Who got treated better by their governments?

Daily Edge wrote:Nude-in protests over public nudity restrictions

A city supervisor has proposed introducing restrictions on public nudity, including requiring people to cover-up while in restaurants

SEVERAL DOZEN men and at least one woman took part in a naked protest yesterday in an area of the Castro District neighbourhood in San Francisco that has become known for its nude visitors.

Several carried signs that read, “Nudity is Not a Crime” and “Get Your Hate Off My Body,” as they milled around, undeterred by the brisk weather and light mist.

San Francisco generally allows public nudity, but a city supervisor has proposed regulating the practice. Supervisor Scott Wiener’s proposal would require the clothing-averse to cover up in restaurants. It would also require nudists to put a cloth or other barrier under their bottoms if they take a seat in public.

Mitch Hightower, the organiser of the so-called “nude-in,” said it was not intended as a protest against the proposal. The goal, Hightower said, was to promote acceptance of the human body no matter what shape or form it comes in.

“The people out here believe there is nothing indecent or offensive about the human body,” he said.



The event, which had been scheduled before Wiener’s proposal was announced, was part of the unofficial celebrations leading up to the annual Folsom Street Fair, billed as the world’s largest leather and fetish event.

Lurker wrote:"Supervisor Scott Wiener’s proposal would require the clothing-averse to cover up in restaurants."  
Wiener?? LOL

Ben Reilly wrote:Why do people have to bring firearms, swastikas and Confederate flags to protests over the lockdown?

Lurker wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Why do people have to bring firearms, swastikas and Confederate flags to protests over the lockdown?

Because the have tiny penises and a defective brain.

eddie wrote:

Lurker wrote:

Because the have tiny penises and a defective brain.

Or because it’s America? People generally leave their weapons and Nazi propaganda at home, over here.

Ben Reilly wrote:Why do people have to bring firearms, swastikas and Confederate flags to protests over the lockdown?

eddie wrote:

Lurker wrote:

Because the have tiny penises and a defective brain.

Or because it’s America? People generally leave their weapons and Nazi propaganda at home, over here.

Maddog wrote:The question appears problematic.

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:The question appears problematic.

Why don’t you just ask the question with words?

Ben Reilly wrote:I guess the answer Maddog seems to be going for is that the Michigan government treated its people better, because it didn't shoot them?

Of course, we have no idea about the circumstances going on in any of those photos or scenarios, so I'm basically just going with "don't shoot people."

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:I guess the answer Maddog seems to be going for is that the Michigan government treated its people better, because it didn't shoot them?

Of course, we have no idea about the circumstances going on in any of those photos or scenarios, so I'm basically just going with "don't shoot people."

It didn't even touch them.  

Weird.  

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

It didn't even touch them.  

Weird.  

What's weird is the obsession with ideology shared by so many libertarians.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

What's weird is the obsession with ideology shared by so many libertarians.

This isn't really about ideology. I posted a pic of the Bkack Panthers. They aren't libertarians yet 50 years ago they marched on the California State House fully armed and no one touched them.

What anti gunners are too dishonest to admit is that the mere presence of armed individuals changes the dynamics of any protest.  People are treated better by the authorities. That's exactly the idea behind the second amendment and the reason governments try to stamp out that idea. Peaceful, but armed individuals could make things a lot more messy than those armed with signs yelling " hooray for our side".

Remember the Bundy Ranch stand off?

The government backed off there too when they saw all those rifle barrels.  

At least until they could get a car load of them alone.  

Maddog wrote:Rodney King chuckled from his grave.  

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

It didn't even touch them.  

Weird.  

What's weird is the obsession with ideology shared by so many libertarians.

This isn't really about ideology. I posted a pic of the Bkack Panthers. They aren't libertarians yet 50 years ago they marched on the California State House fully armed and no one touched them.  

What anti gunners are too dishonest to admit is that the mere presence of armed individuals changes the dynamics of any protest.  People are treated better by the authorities. That's exactly the idea behind the second amendment and the reason governments try to stamp out that idea. Peaceful, but armed individuals could make things a lot more messy than those armed with signs yelling " hooray for our side".

Remember the Bundy Ranch stand off?

The government backed off there too when they saw all those rifle barrels.  

At least until they could get a car load of them alone.  

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:The question appears problematic.

Why don’t you just ask the question with words?

I did. I have posted 4 pictures now..in two of them the protesters were unharmed. In two, they were beaten or killed. I asked in which were they treated better.  It was very simple.

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I did. I have posted 4 pictures now..in two of them the protesters were unharmed. In two, they were beaten or killed. I asked in which were they treated better.  It was very simple.

Call me old fashioned but I prefer someone simply saying that they think, using words.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

This isn't really about ideology. I posted a pic of the Bkack Panthers. They aren't libertarians yet 50 years ago they marched on the California State House fully armed and no one touched them.  

What anti gunners are too dishonest to admit is that the mere presence of armed individuals changes the dynamics of any protest.  People are treated better by the authorities. That's exactly the idea behind the second amendment and the reason governments try to stamp out that idea. Peaceful, but armed individuals could make things a lot more messy than those armed with signs yelling " hooray for our side".

Remember the Bundy Ranch stand off?

The government backed off there too when they saw all those rifle barrels.  

At least until they could get a car load of them alone.  

Okay, I'm not going to be a Quill and tar everyone with the same brush, but -- I've never encountered a libertarian in real life or online who doesn't have a weird tendency to bring every topic under the sun back to libertarianism. It's like when you meet a born-again Christian and everything's Jesus this, God that.

Secondly (hahaha), here's the text of the Second Amendment:

"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."

It could not be more clear that the amendment was intended to allow the government to muster an army, for "the security of a free State."

The amendment was NOT included for the purpose of allowing people to scare the government or to change the tone of anti-lockdown protests.

Bundy and his little band of weirdos were dealt with eventually, because having guns does not give you the right to dictate what the laws are in America. Might doesn't make right -- right?

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I did. I have posted 4 pictures now..in two of them the protesters were unharmed. In two, they were beaten or killed. I asked in which were they treated better.  It was very simple.

Call me old fashioned but I prefer someone simply saying that they think, using words.

I was asking you.  I already know what I think.  

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I was asking you.  I already know what I think.  

Yes, and I am stating that I prefer to answer when someone uses words to make a point rather than pictures?

Maddog wrote:Article I, Section 8, Clause 12:

[The Congress shall have Power . . .] To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; . . .

The second amendment is talking about the same people in the first amendment, and their right to be armed.  

Any HONEST reading of the men who wrote and signed the document backs this up.

eddie wrote:Can’t answer. I don’t know enough about the subject. When I don’t know something I’d rather say nothing.
So I’ll wait until I either learn more or someone else says something I can comment on.

Enjoy your bike ride!  

eddie wrote:Can’t answer. I don’t know enough about the subject. When I don’t know something I’d rather say nothing.
So I’ll wait until I either learn more or someone else says something I can comment on.

Enjoy your bike ride!  

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:Can’t answer. I don’t know enough about the subject. When I don’t know something I’d rather say nothing.
So I’ll wait until I either learn more or someone else says something I can comment on.

Enjoy your bike ride!  

What's there to know?

Who got assaulted and who didnt?