The 1st Amendment Versus the 2nd

I've never worried about that (though perhaps I should). I've had guns pulled on me before by irate people (when I was younger) and I usually responded by mocking the person. I think it is a combination of thinking that the escalation of actually shooting a gun at a person is daunting and that actually hitting a target with a gun isn't as easy as people think.

Of course that thought process comes from a place of reasonable logic. There is no accounting for crazy.

Dr.Ghastly wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
Paleocon wrote:
fangblackbone wrote:

So license to drive a car but gun, no?
We do have a LOT of problems.

The canned answer to this is that there is no constitutional right to drive.

I wish I was kidding.

Which kinda brings things full circle to the question I posed.

What happens when someone's constitutional right to bear arms is used to suppress or limit someone else's constitutional right to freedom on speech?

I would imagine that situation should be handled by assault laws (if police were doing their jobs properly). The second someone puts a hand to a holster, they are assaulting someone else (in the legal sense). Of course I'm not a lawyer, so grain of salt and all that.

Assault no (that requires actual action I believe) but intimidation? Hell yes. I'm not a lawyer either but I'm pretty sure intimidation through threat of force is illegal.

I think our foreign policy says differently...

OG_slinger wrote:
Paleocon wrote:
fangblackbone wrote:

So license to drive a car but gun, no?
We do have a LOT of problems.

The canned answer to this is that there is no constitutional right to drive.

I wish I was kidding.

Which kinda brings things full circle to the question I posed.

What happens when someone's constitutional right to bear arms is used to suppress or limit someone else's constitutional right to freedom on speech?

Basic answer is nothing, the first amendment limits the government from restricting freedom of speech/expression.

It does not limit a private entity from attempting to suppress your freedom of expression.

That being said I align my thinking with intimidating someone via real or implied threat of being shot should be considered attempted assault.

OG_slinger wrote:

These two incidents have really got me wondering if the 2nd Amendment is compatible with the 1st Amendment or if it's become a tool to suppress debate and discussion.

That's because you misunderstand the First and Second Amendment. They apply only to the government. They do not apply between private citizens. They are there to stop the government from interfering with people's speech and right to own firearms. People can and do make rules about speech all the time. Same with guns.

When does a firearm transform from something that (supposedly) protects citizens from government tyranny and oppression into something that allows one group of citizens threaten, intimidate, and cow another group of citizens because they don't like what's being said?

It doesn't transform, it's both all the time. A firearm is just a tool. It may protect a mother in Detroit from a home invasion one day and be used to threaten a protester in Alabama the next.

Making that problem worse is the fact that America has a clear double standard about who's really allowed to openly carry firearms.

This is a significant issue that has deep historical roots. The first gun control laws were implemented to prevent black freedmen from arming themselves (which didn't stop them, but often gave the authorities an excuse to kill them). Vestiges of that attitude remain, and are unfortunately now bound up in the War on Drugs.

Black open carry does occur, it's just fairly rare because it's often not tolerated by the police.

IMAGE(http://aattp.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Black-Open-Carry-in-Dallas.jpg)

Note the double standard in that article - the white guys carrying guns are scary, but the black guys carrying guns are okay because those white guys had it coming.

Yet two incidents that led to the #BlackLivesMatter movement involved black people (one a mere child) being killed for holding toy guns.

An important distinction needs to be made here: those Confederate yahoos didn't kill those kids, the police did.

kazooka wrote:

My sense of the history of personal firearms is that it's very rare that gun ownership is used as a means to overthrow tyrannical governments.

True ... but that's because it's historically very rare for personal firearm ownership to be permitted. And in a sense, private firearm ownership, in the form of black market weapons, pretty much fuels every government overthrow, tyrannical or not.

More often, what happens is that armed vigilante groups coalesce and use their weapons to attack the minority of the day, usually with the tacit support of the local authorities.

Which is another scenario that private firearm ownership is adept at preventing.

Nicholaas wrote:

Isn't that picture basically aggravated assault?

No. If it was, every cop that put his hand on his firearm when approaching a car during a traffic stop would be threatening to shoot the driver. In general, the rule is that if the gun isn't pointed at someone, you're not threatening them. If carrying a gun is a threat, then the police are threatening everyone around them, all the time.

I can't help but think if that guy was black and had is hand on his gun, those cops wouldn't be trying to peacefully diffuse the situation.

I agree, but I would say that problem is that the black guy is being mistreated, not that the white guy being coddled.

OG_slinger wrote:

When someone's clearly threatening you with a firearm, sure. But what about the chilling effect that can happen if a group of armed people show up to counter-protest?

You're again misinterpreting the First Amendment to apply to private citizens. If the police showed up armed and telling a peaceful protest to shut down, that is a First Amendment issue. Private citizens showing up armed and telling a peaceful protest to shut down is not a First Amendment issue. In fact, it's not anything unless and until violence is actually directly threatened or enacted, at which point it's assault or higher. Private citizens (like security guards) showing up armed and actually threatening violence to enforce their rules on open carriers on private property is perfectly legal.

OG_slinger wrote:

Even if they don't put a hand to their holsters they are still sending a loud and clear message that you better watch what you say and how you say it otherwise may very likely be violence.

Consider this quote applied to the police at the Ferguson protests.

Which is another scenario that private firearm ownership is adept at preventing.

The fact that you really believe that scares me. And it seems so much so that you would cherry pick a source article to prove it should I ask you to.
And contrary to growing sentiment in this country, I would feel much safer and make a clear distinction when a cop rests his hand on his gun versus someone who left their house with an axe to grind putting their hand on a gun with an assault rifle strapped across their other shoulder.

Actually don't have to "directly threaten" someone to be charged with assault. You merely have to act in a way that leads someone to expect impending harm.

I expect the guy in the picture was not assaulting his unarmed interlocutors because no one could reasonably expect him to attack them in the presence of a police officer. However, the police officer would most likely be able to justify controlling the gentleman with the handgun by various methods, including force.

Aetius, you argue strenuously that it's the *capability* and *implied threat* of government force that is evil. However, you don't regard the same capability and implied threat *by citizens* as dangerous.

Why is that?

Aetius wrote:

That's because you misunderstand the First and Second Amendment. They apply only to the government. They do not apply between private citizens. They are there to stop the government from interfering with people's speech and right to own firearms. People can and do make rules about speech all the time. Same with guns.

The NRA and other pro-gun groups have spent the last several decades suing the government to force guns into the public sphere. That means that the weight of the government is behind anyone carrying a weapon in public.

So when an armed counter-protester steps up to an unarmed protester that essentially the same as the government attempting to suppress speech and intimidate someone into silence.

Aetius wrote:

This is a significant issue that has deep historical roots. The first gun control laws were implemented to prevent black freedmen from arming themselves (which didn't stop them, but often gave the authorities an excuse to kill them). Vestiges of that attitude remain, and are unfortunately now bound up in the War on Drugs.

Black open carry does occur, it's just fairly rare because it's often not tolerated by the police.

Note the double standard in that article - the white guys carrying guns are scary, but the black guys carrying guns are okay because those white guys had it coming.

Much more than vestiges of that attitude remain. Gun sales didn't skyrocket after Ferguson because of the War on Drugs. They spiked because white people were afraid of black people.

Hell, gun sales went through the roof after Obama was elected and I'd wager that a good portion of those sales weren't because people were afraid he was going to take their guns. They were afraid because a black man was president.

And the article you linked to isn't an article. It's a post on the website of an anti-Tea Party organization. You shouldn't expect journalistic objectivity.

As for the so-called double-standard of the post, you probably should have looked a bit closer at the incident that sparked the black open carry event: Open Carry Texas--a virtually all white group--planned walk through a historically black Dallas neighborhood with their guns on Juneteenth, a largely black celebration of the end of slavery. Again, that's a bit more than "vestiges of that attitude remain." Open Carry Texas wisely postponed and then cancelled their march.

It should be noted, thought, that The Huey P. Newton Gun Club was largely formed in response to Open Carry Texas' plans and its members had vowed to to match Open Carry Texas "gun for gun" if they marched through the 5th Ward. Had Open Carry Texas carried out its original plan we would have literally had a situation where two armed groups exercising their freedom of speech squared off against each other on public streets.

Aetius wrote:

An important distinction needs to be made here: those Confederate yahoos didn't kill those kids, the police did.

An important distinction also needs to be made that the cop in the picture didn't put a bullet into the Confederate yahoo who was ready to draw a real gun.

Aetius wrote:
Nicholaas wrote:

Isn't that picture basically aggravated assault?

No. If it was, every cop that put his hand on his firearm when approaching a car during a traffic stop would be threatening to shoot the driver. In general, the rule is that if the gun isn't pointed at someone, you're not threatening them. If carrying a gun is a threat, then the police are threatening everyone around them, all the time.

According to your political philosophy cops are threatening everyone...

But the rest of us can make the distinction between a cop functioning as an authorized agent of the government (that has received special training for conflict resolution, firearms, etc.) and a Confederate yahoo who literally just paid 75 bucks to the state of Georgia so he could carry a gun in public and is upset because someone is dissing Southern heritage.

Of course, that's not to say that the police don't threaten people with their weapons.

Aetius wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

When someone's clearly threatening you with a firearm, sure. But what about the chilling effect that can happen if a group of armed people show up to counter-protest?

You're again misinterpreting the First Amendment to apply to private citizens. If the police showed up armed and telling a peaceful protest to shut down, that is a First Amendment issue. Private citizens showing up armed and telling a peaceful protest to shut down is not a First Amendment issue. In fact, it's not anything unless and until violence is actually directly threatened or enacted, at which point it's assault or higher. Private citizens (like security guards) showing up armed and actually threatening violence to enforce their rules on open carriers on private property is perfectly legal.

I think the issue is a lot grayer than you think it is. The only instance where it would be that black and white is if the protest was taking place on private property. Then the owners could shut it down just as they could bar people with guns.

But not all protests take place on private property. In fact the first news article I linked to was an incident that took place on public property: right in front of a county courthouse.

Aetius wrote:
"OG_slinger wrote:

Even if they don't put a hand to their holsters they are still sending a loud and clear message that you better watch what you say and how you say it otherwise may very likely be violence.

Consider this quote applied to the police at the Ferguson protests.

It would have been a massive deescalation of things had the police during the Ferguson protests didn't put a hand on their holsters. In case you forgot, they were actually doing this:

IMAGE(http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/article20056156.ece/BINARY/w620/XNYT143_MO_TEEN_SHOOTING_10.JPG)

But armed civilians aren't armed police. They haven't been trained. There's no real public oversight of them. And no one can tell if they're going to be peaceful or open fire.

The answer to that is not to arm the original protesters. It's to make sure the counter-protesters aren't armed so that things can't escalate beyond harsh words.

I am a big fan of guns, but have to agree with OG on this one. A protest is the absolute worst place to have a gun and whatever point you have to make is entirely invalidated by that implicit demonstration of deadly force. If you wish to threaten the use of personal violence for political reasons, you forfeit your voice in civil society.

I'd like to head-off the inevitable "But cars are just as deadly!" statement by saying, yes, and if someone drove their car right up into the face of protesters, it would be a threat.

Aetius wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

More often, what happens is that armed vigilante groups coalesce and use their weapons to attack the minority of the day, usually with the tacit support of the local authorities.

Which is another scenario that private firearm ownership is adept at preventing.

Unless, hypothetically, the minority of the day was arrested or killed by the local authorities for using their weapons in conflicts with the majority much more often than the majorities were arrested or killed. For example, if lighter skinned people could kill black people in "self defense" statistically far more effectively than darker skinned people killed lighter skinned people and got away with "self defense".

Also, once again hypothetically, if an area had instances of the majority racial group being well armed and that leading to a slower, more peaceful, and more measured response from local authorities in an attempt to limit loss of life, while the thought or possibility of the minority racial groups possibly being armed led to an immediate lethal response, that would theoretically argue against your idea that firearm ownership prevented the majority and government from oppressing the minority.

Another crazy example would be if the immediate presence of a firearm aggravated the legal ramifications of a crime, then, if the government were to disproportionally target that minority with criminal investigation and prosecution, causing those laws to be a multiplying factor on the negative affects on that minority from disproportionate policing.

If any or all of those factors were true someplace, that would seem to give the impression that private firearm ownership is either incapable of preventing local authorities and the majority from oppressing the minority, or even that firearm ownership was a factor that HELPED local authorities and the majority oppress minorities by giving them additional tools to do so.

fangblackbone wrote:

And contrary to growing sentiment in this country, I would feel much safer and make a clear distinction when a cop rests his hand on his gun versus someone who left their house with an axe to grind putting their hand on a gun with an assault rifle strapped across their other shoulder.

That's nice, but obviously people elsewhere in the country feel differently. And the data pretty clearly indicates that unless you're a middle-class or upper-class white person, you have much more to fear from the police than from armed radical right-wingers.

Robear wrote:

Aetius, you argue strenuously that it's the *capability* and *implied threat* of government force that is evil.

Umm, no I don't. If the government didn't routinely exercise brutal and sometimes deadly aggression in the normal course of their activities, I'd have a lot less of a problem with them. I argue strenuously that giving the government a societal pass on their routine use of deadly aggression - like shooting unarmed people with no consequences - is evil.

However, you don't regard the same capability and implied threat *by citizens* as dangerous.

No, I treat everyone who uses threats of violence and actual violent aggression the same way - as dangerous. I simply don't make a special exception for the police. But as I've pointed out, you can't interpret carrying a gun as a threat. I've been around people carrying firearms virtually all of my life, and none of them have ever threatened me. In case I was unclear, police officers aren't threatening anyone simply by carrying a gun - their problem lies in routinely using their guns inappropriately. A little old lady with a pistol in her purse isn't threatening anyone.

OG_slinger wrote:

The NRA and other pro-gun groups have spent the last several decades suing the government to force guns into the public sphere. That means that the weight of the government is behind anyone carrying a weapon in public.

So a gangbanger holding a 9mm in the middle of the street has the weight of the government behind him? I'm sure that makes him feel better.

So when an armed counter-protester steps up to an unarmed protester that essentially the same as the government attempting to suppress speech and intimidate someone into silence.

No, no it's not. If that person were to draw their firearm and point it at the protester, they would be arrested or shot - either by the police or the protester himself, and rightly so. If they shot the protester, they would almost certainly go to prison. The counter-protester has no legal authority to actually threaten anyone - only to carry the gun. The police do, and further have a societal pass on actually shooting people. You are interpreting his carrying of a gun as a threat, which is up to you, but it isn't the legal definition which is why the police officer isn't arresting him. You're also implementing a double standard: you're concerned about his carrying a gun, but not concerned about the police officer carrying a gun - despite thorough public documentation that it's much more common for police officers to actually use violence in suppressing a protest than it is for counter-protesters (a group which, notably, don't have a single violent incident to their name in recent history).

According to your political philosophy cops are threatening everyone...

It's not my philosophy, it's documented fact. The police can and do threaten people all the time, and it is routine for them to use force up to and including deadly force. This really isn't an arguable point - the argument is over whether or not they should have a societal pass on the societal consequences of their actions.

I think the issue is a lot grayer than you think it is.

It really isn't.

OG_slinger wrote:
Aetius wrote:
"OG_slinger wrote:

Even if they don't put a hand to their holsters they are still sending a loud and clear message that you better watch what you say and how you say it otherwise may very likely be violence.

Consider this quote applied to the police at the Ferguson protests.

It would have been a massive deescalation of things had the police during the Ferguson protests didn't put a hand on their holsters.

Precisely my point.

But armed civilians aren't armed police. They haven't been trained. There's no real public oversight of them. And no one can tell if they're going to be peaceful or open fire.

This is pretty much entirely wrong. Armed civilians often have been trained, sometimes quite a bit better than police. And ask the people in Ferguson if they can tell when a police officer is going to be peaceful or open fire.

The answer to that is not to arm the original protesters. It's to make sure the counter-protesters aren't armed so that things can't escalate beyond harsh words.

Quite obviously, things didn't escalate beyond harsh words. They very rarely do, so it's clear that either or both sides being armed is typically irrelevant - especially when it comes to the First Amendment and neither side being a member of the government.

Umm, no I don't. If the government didn't routinely exercise brutal and sometimes deadly aggression in the normal course of their activities, I'd have a lot less of a problem with them. I argue strenuously that giving the government a societal pass on their routine use of deadly aggression - like shooting unarmed people with no consequences - is evil.

And I think if white separatists and Southern "pride" folks didn't have a centuries long history of doing this:

IMAGE(http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120818201744/villains/images/0/04/Lynching.jpg)

we might be a bit more comfortable with angry white folks demonstrating with guns.

Aetius wrote:

At its most fundamental level, government is about using violent aggression to force some people to do what other people want - large-scale organized bullying. You can argue about whether or not what the government does is necessary, but its fundamental nature is routinely exposed when people refuse to behave as ordered. (See the response to the Occupy movement and Ferguson for recent examples inside the United States.)
...
For my part, I'm always confused as to why people are surprised by political corruption. This fundamental nature of government attracts the kind of people who are perfectly willing to visit all manner of horrific violence on their fellow humans in order to get what they want; it should thus come as no surprise that historical trend in government is to be overwhelmingly populated with amoral power-hungry sociopaths.This is further exacerbated in the US by an electoral system that is essentially a large-scale high-school popularity contest, rewarding those who are connected, good-looking, charismatic, willing to say whatever is necessary to get elected, and willing to do whatever is necessary to get and retain power. In that environment, getting paid off to dispense government favors is simply the essence day-to-day governance; the ones who are forced to resign or briefly go to jail are simply the ones who were inept at the game or lost a political conflict.

Aetius, this is what you recently told us: Government is bad because it's based on "bullying" - the use of coercion by the threat of violence. You in fact argue that when the police or other authorities actually *use* force, they are simply expressing their underlying values. And you argue that they are sociopaths and amoral.

But now, you want to temper that:

Aetius wrote:

Robear wrote:

Aetius, you argue strenuously that it's the *capability* and *implied threat* of government force that is evil.

Umm, no I don't. If the government didn't routinely exercise brutal and sometimes deadly aggression in the normal course of their activities, I'd have a lot less of a problem with them. I argue strenuously that giving the government a societal pass on their routine use of deadly aggression - like shooting unarmed people with no consequences - is evil.

However, you don't regard the same capability and implied threat *by citizens* as dangerous.

No, I treat everyone who uses threats of violence and actual violent aggression the same way - as dangerous. I simply don't make a special exception for the police. But as I've pointed out, you can't interpret carrying a gun as a threat. I've been around people carrying firearms virtually all of my life, and none of them have ever threatened me. In case I was unclear, police officers aren't threatening anyone simply by carrying a gun - their problem lies in routinely using their guns inappropriately. A little old lady with a pistol in her purse isn't threatening anyone.

When you were arguing about government corruption, all government employees were violent sociopaths and the basis of government was the threat of the use of force, as exemplified by the use of force in some situations. Now, when you are arguing for gun rights, you're suddenly not worried by the "amoral, power-hungry sociopaths" with guns, because unless they are actually shooting someone, you claim you are not worried.

You do see the contradiction here, right? You can't reasonably attack all government, all of it's employees, as indelibly corrupt sociopaths whose violent tendencies are revealed when they shoot people, and then turn around and say you are comfortable with them (and government) as long as they aren't actually shooting anyone. (Heck, you didn't even mention corruption this time around, you just said you'd be a lot more comfortable with government if there was less shooting.)

I'll repeat what I said - you seem to be really upset by the government having access to weapons, but not by private citizens in the same situation. Your previous statements on government support this reading, but your current stance in this thread directly contradicts your earlier writings.

gewy wrote:

I wonder what the response would be to a large, organized group of black protesters peacefully exercising their rights to openly carry. Would the police, the NRA, Fox News pundits, and Tea Party-supporting citizens be OK with it? What mental gymnastics would they use to justify not being OK with it?

Assuming it didn't end up as some kind of tragic massacre, that is... Which, granted, is a pretty poor assumption to make.

IMAGE(http://36.media.tumblr.com/b3a5912a25f242b9ffc3692a902bc407/tumblr_mpwqepgPUa1rz71epo1_1280.jpg)
IMAGE(https://ronethebuzzcincy.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/black_panthers.jpg)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_...

Which led directly to a Republican legislator proposing a bill that prohibited the the carrying of loaded firearms in public because he considered doing so an "act of violence or near violence."

The NRA helped craft and supported that bill, which was signed into law by St. Reagan, the then governor of California.

The above which makes you realize how much the NRA and the Republican Party has drifted off into crazy town over the past 50 years.

OG_slinger wrote:

Which led directly to a Republican legislator proposing a bill that prohibited the the carrying of loaded firearms in public because he considered doing so an "act of violence or near violence."

The NRA helped craft and supported that bill, which was signed into law by St. Reagan, the then governor of California.

The above which makes you realize how much the NRA and the Republican Party has drifted off into crazy town over the past 50 years.

I imagine if black power folks started doing that again, the NRA wouldn't raise their voice when the highly militarized, mostly white police massacred them MOVE style.

Paleocon wrote:
Umm, no I don't. If the government didn't routinely exercise brutal and sometimes deadly aggression in the normal course of their activities, I'd have a lot less of a problem with them. I argue strenuously that giving the government a societal pass on their routine use of deadly aggression - like shooting unarmed people with no consequences - is evil.

And I think if white separatists and Southern "pride" folks didn't have a centuries long history of doing this:

IMAGE(http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120818201744/villains/images/0/04/Lynching.jpg)

we might be a bit more comfortable with angry white folks demonstrating with guns.

That exact event wasn't done by white separatists or Southern "pride" folks - it was done by a county sheriff and a lynch mob in Indiana. And there were no legal consequences for any of the lynchers. Historically, you'll find that the vast majority of lynchings were committed under the auspices of the local governments.

And bluntly, whether or not you are comfortable with angry people, black or white, demonstrating with guns is irrelevant - it's a right that is protected by the law in the United States.

Robear wrote:

Aetius, this is what you recently told us: Government is bad because it's based on "bullying" - the use of coercion by the threat of violence. You in fact argue that when the police or other authorities actually *use* force, they are simply expressing their underlying values. And you argue that they are sociopaths and amoral.

But now, you want to temper that:

No, not really.

Robear wrote:

When you were arguing about government corruption, all government employees were violent sociopaths and the basis of government was the threat of the use of force, as exemplified by the use of force in some situations. Now, when you are arguing for gun rights, you're suddenly not worried by the "amoral, power-hungry sociopaths" with guns, because unless they are actually shooting someone, you claim you are not worried.

You're again putting words in my mouth. I'm worried by all amoral, power-hungry sociopaths. The real question is, why do we give those in the government a pass - even though they routinely exercise their pass in the killing of unarmed black kids and others - and yet are afraid of armed Confederate yahoos who haven't actually done anything except be foolish jerks?

You do see the contradiction here, right? You can't reasonably attack all government, all of it's employees, as indelibly corrupt sociopaths whose violent tendencies are revealed when they shoot people, and then turn around and say you are comfortable with them (and government) as long as they aren't actually shooting anyone. (Heck, you didn't even mention corruption this time around, you just said you'd be a lot more comfortable with government if there was less shooting.)

When did I say I would be comfortable? I didn't. I said I would have less of a problem. And I would. Do you want the government to do more shooting? Is more shooting a good thing? And more to the point, why aren't you are uncomfortable with the government shooting people - which happens a lot more often - than you are with these Confederate yahoos, who haven't actually shot anyone?

I'll repeat what I said - you seem to be really upset by the government having access to weapons, but not by private citizens in the same situation. Your previous statements on government support this reading, but your current stance in this thread directly contradicts your earlier writings.

Not at all. I'm not upset by anyone having access to weapons: self-defense is one of the most basic human rights. I'm upset by people who use those weapons to abuse and kill others instead of for defense, no matter who they are. And I'm upset by a society that seems perfectly okay with giving some people in the society - the government - a carte-blanche pass to abuse and kill others in their name in order to accomplish their social goals.

Aetius wrote:

You're again putting words in my mouth. I'm worried by all amoral, power-hungry sociopaths. The real question is, why do we give those in the government a pass - even though they routinely exercise their pass in the killing of unarmed black kids and others - and yet are afraid of armed Confederate yahoos who haven't actually done anything except be foolish jerks?

Most of us aren't giving the government a pass. In fact, we're more afraid of the cops killing unarmed black kids specifically because they continue to get away with it.

Aetius wrote:

And more to the point, why aren't you are uncomfortable with the government shooting people - which happens a lot more often - than you are with these Confederate yahoos, who haven't actually shot anyone?

In case it's not obvious, I've made it quite clear that I am uncomfortable with that.

And I'm upset by a society that seems perfectly okay with giving some people in the society - the government - a carte-blanche pass to abuse and kill others in their name in order to accomplish their social goals.

And again the goals shift. Now it's about government abusing people to accomplish social goals. Earlier it was government itself, which was incorrigibly corrupt and violent at it's core. Then it was *kind of* okay when it *didn't* shoot people, but not really. Now government is bad because no one today is upset that it's using force for some nefarious social agenda.

No one here is "giving government a pass". That's why we have all these threads! You're arguing against a straw man here.

How about a statement on what government *should* do, and how it can do that without the threat of violence and without everyone in it being sociopathic and utterly corrupted? I'm particularly interested in how you vet people for sociopathy before serving, and how you fight corruption without using law (based on the threat and actuality of violence against citizens). Bonus for how we change our system to remove the threat of force without tearing the country into small, violent pieces.