This is one of the hottest amendments going. People love to debate the second amendment. Let us take a look at the actual amendment and what is and is not covered. I am not a lawyer, so I cannot get involved with the actual legal aspects, but I am an English scholar, so I will debate the linguistic meaning of the amendment.
The amendment is specifically worded: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The first part of the amendment is often left out of debates. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," would seem to say that the right is an organization to protect. "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed," would be a continuance of that statement. So, in order to create the "well-regulated militia," we cannot infringe on the rights to "keep and bear arms."
How many people screaming for their guns are members of a militia? For those who are members of a militia (I am assuming a government sanctioned one such as the Armed Forces), are you screaming to keep your militia issued arms?
This amendment does not mention types of arms either. This is where interpretation comes into play.
Certain things have been found in certain cases in the US court systems. It is legal, and within the confines of the law. For example, it is legal to ban personal weapons at government facilities. How, then, does this prevent anything if we still have mass shootings. I don't know if it does or doesn't, but I do know that needing certain permits does not give you the right to carry anywhere. Another thing that has been decided is that it is legal to say certain groups aren't permitted firearms, that firearms must carry a permit and other nuances. This law doesn't say that you can have as many weapons in whatever style you like. There can be regulations.
I have a few ideas for what some of those regulations could be, and it would not infringe on any already given rights. That's not for this post though. The debate I am covering here is not one of what should be done, only one of what cannot be done. At any point, the government can declare that there is already a well-organized militia and that personal firearms are not permitted, and second amendment rights may not be infringed upon. That is an interpretation challenge.
For this purpose, though, the amendment does not actually cover personal use. It covers a well-regulated militia. We don't need one of those. We have one of the strongest militaries in the world. Does this mean the second amendment is outdated? Can it be argued that this actually covers individuals, not member of the militia? These are questions debated by the legal system. I am not going to debate them for you. Linguistically speaking, this amendment does not cover the average citizen's right to bear arms because he feels like it.
When this was written, however, hunting rifles likely weren't even considered, as they were essential to life. You may have lived in an area where you could get meat at a market, but it was more likely that someone was hunting for the bulk of the meat. Some people lived on farms with cows, chickens, pigs, and other animals typically killed for meat, but it wasn't unusual to be hunting for deer, elk, bison, or other meat. It may have, very well, been assumed that hunting rifles would be a right. These rifles were essential to the maintenance of life. Are they still? Maybe. It certainly could be argued.
This post isn't to debate, however, the intention, nor the interpretation. This post is to make you think about the wording and that it doesn't necessarily cover what you think. The second amendment does not mention the right for individuals to bear arms. The supreme court has interpreted it that way. The thing with interpreting reading is that each reader has a different interpretation. Interpretations are formed based upon many factors that are not related to the document. People's histories, biases, and life experiences shape their reading and interpretation. Ask any Biblical scholar. They certainly know that things are interpreted differently.
I could get involved with explaining communities of readers and literary theory, but that isn't what this is about. It is simply about the fact that people don't understand what is really written in each amendment. We do have the right to bear arms in order to form a well regulated militia. We don't necessarily have the right to own an arsenal. That comes from interpretation by the supreme court.
Wednesday, March 28, 2018
Logical Fallacies- Strawman- If I only had an argument
Many people do not know what logical fallacies are. They are examples of "reaching" as many people call it. People will form an argument and think it is valid, but there is a gaping hole. This will explain what the types of holes are.
The first fallacy we will visit is the Strawman fallacy. This one is currently running rampant on social media. The strawman argument is taking an argument, stripping it to the base form, then twisting it to an extreme. We will visit both sides of the gun control fight with this one.
Scenario 1:
Person A: We need to restrict the sale of firearms, and create stronger background checks.
Person B: Why do you hate America? You just want to take my guns and let the bad guys kill us all.
Scenario 2:
Person B: I don't feel that gun restrictions are the answer.
Person A: Why do you want to make guns available to everyone? No one will be safe. Everyone will just open fire wherever they go.
Now, these are not the actual arguments the individuals are making, but they are the twists that people place upon the arguments.
What person A is likely saying is that we need to try to regulate what is available and to whom. We know that there will be some criminals who get weapons anyway, but we may be able to stop some people or at least delay them. Sometimes delaying the procurement of weapons will buy time to remove the threat.
What person B is likely saying is that he or she feels vulnerable without the means to defend him or herself with a firearm. He doesn't want to willy nilly open fire. Most gun owners do not want to fire their weapons for defense ever. They only want to feel secure.
The scarecrow was made of straw. There was nothing significant to his body. It easily falls apart. Let's avoid using the strawman argument. Try to stop and listen when it feels that the argument is extreme. Unless the other person actually creates an argument that is that extreme, don't assume that is what they mean.
The first fallacy we will visit is the Strawman fallacy. This one is currently running rampant on social media. The strawman argument is taking an argument, stripping it to the base form, then twisting it to an extreme. We will visit both sides of the gun control fight with this one.
Scenario 1:
Person A: We need to restrict the sale of firearms, and create stronger background checks.
Person B: Why do you hate America? You just want to take my guns and let the bad guys kill us all.
Scenario 2:
Person B: I don't feel that gun restrictions are the answer.
Person A: Why do you want to make guns available to everyone? No one will be safe. Everyone will just open fire wherever they go.
Now, these are not the actual arguments the individuals are making, but they are the twists that people place upon the arguments.
What person A is likely saying is that we need to try to regulate what is available and to whom. We know that there will be some criminals who get weapons anyway, but we may be able to stop some people or at least delay them. Sometimes delaying the procurement of weapons will buy time to remove the threat.
What person B is likely saying is that he or she feels vulnerable without the means to defend him or herself with a firearm. He doesn't want to willy nilly open fire. Most gun owners do not want to fire their weapons for defense ever. They only want to feel secure.
The scarecrow was made of straw. There was nothing significant to his body. It easily falls apart. Let's avoid using the strawman argument. Try to stop and listen when it feels that the argument is extreme. Unless the other person actually creates an argument that is that extreme, don't assume that is what they mean.
Tuesday, March 27, 2018
The grass is just as bloody on the other side
***This blog should have been published a long time ago. It was not. I am hitting publish now, even though it may be older news.
There have been many discussions recently about race relations and authority figures. Some of us have experience with one side or another, but most of us are bystanders in a world of unrest. It would appear there are two sides. You're either with us or against us, and by this, I mean whichever group you sympathize with most fully. It seems neither side wants you to understand the other. There is the issue. No one desires to believe they are similar to the other side.
I want you to think for a minute about the minority side-- the faction that believes they are wearing a target for the color of their skin. I want you to think about what the world has taught them and their ancestors. Beginning in 1619 Africans were brought to this country for animalistic reasons. We (America) didn't want people. We wanted an animal to work the fields, do our dirty work, and not talk back when told to. We didn't want humans we wanted a silent workforce too stupid to expect anything better. These savages didn't live the way we did so they must be subhuman (whatever that means). So we took these savages by any means necessary-- trickery, lies, or just plain kidnapping.
Many of you may be saying, "But that ended in 1863, so these guys need to get over it." Well, the end of slavery and the end of the civil war ushered in the Jim Crow era. It may have been illegal to own another person, but it was also illegal for those who had been owned to do much of anything. A Black man could be accused of sexual assault for looking at a White woman, but a White man could pretty much rape a Black woman in the center of town, and that was okay. If you think that has changed, I would like to offer two names. Darryl Hunt and Brock Turner.
These savages were criminals. No way could they be trusted to behave humanly. Eventually, we ushered in the rights movements such as the Civil Rights movement in the 60s and the Women's movements either through suffrage or women's liberation. Rosa Parks refused to give up a bus seat. I wonder what would happen today should a "Rosa Parks" refuse an order of an officer. Would she be shot? It would seem so.
Any time these families have relied on authority, they have been let down. The slaves were treated (and counted in government) as less than human. The officers then arrested them for whatever could be imagined in a racist society. Next came Civil Rights movements, where peaceful protestors such as Rosa Parks and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. were arrested, again by officers sworn to uphold the law. Now, we have a Black president. Shouldn't that stop these race issues? No, I think that is part of what has exacerbated them. I am proud that, in my lifetime, we have had an African American President as well as will very likely see a female one (even if it isn't Hillary, I don't think it will be long). However, many generations have been taught fear of the unknown and resistance to change. The president has always had a certain look-- skin tone. People aren't sure how to deal with change. It's an us or them society these days. Bigots will always happen. This president has helped us to find the closet racists. What about the other side???
Let's think about what White America has been taught over the centuries. Well, for many years, people were taught that these were Savages. They were considered to be subhuman. Those who were near human were simple minded and dense. During the Jim Crow era, Blacks wanted to take over, steal the land and women from hard working Whites. In the 60s it was okay to be free but why intermingle? Heaven forbid they want a White man's education. They were simple stupid folk destined to be drivers, cooks, and manual laborers. The occasional well-educated Black man was met with resistance because his White counterpart was taught to fear him.
In the Antebellum South, authority figures only dealt with the slaves or any Black person if they were not falling in line with their masters or bosses (for the free). Then during Jim Crow, they were repeatedly taught to seek out the subhuman scum before he or she could infect the "right" way of life. Only resistance. During the Civil Rights movement, "they" were coming to take all that was good and holy. They no longer knew their place, and the unknown was fearful.
Authority figures had never dealt with the law abiding citizen. What he had known was fear of the unknown.
50 years separates us from the Civil Rights Movement to now. Why hasn't anything changed? Why is it getting worse? In the Civil Rights Era, things were to be equal finally. No one had more right than anyone else. While this may be true on paper, there were still quite a few people who were unhappy with the way "things" were taken from them, so they found ways only to promote certain people. It seems a little more acceptable these days to do this with gender relations. It's a boys club. The men make the rules, and the little women follow them. For example, a woman as a Firefighter. She is taken less seriously than her male counterparts and told to let the big boys handle it. This is because we are taught from a very early age that women are the fairer sex. Women cannot perform unrefined jobs. The same happens with race.
From an early age, groups are taught their lot in life. This group with this shade of skin belongs here. And this group belongs here. And God forbid the tween shall meet. I never cared about skin color or gender or any other arbitrary condition, but my surroundings did. I remember when I was in high school I was close with a Black male. Because we hung out and talked, a rumor was started that we were dating. For some people, that believed the story that was just scandalous. How could the White girl at stereotypical southern white high school date a Black guy??? Well, we weren't dating. I actually never have dated a Black guy. I am not at all opposed; I just never did. Why would it matter? Well, I was taught, through my surroundings that "they" were dangerous. "They" would hurt me. Lucky for me, I am stubborn and don't believe you until I experience it for myself. I can tell you this from my personal experience. No one race has hurt me more than another. It's not race. It's an individual. Somewhere, someone decided that White girls shouldn't date Black dudes. Um, whatever.
Well, cops were taught these same things and more. Now they go into these Black neighborhoods full of people who have never been helped by the Cop and have often been hurt, and there is palpable tension. If you hit a man often enough eventually he will fight back. For almost 400 years Blacks have been abused by White society in America. They are angry. Cops are taught these people need to be kept in their places. They aren't to rise up against you. If they try, it is very dangerous, and you must fight back.
For many generations, cops have been doing the hitting because they have been taught to fear the savages through societal messages. Everyone is afraid. Everyone is tired. It is coming to a head.
Think about it this way. Think of non-Whites as a battered woman or child. I use woman or child because men who are battered are rarely taken seriously. But I digress. Anyway, that woman or child has always known an abuser, a man. The woman was abused as a child by her father, grew up and was abused by every man she met. She never knew a gentle hand. The kid was abused, sent to foster care, abused some more, etc. Abuse is all either of them have known. Imagine the police are the men in this scenario. No one would dare say that all men are abusers, but some are. The battered people are non-Whites. The only experiences the damaged people have with men is abuse. How trusting do you think these oppressed people are going to be with men?
The only interaction many Blacks have with officers is adverse. They only want to hurt or kill them. How easy do you think it will be to trust a good cop? How easy will it be for the battered woman or child to trust a man? What about a good guy? Now, imagine that the cop only hears from other cops how these broken people are. They are stupid; they lie; they are plotting to kill you; they are devious. Now imagine the abused women and children ban together. How long before they begin to fight back? They fear for their lives. These men are the source of their strife and struggle. How long before the rage builds to the point that they can only see the abusive males? How long before they accuse every man of being bad? How long before every man is fed up? How long before every man is afraid for his life due to the rage?
These aren't just men, nor are they damaged-women. These are Blacks tired of being targets. These are cops tired of being scapegoats and accused. These are living breathing people without a way out. The most dangerous kind. Nothing left to lose. Neither side is all right. Neither side is all wrong. And neither party wants to work it out with the other because they are scared. Who can blame them? Each side has been fed lies and deceit about the other. This has sparked misguided and life-altering actions. Do I condone the riots? No. Do I get it? Yes. Do I condone the trigger finger??? NO!!! But I get the fear that causes it. We won't get far this way, but I get it. I get why both sides are angry.
I cannot fix these issues. I can pray. I can hope. I can ask leaders of both sides to learn to open dialogue. This is my invitation to do that. Stop. Listen. Learn. Retrain yourself to trust the other side. Just a little. Learn that not all cops are bad. Not all Blacks are either. Foster change. Be that change. Tell me what I can do to be the change.
Am I okay with what is going on in Charlotte? Absolutely not. Am I okay with unarmed men being targeted and shot? Absolutely not! I will say that I am enraged by the thought of it. Am I saying this incident or that was an unarmed man being shot? No, but some of them are. Period. People have become so engrossed in their fear and have grown so trigger-happy when it comes to defense, they forget another human is on the other end of the bullet. Please stop, pray, talk, and love.
There have been many discussions recently about race relations and authority figures. Some of us have experience with one side or another, but most of us are bystanders in a world of unrest. It would appear there are two sides. You're either with us or against us, and by this, I mean whichever group you sympathize with most fully. It seems neither side wants you to understand the other. There is the issue. No one desires to believe they are similar to the other side.
I want you to think for a minute about the minority side-- the faction that believes they are wearing a target for the color of their skin. I want you to think about what the world has taught them and their ancestors. Beginning in 1619 Africans were brought to this country for animalistic reasons. We (America) didn't want people. We wanted an animal to work the fields, do our dirty work, and not talk back when told to. We didn't want humans we wanted a silent workforce too stupid to expect anything better. These savages didn't live the way we did so they must be subhuman (whatever that means). So we took these savages by any means necessary-- trickery, lies, or just plain kidnapping.
Many of you may be saying, "But that ended in 1863, so these guys need to get over it." Well, the end of slavery and the end of the civil war ushered in the Jim Crow era. It may have been illegal to own another person, but it was also illegal for those who had been owned to do much of anything. A Black man could be accused of sexual assault for looking at a White woman, but a White man could pretty much rape a Black woman in the center of town, and that was okay. If you think that has changed, I would like to offer two names. Darryl Hunt and Brock Turner.
These savages were criminals. No way could they be trusted to behave humanly. Eventually, we ushered in the rights movements such as the Civil Rights movement in the 60s and the Women's movements either through suffrage or women's liberation. Rosa Parks refused to give up a bus seat. I wonder what would happen today should a "Rosa Parks" refuse an order of an officer. Would she be shot? It would seem so.
Any time these families have relied on authority, they have been let down. The slaves were treated (and counted in government) as less than human. The officers then arrested them for whatever could be imagined in a racist society. Next came Civil Rights movements, where peaceful protestors such as Rosa Parks and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. were arrested, again by officers sworn to uphold the law. Now, we have a Black president. Shouldn't that stop these race issues? No, I think that is part of what has exacerbated them. I am proud that, in my lifetime, we have had an African American President as well as will very likely see a female one (even if it isn't Hillary, I don't think it will be long). However, many generations have been taught fear of the unknown and resistance to change. The president has always had a certain look-- skin tone. People aren't sure how to deal with change. It's an us or them society these days. Bigots will always happen. This president has helped us to find the closet racists. What about the other side???
Let's think about what White America has been taught over the centuries. Well, for many years, people were taught that these were Savages. They were considered to be subhuman. Those who were near human were simple minded and dense. During the Jim Crow era, Blacks wanted to take over, steal the land and women from hard working Whites. In the 60s it was okay to be free but why intermingle? Heaven forbid they want a White man's education. They were simple stupid folk destined to be drivers, cooks, and manual laborers. The occasional well-educated Black man was met with resistance because his White counterpart was taught to fear him.
In the Antebellum South, authority figures only dealt with the slaves or any Black person if they were not falling in line with their masters or bosses (for the free). Then during Jim Crow, they were repeatedly taught to seek out the subhuman scum before he or she could infect the "right" way of life. Only resistance. During the Civil Rights movement, "they" were coming to take all that was good and holy. They no longer knew their place, and the unknown was fearful.
Authority figures had never dealt with the law abiding citizen. What he had known was fear of the unknown.
50 years separates us from the Civil Rights Movement to now. Why hasn't anything changed? Why is it getting worse? In the Civil Rights Era, things were to be equal finally. No one had more right than anyone else. While this may be true on paper, there were still quite a few people who were unhappy with the way "things" were taken from them, so they found ways only to promote certain people. It seems a little more acceptable these days to do this with gender relations. It's a boys club. The men make the rules, and the little women follow them. For example, a woman as a Firefighter. She is taken less seriously than her male counterparts and told to let the big boys handle it. This is because we are taught from a very early age that women are the fairer sex. Women cannot perform unrefined jobs. The same happens with race.
From an early age, groups are taught their lot in life. This group with this shade of skin belongs here. And this group belongs here. And God forbid the tween shall meet. I never cared about skin color or gender or any other arbitrary condition, but my surroundings did. I remember when I was in high school I was close with a Black male. Because we hung out and talked, a rumor was started that we were dating. For some people, that believed the story that was just scandalous. How could the White girl at stereotypical southern white high school date a Black guy??? Well, we weren't dating. I actually never have dated a Black guy. I am not at all opposed; I just never did. Why would it matter? Well, I was taught, through my surroundings that "they" were dangerous. "They" would hurt me. Lucky for me, I am stubborn and don't believe you until I experience it for myself. I can tell you this from my personal experience. No one race has hurt me more than another. It's not race. It's an individual. Somewhere, someone decided that White girls shouldn't date Black dudes. Um, whatever.
Well, cops were taught these same things and more. Now they go into these Black neighborhoods full of people who have never been helped by the Cop and have often been hurt, and there is palpable tension. If you hit a man often enough eventually he will fight back. For almost 400 years Blacks have been abused by White society in America. They are angry. Cops are taught these people need to be kept in their places. They aren't to rise up against you. If they try, it is very dangerous, and you must fight back.
For many generations, cops have been doing the hitting because they have been taught to fear the savages through societal messages. Everyone is afraid. Everyone is tired. It is coming to a head.
Think about it this way. Think of non-Whites as a battered woman or child. I use woman or child because men who are battered are rarely taken seriously. But I digress. Anyway, that woman or child has always known an abuser, a man. The woman was abused as a child by her father, grew up and was abused by every man she met. She never knew a gentle hand. The kid was abused, sent to foster care, abused some more, etc. Abuse is all either of them have known. Imagine the police are the men in this scenario. No one would dare say that all men are abusers, but some are. The battered people are non-Whites. The only experiences the damaged people have with men is abuse. How trusting do you think these oppressed people are going to be with men?
The only interaction many Blacks have with officers is adverse. They only want to hurt or kill them. How easy do you think it will be to trust a good cop? How easy will it be for the battered woman or child to trust a man? What about a good guy? Now, imagine that the cop only hears from other cops how these broken people are. They are stupid; they lie; they are plotting to kill you; they are devious. Now imagine the abused women and children ban together. How long before they begin to fight back? They fear for their lives. These men are the source of their strife and struggle. How long before the rage builds to the point that they can only see the abusive males? How long before they accuse every man of being bad? How long before every man is fed up? How long before every man is afraid for his life due to the rage?
These aren't just men, nor are they damaged-women. These are Blacks tired of being targets. These are cops tired of being scapegoats and accused. These are living breathing people without a way out. The most dangerous kind. Nothing left to lose. Neither side is all right. Neither side is all wrong. And neither party wants to work it out with the other because they are scared. Who can blame them? Each side has been fed lies and deceit about the other. This has sparked misguided and life-altering actions. Do I condone the riots? No. Do I get it? Yes. Do I condone the trigger finger??? NO!!! But I get the fear that causes it. We won't get far this way, but I get it. I get why both sides are angry.
I cannot fix these issues. I can pray. I can hope. I can ask leaders of both sides to learn to open dialogue. This is my invitation to do that. Stop. Listen. Learn. Retrain yourself to trust the other side. Just a little. Learn that not all cops are bad. Not all Blacks are either. Foster change. Be that change. Tell me what I can do to be the change.
Am I okay with what is going on in Charlotte? Absolutely not. Am I okay with unarmed men being targeted and shot? Absolutely not! I will say that I am enraged by the thought of it. Am I saying this incident or that was an unarmed man being shot? No, but some of them are. Period. People have become so engrossed in their fear and have grown so trigger-happy when it comes to defense, they forget another human is on the other end of the bullet. Please stop, pray, talk, and love.
The Bill of Rights- The First Amendment
Hello everyone out there. We seem to be at a difficult point in the US. Many people are talking about rights being taken away and people being treated unfairly. Some of the things that you all are angry about are not actually things to be angry about. I mean, y'all are individuals and can be mad about anything that you want, but you are mad about something that is beyond your control and none of your business.
I am going to spend the next few weeks visiting two things, 1. The Bill of Rights and 2. Logical Fallacies. I will have individual posts for each of the amendments in the bill of rights and yet more individual posts for logical fallacies. None of these posts are meant to make you or anyone feel stupid, rather they are to educate you on what these amendments actually say. I will first interpret the meanings of the words as they are, not the judicial interpretation. I may speak a little about the judicial interpretation, but this is mostly to point out what these amendments mean.
The first amendment states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Things to be taken from this amendment.
That is the thing about any of this—it doesn't matter what you think. You can disagree with someone's response. You can think they are an idiot, a sinner, an entitled little shit, or anything else, but you can't stop them from invoking those rights. Football players taking a knee may enrage military veterans, but it is well within their rights. It is not in the right of owners to fire them for doing so. It is an exercise of free speech. Now, sponsors can pull sponsorship for them doing that, but they cannot lose their jobs. Sponsorship is a contract and contracts can be renegotiated at anytime. Football players are sort of in a special category because they are also on contracts; they cannot be fired for invoking their rights, but they don't have to be offered another contract. They can be offered a lower contract rate, or other recourse may be taken, but they cannot be released for being Americans and invoking their right to kneel. We can stop watching if this makes us angry. We cannot stop them from doing it. I am not defending taking a knee in this post, but I am saying that it is well within their rights.
I am going to spend the next few weeks visiting two things, 1. The Bill of Rights and 2. Logical Fallacies. I will have individual posts for each of the amendments in the bill of rights and yet more individual posts for logical fallacies. None of these posts are meant to make you or anyone feel stupid, rather they are to educate you on what these amendments actually say. I will first interpret the meanings of the words as they are, not the judicial interpretation. I may speak a little about the judicial interpretation, but this is mostly to point out what these amendments mean.
The first amendment states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Things to be taken from this amendment.
- Religion- we cannot base laws upon religion, religious belief, or religious interpretation.
- Establishing a law based on the Christian religion with God or religion as the basis establishes Christianity as the national religion.
- The interpretation of the US as a Christian nation is inaccurate.
- The US is a nation of primarily Christians, but it is not a Christian nation. It cannot be, based on the first amendment to the constitution
- Banning homosexual anything (marriage, adoption, etc.) on the basis that it is a sin establishes the US as a "Christian" nation and therefore cannot be done. It is unconstitutional on the basis that homosexuality is a sin in some denominations.
- The free exercise thereof means that I cannot be required to participate in the traditions, nor can I be required to stop any traditions that are not a direct violation of someone else’s rights (within reason). As a religious institution, I cannot be required to allow two people to be married if it goes against my religious doctrine, but only within the confines of my church or facility. If I am a pastor, I am not required to marry them. I cannot, however, discriminate on the basis of my religion if I own a non-religious based business. It’s not an easy interpretation.
- Freedom of speech or of the press
- Speech includes not speaking either. I am not required to say or pledge if I choose not to. I can say anything I like. I can choose to sit out rather than speak, if I choose.
- The press is also free to print anything they like within reason. I can write a story about how stupid I believe someone to be. I just cannot do anything to interfere with their pursuit of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. If I print that they are a sexual predator, I need to have proof.
- Peaceable assembly means that I cannot stop you from congregating.
- Nazis can congregate. I can’t stop them. Quakers can congregate; I can join them but not prevent them. I cannot dictate who can assemble. That said, when you are assembled, you cannot be violent, destructive, or harm others. Nazis can rally in downtown Greensboro. Hippies can protest next to them. Neither group can harm the other.
- Finally, petition the government for a redress of grievances.
- This means that you can write to, protest to, or request the government revisit a law or change one. It also means that if we have an issue with the way the government is handling things we can ask for a reinterpretation.
That is the thing about any of this—it doesn't matter what you think. You can disagree with someone's response. You can think they are an idiot, a sinner, an entitled little shit, or anything else, but you can't stop them from invoking those rights. Football players taking a knee may enrage military veterans, but it is well within their rights. It is not in the right of owners to fire them for doing so. It is an exercise of free speech. Now, sponsors can pull sponsorship for them doing that, but they cannot lose their jobs. Sponsorship is a contract and contracts can be renegotiated at anytime. Football players are sort of in a special category because they are also on contracts; they cannot be fired for invoking their rights, but they don't have to be offered another contract. They can be offered a lower contract rate, or other recourse may be taken, but they cannot be released for being Americans and invoking their right to kneel. We can stop watching if this makes us angry. We cannot stop them from doing it. I am not defending taking a knee in this post, but I am saying that it is well within their rights.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)