothing you have said is grounded in reality. It is the integral part of the government to take away from your life to make sure the collective is well. Heck, something as simple as a traffic light is a testament to that. We have traffic laws that limit your life so that the public in general stays safe.

If people were to be left to their devices there is no indication that they would play nice and self-isolate. Something as fragile as a pandemic can not be left to people's own discretion. If we did that the results would be much more severe.

The government isn't sacrificing one group for an other as well no matter how you wanna see it. The extreme example we talked about earlier with you does not support your idea.

[Vanoi]

I claimed that "there are plenty of people in this thread who've sought to imply that the Michigan protesters incriminated themselves by virtue of being armed. See, for instance, post #42 which falsely claims that "the simple act of organized carrying of a loaded rifle alone during a protest is a threat against the state". In response to such comments I highlighted that, irrespective of the quarantine, states do not have a right to suspend the 2nd. Amendment." The point of my comment was to indicate, first that these protesters were exercising their constitutionally (2A) rights, and second that said amendment would have to be suspended in order for their behaviour to even be considered as be terroristic.

#42 does not help your claim. Are you going to get those quotes from the "plenty of people" or not?

I don't see any part of the Bill of Rights which is necessarily violated by the imposition of an involuntary quarantine. Emergency measures - whatever they may be - do not simply invalidate the Constitution.

Yet they do. Involuntary quarantine implies that since you are forcing someone against their will to do so.

I'm not going to continue arguing over a speculative case. Non of the examples you've cited indicate that executive orders, either from state governors or the president, supersede the the First Amendment (or any other part of the Constitution). As I indicated above, the use of certain crowd control measures to enforce social distancing rules within an assembly may be legitimate; any attempt to ban peaceful assemblies, to suspend habeas corpus (sans a rebellion), to declare protesters as "terrorists", to withdraw citizens' voting rights or to "throw people in Guantanamo" would not be.

Good thing MI has never advocated in anyway for the measures you just listed.

My examples are fine and backed up with legal sources. You just have baseless conjecture at this point.

[irontaino]

If it was a black lives matter protest, that was armed and dressed in paramilitary fatigues... I'm pretty sure we'd be discussing the massacre of Michigan right now. But as much as I like discussing inconsistencies in treatments of different people in the US, that is a whataboutery. We don't need to compare protests to make the point that armed protest is different in nature and intent to unarmed.

We already know what would happen, it's happened before. Conservatives panicked and birthed the entire gun control movement in the U.S.

The title of the thread should read armed thugs storm the Michigan state capitol demanding haircuts, or a case of white privilege.

[Diamat]

Nothing you have said is grounded in reality. It is the integral part of the government to take away from your life to make sure the collective is well. Heck, something as simple as a traffic light is a testament to that. We have traffic laws that limit your life so that the public in general stays safe.

If people were to be left to their devices there is no indication that they would play nice and self-isolate. Something as fragile as a pandemic can not be left to people's own discretion. If we did that the results would be much more severe.

The government isn't sacrificing one group for an other as well no matter how you wanna see it. The extreme example we talked about earlier with you does not support your idea.

Comparing forced business closure to traffic lights? Seriously? You're seriously comparing the fact that I have to obey traffic laws with the government being able to sacrifice my life? Your entire way of speaking is authoritarian. It's scary to read. In your kind of world, it would be ok for the government to shoot a person if it meant saving the lives of many. It's a slippery slope that's not even that slippery anymore, because we've already arrived at the bottom of the slope.

[PointOfViewGun]

Comparing forced business closure to traffic lights? Seriously? You're seriously comparing the fact that I have to obey traffic laws with the government being able to sacrifice my life? Your entire way of speaking is authoritarian. It's scary to read. In your kind of world, it would be ok for the government to shoot a person if it meant saving the lives of many. It's a slippery slope that's not even that slippery anymore, because we've already arrived at the bottom of the slope.

You're simply speaking from a point of convenience, not principle or logic. I'm not comparing traffic lights to sacrificing your life. No one's sacrificing your life anyways. It's a fake reality you cooked up to create a defensible position. I'm comparing traffic lights to lock down measures. Both are regulations enacted by the state. Can you respond without trying to push the facts to some senseless position that you think you can defend easily? We have standards for a reason.

[Diamat]

You're simply speaking from a point of convenience, not principle or logic. I'm not comparing traffic lights to sacrificing your life. No one's sacrificing your life anyways. It's a fake reality you cooked up to create a defensible position. I'm comparing traffic lights to lock down measures. Both are regulations enacted by the state. Can you respond without trying to push the facts to some senseless position that you think you can defend easily? We have standards for a reason.

My position has both principle and logic. It's not good debating practice to appeal to your opponent's lacking qualities.

Yes, you're comparing traffic lights to lock down measures. Traffic lights don't cause me to lose my livelihood and potentially my life as such. It's a bad comparison.

[Cope]

#42 does not help your claim. Are you going to get those quotes from the "plenty of people" or not?

I've explained my remarks. I'm not interested in pedantic point scoring.

Yet they do. Involuntary quarantine implies that since you are forcing someone against their will to do so.

You are factually incorrect. All laws - including emergency measures and involuntary quarantines - must be constitutional: state governments no more have the power to invalidate the First Amendment than they do to bring back slavery. Moreover it is self-evidently the case that the state can "force" certain measures upon its citizens without necessarily violating the Bill of Rights. See taxes for more details.

Good thing MI has never advocated in anyway for the measures you just listed.

My comments were not directed at the state of MI. Though I agree it is good that the state chose not to violate the 1st and 2nd Amendment rights of the protesters with aggressive policing.

My examples are fine and backed up with legal sources. You just have baseless conjecture at this point.

As above, non of your examples support the conclusions you reached about the implications of involuntary quarantines.

[PointOfViewGun]

My position has both principle and logic. It's not good debating practice to appeal to your opponent's lacking qualities.

Yes, you're comparing traffic lights to lock down measures. Traffic lights don't cause me to lose my livelihood and potentially my life as such. It's a bad comparison.

No, it really doesn't. Appealing to opponent's argument's lacking qualities is what's debating is partially about... There is no direct link between lock downs and people dying. The logic jump that you make for lock downs can be made for traffic lights too.

[Heathen Hammer]

Couple of question:

1) Were the protesters not able to sue the state government?
2) Are you suggesting the lock downs do not help to bring down the number of newly infected people?
3) Are you suggesting you'd rather have a disease go through the entire public regardless of how deadly it is than for the state to enact lock down measures?

Your loaded questions imply that government is free to do as it pleases because of a pandemic. That's not correct.
This isn't an authoritarian despotic regime like China or Turkey, we are talking about a civilized society that has individual rights entrenched in the legal system. Government has a right to enact measures to combat the virus, but its not an excuse to violate such rights, not to mention that in this particular case there is no evidence that idiotic policies of Michigan government even help against the virus. If anything, if you are against protesters, then you are on team "Chinese Virus".

[chriscase]

Please help keep the thread on an even keel by complying with the Mudpit Rules, particularly:

2) Address the argument, do not attack the person. Debates should be as detached and impersonal as possible. Do not post in such a manner that would elicit a strong, emotional response if possible. Your argument should be phrased in such a way that minimizes the ability to misread the post.

Try to stick the the facts and avoid escalating into inflammatory characterizations that are liable to produce strong emotional responses.

[PointOfViewGun]

Your loaded questions imply that government is free to do as it pleases because of a pandemic. That's not correct.
This isn't an authoritarian despotic regime like China or Turkey, we are talking about a civilized society that has individual rights entrenched in the legal system. Government has a right to enact measures to combat the virus, but its not an excuse to violate such rights, not to mention that in this particular case there is no evidence that idiotic policies of Michigan government even help against the virus. If anything, if you are against protesters, then you are on team "Chinese Virus".

Government not having the power to do as it pleases or it not being an authoritarian despotic regime doesn't really stop you from responding to those 3 specific questions I posed. Wanna give it an other try?

[Coughdrop addict]

Make no mistake, the point of these "protests" is to intimidate Americans. That's why they brandish their guns. That's why they wave confederate flags. That's why they bring nooses and swastikas. These give a clear message: "If you don't give us what we want, we will kill you."

A government has a responsibility to protect it's citizens from armed bullies and thugs, not give into them. Now that they know threats and intimidation work, expect more of it.

[Love Mountain]

Quarantines are legal until they aren't. That's the purpose of courts. You can all claim that previous cases that are similar, "don't apply" to the current case. That's all it is, a claim. A claim that's until proven in court.

[Commissar Caligula_]

Does the government have a right to sacrifice my welfare, the welfare of my children, and my most basic liberties in the name of public safety? No. Especially not on shaky scientific grounds. Is the government allowed to sacrifice even one free life in order to safe many? No.

They're not "sacrificing even one free life". They're saving lives lol. Nobody is dying because of the lockdown. People are still alive because of it.

In your kind of world, it would be ok for the government to shoot a person if it meant saving the lives of many.

So you're saying police shouldn't shoot mass-shooters to end their killing spree and save lots of lives?

[Coughdrop addict]

They're not "sacrificing even one free life". They're saving lives lol. Nobody is dying because of the lockdown. People are still alive because of it.

So you're saying police shouldn't shoot mass-shooters to end their killing spree and save lots of lives?

What these protestors are saying is your life and the life of everyone else not in their group is far less important than their convenience, because they themselves are much more important than everyone else.

[antaeus]

What these protestors are saying is your life and the life of everyone else not in their group is far less important than their convenience, because they themselves are much more important than everyone else.

Never let it be said that there is a bad time to bring the Dead Kennedys into the conversation.



Of course, what you label convenience is for them a point of principle. Convenience is the byproduct of their right to freely assemble. The fact that people might have to die to maintain their principle is of secondary importance to them, and potentially they would rather die themselves than submit to what they say are overreaching regulations. And the Dead Kennedys would also have something to say about the authoritarian tendencies of governments that don't have the right checks and balances (they'd be more crass).

To be honest, if it wasn't for the threat of violence that taking firearms to a mass protest implies, and the probability that if any of them are carriers of coronavirus they're going to pass it on to people who don't agree with them, I wouldn't give 2 cares for their principled stand. Certainly I agree with the fact that they have the right to express their disagreement with government - it's an important right.

The problem for me is where their exercising of rights infringes on the rights of others.

[Morifea]

Why for gods sake are those thugs even allowed to bring their weapons INSIDE the State Capitol?

[Cookiegod]

Even the US has in its constitution a state of emergency. As do most nations in the world. So no, even the founding fathers of basically whatever country you look at today did not consider a temporary suspension of certain rights as antithetical to a free society.
However, two problems exist with those. For one, obviously those paragraphs bring with them a danger of abuse, as can be seen from various dictators who ruled through decades of emergency states (not in the fully developed world, but still). Secondly, the need for such a paragraph seems so far off (until you very suddenly desperately need it), that you put almost no thought into it. So practically no emergency state law I know of considers a pandemic. Almost all concern the possibility of a civil war or invasion.

But the baseline still holds: No, a temporary suspension of civil rights, when done for a good reason, is not antithetical to a free society.