PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Jaybird180 on February 01, 2018, 09:41:46 AM
-
https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/01/30/is-a-court-case-in-texas-the-first-prosecution-of-a-black-identity-extremist/
Dangerously close to treading on 1A and 2A
or
Over the line?
-
Daniels declared and checked a weapon into baggage. The FBI had sufficient cause to seek a warrant. The warrant was granted on the basis primarily concerning what Daniels had done himself. The warrant was apparently specific enough that the LEO had no trouble finding weapons where they did not belong(under his control), after having a conviction prohibiting ownership of guns.
Some of the activities detailed concerning the cost, and effort of the FBI are certainly questionable, and on that point I will concede that they are troubling. Anyone investigated enough will eventually be caught doing something wrong. This bears consideration when one decides to be an activist of controversial positions - like the killing of LEO. Nothing wrong with his stance on the 2nd amendment, I endorse his attention to that as well as the 1st amendment. But - extending that to active murder of LEO rather than trying to change things at the root of the problem, well - I'm gonna have to distance myself from that.
Would like to see him advocate for changes in laws, policy, and respect for citizens rights, and give the killing of LEO a rest. As much as I dislike the job they have to do, and the way they do it, killing the officers, and agents is not the way to win friends and influence people. Changes need to be made way, way above that pay grade.
-
Daniels declared and checked a weapon into baggage. The FBI had sufficient cause to seek a warrant. The warrant was granted on the basis primarily concerning what Daniels had done himself. The warrant was apparently specific enough that the LEO had no trouble finding weapons where they did not belong(under his control), after having a conviction prohibiting ownership of guns.
Some of the activities detailed concerning the cost, and effort of the FBI are certainly questionable, and on that point I will concede that they are troubling. Anyone investigated enough will eventually be caught doing something wrong. This bears consideration when one decides to be an activist of controversial positions - like the killing of LEO. Nothing wrong with his stance on the 2nd amendment, I endorse his attention to that as well as the 1st amendment. But - extending that to active murder of LEO rather than trying to change things at the root of the problem, well - I'm gonna have to distance myself from that.
Would like to see him advocate for changes in laws, policy, and respect for citizens rights, and give the killing of LEO a rest. As much as I dislike the job they have to do, and the way they do it, killing the officers, and agents is not the way to win friends and influence people. Changes need to be made way, way above that pay grade.
I'd suspected my faith in you was well placed. Thanks for confirming.
-
https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/01/30/is-a-court-case-in-texas-the-first-prosecution-of-a-black-identity-extremist/
Dangerously close to treading on 1A and 2A
or
Over the line?
Trick question. Neither.
Christopher Daniels was not arrested for being having a black identity, he was arrested for being a terrorist and for openly advocating the overthrow of the American government. He also had a semi-automatic rifle despite his earlier assault conviction (in Texas, someone who is convicted of assaulting someone else cannot possess a gun). He can say whatever he wants, but he cannot be protected from the consequences of saying criminal things.
BTW, the website of the organization he started in 2008 is: https://guerrillamainframe.org. Item number 11 of his group's manifesto is
We believe in Revolution, by this meaning the Total overthrow of the Capitalist System by direct struggle conflict. Ex. Every aspect of struggle is a useful part of our cause. We agree with protest as a means to enlighten the masses, however balance must play a significant role for unification of the mind, body, and spirit.
Are you suggesting that Mr. Daniels is the paragon of black identity and that he is who we should think of when we think of a black man? Sure you want to claim him?
-
Trick question. Neither.
Christopher Daniels was not arrested for being having a black identity, he was arrested for being a terrorist and for openly advocating the overthrow of the American government. He also had a semi-automatic rifle despite his earlier assault conviction (in Texas, someone who is convicted of assaulting someone else cannot possess a gun). He can say whatever he wants, but he cannot be protected from the consequences of saying criminal things.
BTW, the website of the organization he started in 2008 is: https://guerrillamainframe.org. Item number 11 of his group's manifesto is
Are you suggesting that Mr. Daniels is the paragon of black identity and that he is who we should think of when we think of a black man? Sure you want to claim him?
I know very little about this case. But item #11 does not, in my opinion, meet the high bar of tests for illegal speech.
-
I know very little about this case. But item #11 does not, in my opinion, meet the high bar of tests for illegal speech.
I'm not sure what you are referring to by "item #11)
-
I'm not sure what you are referring to by "item #11)
Read the quote two posts above. The man advocates the overthrow of the US government.
Advocating for illegal activity (revolution and the overthrow of the lawful government) is illegal.
-
Yeah, after reading the manifesto, I'm gonna have to go with really troubled ideas and plans. Folks that need to be watched very carefully. Thus - justifying the extreme surveillance.
-
Read the quote two posts above. The man advocates the overthrow of the US government.
Advocating for illegal activity (revolution and the overthrow of the lawful government) is illegal.
The SCOTUS has ruled such advocacy is protected by the first amendment.
-
Read the quote two posts above. The man advocates the overthrow of the US government.
Advocating for illegal activity (revolution and the overthrow of the lawful government) is illegal.
Negative. That is not the entirety of the test for illegal speech.
And in fact, the more I read item #11 in the manifesto, the less it seems to rise to the level of illegality. Lots of folks right here in this forum "believe in revolution".
-
The SCOTUS has ruled such advocacy is protected by the first amendment.
Yes, Yates v US and Branderburg v Ohio. The discussion of a change in government is calm and civil and allowable. Violent sedition is not. This guy and his group advocate violence. That is sedition and is out of bounds.
-
I didn't say they couldn't say it, or advocate for the violent overthrow of the govt, just that they would be watched more carefully. This is true of anyone advocating violence for any entity in the nation. That's one of the reasons we have a govt.
-
Yes, Yates v US and Branderburg v Ohio. The discussion of a change in government is calm and civil and allowable. Violent sedition is not. This guy and his group advocate violence. That is sedition and is out of bounds.
Isn’t that what the 2A guarantees?
-
Isn’t that what the 2A guarantees?
No. The 2nd guarantees that those rights enjoyed by the people are defensible. Not that they use those arms to overthrow or destroy the lawfully constituted govt.
Having said that, there is of course the mechanism in the declaration concerning '...whenever any form of govt becomes destructive to those ends...'(sic; constituted among men, consent of the governed, etc) be abolished and new form of govt instituted in its place.
If the oppressed consider that the govt has risen to the level of destructive to the ends of those governed, then they should get the majority to see it their way, and toss out the govt(by force if needed). So far - they are way, way, way short of convincing the majority of the US that the govt is despotic. Certainly - one can say there are elements of the govt that are despotic, I would even say that the despotism of the US govt is increasing every year, but we aren't at revolution quite yet.
Maybe it's coming, and maybe it'll be here in 10-15 years, but right now our govt is just horribly bad, and not completely despotic.
-
Isn’t that what the 2A guarantees?
Violence? No, never
-
Isn’t that what the 2A guarantees?
That right there is the fallacy that keeps the left in the dark about 2A.
-
Yes, Yates v US and Branderburg v Ohio. The discussion of a change in government is calm and civil and allowable. Violent sedition is not. This guy and his group advocate violence. That is sedition and is out of bounds.
Seditious speech is protected by 1A unless it incites imminent lawless action. You've cited the precedent in your post.
-
Seditious speech is protected by 1A unless it incites imminent lawless action. You've cited the precedent in your post.
Speech yes. He was actively committing lawless actions by owning an AR.
Perhaps the police knew more about the group's imminent actions that you and I do.
-
Since this had a racial element at its core, I have given thought to another similar event but with a white protagonist. Cliven Bundy has a similar set of complaints against the govt, however his main complaint was related to private/public land and the use thereof.
Bundy took up arms to defend himself, and his property against claims by the fedguv. He argued, and backed his arguments up with weapons. End result - spent several years behind bars, and finally acquitted, or charges dismissed by the fedguv. Here's the list of charges the feds thought up:
In a 32-page criminal complaint, federal prosecutors charged Bundy with one count of conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States, one count of assault on a federal officer by use of a deadly weapon and aiding and abetting, two counts of use and carrying of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence and aiding and abetting, one count of interfering with commerce by extortion and aiding and abetting, and one count of obstruction of the administration of justice and aiding and abetting.
Turns out, not only does Bundy not like the fedguv, but he has a pretty low opinion of other races, and cultures. While I don't share his disdain for racial minorities, I am fully behind his armed insurrection of the 'crats who try to control and usurp powers that by rights belong to the people. Outcome: Feds lose big time, and in losing are slapped down hard.
Bundy is a crazy, ignorant old coot. None of which is against the law. Due to the mistakes by the fedguv prosecutors, he's been mistakenly made into a kind of cult hero by some of those who have unsavory cultural/racial positions. However, it's a textbook case on how to petition the govt for grievances. (unlike the situation with the BIE doof)
-
This guy is is angling to be the black Cliven Bundy. Anyone with half of an open mind can see that.
-
Speech yes. He was actively committing lawless actions by owning an AR.
Perhaps the police knew more about the group's imminent actions that you and I do.
They may have, but what I've read doesn't support your assertion that sedition was committed. While perhaps distasteful (and perhaps not), it is not a crime to voice an opinion that revolution by any means is acceptable. It is not even a crime to hold a rally and speak to the audience whereby you suggest the need for revolution by any means necessary. And it is also not sedition to form a group, huddle together and wave guns around, talk about the evils of Capitalism and how it should be toppled by revolution and damn wouldn't it be great if that happened, dress in camo and flit around in the woods with weapons drawn, rah rah!
All of that falls under 1A protections.
Sedition requires imminent lawless action, such as concrete planning of violent action against the government. It's a very high bar, and rightly so. Take a look at the Hutaree Militia case as an example.
They busted the guy in the OP's case for a weapon charge. Sounds fine to me. But I don't see sedition.
-
That right there is the fallacy that keeps the left in the dark about 2A.
So shed some light if you'd please.
-
Americans don't see TYRANNICAL, oppressive, and abusive foreign, or domestic governments as legitimate. The 2A is our Natural Right as human beings to defend ourselves from criminal individuals or regimes. The government has no right to take a Natural Right away, and they certainly don't give them to us.
-
Liberals typically consider that those rights in the BOR, specifically in this case the 2nd amendment devolve from a benevolent central authority. There has always been the mistaken concept that without a govt to represent the people then there would be no right to speech, worship, and of course - bear arms. The conservatives hold that the rights are self-evident and are a function of their creator. The thinking that the rights can be restricted by a govt are a central theme of liberal thought. It happens in every city, state, and fed govt where liberals control authority.
-
Liberals typically consider that those rights in the BOR, specifically in this case the 2nd amendment devolve from a benevolent central authority. There has always been the mistaken concept that without a govt to represent the people then there would be no right to speech, worship, and of course - bear arms. The conservatives hold that the rights are self-evident and are a function of their creator. The thinking that the rights can be restricted by a govt are a central theme of liberal thought. It happens in every city, state, and fed govt where liberals control authority.
Most true libs don't believe there is a Creator, therefore you have no rights except those given to you by your betters in government.
-
The right to Keep and Bear Arms is a uniquely American thing. Therefore, it's tough to accept it as a "Natural Right" given from the Creator if so few around our Planet have it.
-
The right to Keep and Bear Arms is a uniquely American thing. Therefore, it's tough to accept it as a "Natural Right" given from the Creator if so few around our Planet have it.
It's not uniquely American.
But anyway, some reading on Natural Rights would be instructive for the underlying theory. Certainly you can disagree with the theory, and that would be an interesting discussion.
-
It's not uniquely American.
But anyway, some reading on Natural Rights would be instructive for the underlying theory. Certainly you can disagree with the theory, and that would be an interesting discussion.
Suggested curriculum?
-
It's not uniquely American.
But anyway, some reading on Natural Rights would be instructive for the underlying theory. Certainly you can disagree with the theory, and that would be an interesting discussion.
It is also self defense of one's life that is a Natural Right. Self preservation. You should not be limited, unreasonably of what tool you can use. We are not all equal physically, nor by numbers. We should be able to have an equalizer to multiple attackers, and/or larger, younger, drugged up attackers.
-
Suggested curriculum?
Google searches - "Founding fathers natural rights" maybe? Theories underpinning Natural Rights have been around a long time. Back to Aristotle, I think?
-
If one goes back far enough, the origins of the 2nd amendment have nothing to do with arms, weapons or otherwise. The right to bear arms devolves from before the English revolution in landed aristocracy, and the owning of land by the serfs. Finding history on the English revolution would lead to some interesting themes on defending ones property, land, and self(family). Before that, going back to Roman times, there is also the similar theme of Pax Romana. In that, a 'citizen' of Rome didn't have to live in Rome, just had to be a citizen by birth or by owning, managing, and controlling property under Roman control. These land-holders were given the original authority from the senate to not only carry arms(sword), but more important to raise an army(private) and equip it. the reasoning was that some remote Roman strongholds could not be defended by the Roman army in all situations, but if one were to provide proper tribute, and maintain the arms for the gain of private property under Roman control, then the landed gent could go about his business.
Although the Roman authority did not recognize kings, or satraps as such, they did recognize something very similar in the Roman aristocracy, which would be governors, or magistrates. Under them would be tax farmers, and procurators(land holders). The most interesting of Romans is Sulla. I would have to define him as the first great democrat. He truly was a man of the people, and a study of his history would provide examples of why he was no friend of the aristocracy(although he was from an aristocratic family), by tossing plenty of politicians from the Tarpian cliff. A strong ally of private holdings, and personal property comes from being destitute as a young man.
These then were the beginnings of the natural right to bear arms. Private property, and the ability to defend it(not self defense per-se) was the origin. The US framers took the theory even further and expanded to insure that the power of the nation would never be usurped by a Sulla(or Hitler, Pol Pot, Hadrian, etc). The framers were furiously against any dictator, king, satrap, nobleman, etc. The best way to control this was a well armed militia.
-
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/