01-14-2021, 07:09 PM
(01-14-2021, 01:39 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Not with the threat of violence, though. There is a distinction, there.
There is a distinction to be sure, It's not a distinction that get's used appropriately. There were plenty of BLM protests in which direct violence was advocated by members f the crowd, either verbally or by placard. I didn't see anyone labeling these protests as inherently threatening.
Quote:I'm not saying I disagree with you on this, because I am really trying to hash out my thought process on this issue. I haven't fully committed to one side or the other. I think that, constitutionally speaking, the exceptions for 1A protections are specific and narrow for very good reasons. Fighting words and incitement, for this reason, have to be explicit in their expression in most case law. So jumping off from the idea of "if it's legal to open carry then it should be legal," at what point would rhetoric from the armed protestor make the speech unprotected by the 1A? This isn't necessarily asking you for the case law on it, but more about where your opinion lies. I think we would both agree that at some point, even it legally carrying, the rhetoric from the protestor could move the act into an unprotected realm. It is just a matter of where that line is.
I get the point but I also think the line is clearly delineated by the law that governs criminal threats. I don't think it needs to be any more complicated than that. I was raised around guns, both my parent's families were career military. I am comfortable with them and they don't inherently frighten me. That said, I completely get why they do unsettle or frighten some people. However, their fear or dislike should in no way have any bearing on my being able to act within the law.
(01-14-2021, 01:45 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You're troubled that I acknowledged that some people who carry guns are compensating for insecurities and fears? I didn't say everyone, I just referred to a subset.
I'm not advocating that people who engage in armed protest where it is legal should not be allowed to, but I am acknowledging that some are armed for reasons of personal fear or insecurities.
My apologies if I inferred a more negative assertion on your part than was intended.
