Urgent! Contact the Governor!

[Archiver]

Originally Posted by dmg1969

I have to chime in on this one because I was one of those who contact the governor's office.

First and foremost, I whole-heartedly agree with their right to say whatever they want. As others have said, if they want to march down Main Street, USA and spout their religious rhetoric, that is their right as U.S. citizens.

In my opinion, this could be considered either disturbing the peace or disorderly conduct. Why? Because it is a voluntary act MEANT to cause a disruption of the event.

Just my take on the topic.

Dave G.

Sorry Dave...but those two points I find contradictory....you cant have it both ways.
ANY protest is meant to cause a "disruption" could be considered "disturbing the peace" or "disorderly conduct"...thats where the DANGER lies! I agree that its NOT the time or place to harrass the family and I find those protesters SCUM in my book...... But if you prevented their right to protest I'd be the among the first with a flag standing betweeen the Cops and the protesters preventing them from rounding them up!

[Siobhra]

So if I say things or use bad language the owner of this board can't put me off? He would be violating my free speech rights if he did.

I own several swords and I have the right to swing those swords.

I own several guns and I have the right to shoot them.

So you are saying that if I go to the playground where your kids are playing you will defend my right to swing the sword or shoot off my guns? I feel that your right to swing your fist stops when you get too close to my face.

The same is true for free speech. Your right to speak stops when you get in my face or ears. The Constitution says's you have a right to speak. It does not say you have a right to be heard and we have to listen.

We have always known that their are limits to most rights. The right to own a gun does not give you the right to just recklessly firing off random shots into the air. You do not have the right to yell 'fire' in a crowded building.

The right to free speech is to insure the free flow of ideas in the community. Not to harass people you don't like. Stand on a street corner and tell people you don't think we should do something you don't like is OK. It is not OK to block the sidewalk and shout in someones ears.

[LorDiego01]

Originally Posted by Siobhra

The same is true for free speech. Your right to speak stops when you get in my face or ears. The Constitution says's you have a right to speak. It does not say you have a right to be heard and we have to listen.

What a beautiful, beautiful post Siobhra. I think this sums it up. Debate over.

[ChamberedRound]

Originally Posted by Archiver

Because I know Dave, myself and friends at another forum have been the victim of people who refuse to grasp the WHOLE concept of the Constitution first hand.

Each and EVERY Amendment protects the ENTIRE document and is You simply CANT limit any of the Bill of Rights to suit your own views or political agenda...its EXTREMELY DANGEROUS! SHAME on anyone turning to empowering and idiot like Rendell to "solve" the problem....he's the biggest threat to our 2nd Amendment Rights in DECADES and yet people on here look to HIM for "help"??!? SHAME!!!

When I saw the news saying the protesters were coming the FIRST thing I personally said to myself is "what can I do?" Did I call the legislature, governor..? Nope I got off my fat arse on the couch at Midnight before the funeral and did some research about where to go so I could counter protest. I had heard about the Patriot Guard before and went to their website and after seeing all the good folk who had commited to being there breathed a sigh of relief. The entire family is now committe dto joining them at a future event. I'll also enlist the gun club and neighbors!
Personally I HATE those religious "people" and was extremely grateful to the Patriot Guard Riders for protecting the family.....if you go to their site they make quite a sacrifice of their time...riding all night...at times in cold and during scorching heat. Their solution is one of NON violence and not shamefully looking to "Big Brother" to get in their life.

What SHOULD have alarmed EVERYONE who values the Constitution was the agressive tone of Law Enforcement on the news where they vowed to stop the protests because the land was "private all around the funeral home." Wasnt anyone concerned that these LEOs were out to harrass the protesters on the PUBLIC Highway/right of way? You SHOULD have been VERY alarmed! I fully understand the Leo's gut reaction as personally my gut reaction is to take a couple of these religious wackos aside myself and exercise my "digits"...but not by calling the governor. However, I can contain that impulse because I value the Constitution MORE! Such should have been the case of Law Enforcement...they need to see the bigger picture.
You can quote laws about disrupting flow of traffic, endangering the public by protesters being on side of highway, etc but their RIGHT to protest should NOT be infringed no matter how ridiculous and insulting their point is! Thats what Sgt Hartman and our soldiers are fighting FOR!!! May she rest in Peace.

Archiver,

I can respect where you're going here, but I still must disagree. A few points of issue:

First, no one is claiming that these idiots don't have a right to protest. They do. We all do. That fact is not lost on anyone here; no one is disputing it. However, that right extends to public places, not private. As danp has pointed out in other threads in the forum, the rights of private property owners is paramount to our way of life. The organizers have a right to protest, but NOT on private property. If they tried, they could be arrested for trespassing, and their arrest would have NOTHING to do with any violation of their 1st Amendment rights. It would be well within the law. Are you so in support of the 1st Amendment that you feel it supercedes private property rights? If so, then you need to be OK with someone squatting on your property indefintely in the name of a protest, claiming the 1st Amendment gives them the right.

Second, what is being debated here is what's MORAL and PROPER. It is angering to me when innocent people lose loved ones in such a pointless way. It is even more angering when an activist group wants to use the tragedy to further their own aims, especially when those they would be protesting are not the object or embodiment of the issue they wish to protest. If this group thinks Gov. Rendell is responsible for these killings (I got this from earlier posts), then they should protest in Harrisburg, NOT at the funerals of these poor Amish children. And, if you showed up at the funeral to protest the protestors, you would be just as much in the wrong as they would be, not only on morality, but also on the issue of private property stated above.

Third, I'm not a Rendell fan. However, I do give him credit for a few of his comments in a recent press conference on the shooting. One of the reporters asked him if he felt this was cause for more discussion on gun control. His response was (paraphrased) that although he feels we need more gun control, now is NOT the time to discuss it. He further went on to mention that gun control wouldn't have stopped this man from commiting his crime. As much I don't like Rendell, his handling of this situation has been OK.

[ChamberedRound]

Originally Posted by Siobhra

So if I say things or use bad language the owner of this board can't put me off? He would be violating my free speech rights if he did.

I own several swords and I have the right to swing those swords.

I own several guns and I have the right to shoot them.

So you are saying that if I go to the playground where your kids are playing you will defend my right to swing the sword or shoot off my guns? I feel that your right to swing your fist stops when you get too close to my face.

The same is true for free speech. Your right to speak stops when you get in my face or ears. The Constitution says's you have a right to speak. It does not say you have a right to be heard and we have to listen.

We have always known that their are limits to most rights. The right to own a gun does not give you the right to just recklessly firing off random shots into the air. You do not have the right to yell 'fire' in a crowded building.

The right to free speech is to insure the free flow of ideas in the community. Not to harass people you don't like. Stand on a street corner and tell people you don't think we should do something you don't like is OK. It is not OK to block the sidewalk and shout in someones ears.

Again, Siobhra, well put.

[Buckmark.35]

Originally Posted by Archiver

Each and EVERY Amendment protects the ENTIRE document and is You simply CANT limit any of the Bill of Rights to suit your own views or political agenda...its EXTREMELY DANGEROUS! SHAME on anyone turning to empowering and idiot like Rendell to "solve" the problem....he's the biggest threat to our 2nd Amendment Rights in DECADES and yet people on here look to HIM for "help"??!? SHAME!!!

Agreed. The Bill of Rights is not there to be distorted for any particular view point. Amendment I gives the freedom of speech to everyone... even Bible-Thumping-Fundamentalist-Idiots.

The only real way to stop them from protesting... is to incite violence. Once a protest turns violent it is no longer protected by Amendment I, and like has been posted here... that would probably have happened if a demonstration took place.

Is it ignorant? Yes. Is it morally offensive? Absolutely. But demonstrations as such cannot be pre-emptively prevented.

If you want to make a statement.. Go to their church and protest each and every funeral that they perform... Protest every church service.. Protest every church picnic that they put on. They won't be able to do anything about it.

[doug]

The reason these pinheads picket funerals is so local governments and police will get outraged and maybe infringe on thier civil rights. They then sue for massive amounts of money as damages (and in their case against the state of MO, they won $250,000). So this is really just a big cash scam, and I'm quite sure they don't really believe all the crazy things they say. They're just trying to provoke any response which they can litigate, and then settle for a lump sum.

With that said, I'd like to see someone drive their truck through the crowd of protesters.. ok, not really, but it's nice to think about.

-douglas

[ChamberedRound]

Originally Posted by Buckmark.35

Agreed. The Bill of Rights is not there to be distorted for any particular view point. Amendment I gives the freedom of speech to everyone... even Bible-Thumping-Fundamentalist-Idiots.

I can't speak for all the other members who've posted to this thread, but given that I don't think anyone here is arguing this point. Plese see my previous post.

Also, the 1st Amendment, and the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution as a whole, do not give anyone any rights. It's intent is to outline rights that are already ours, rights which cannot be taken away by anyone or any government. To suggest that the Bill of Rights vis-a-vis the government "gives" us rights implies that the government can take away those rights, which is not in any way, shape, or form in keeping with the intent of the Framers of the Constitution.

Originally Posted by Buckmark.35

The only real way to stop them from protesting... is to incite violence. Once a protest turns violent it is no longer protected by Amendment I, and like has been posted here... that would probably have happened if a demonstration took place.

Is it ignorant? Yes. Is it morally offensive? Absolutely. But demonstrations as such cannot be pre-emptively prevented.

I am amazed that any rational person would suggest inciting violence as a logical course of action, at least in these circumstances. There is a time to fight, but a funeral? To incite violence against a group of people protesting a funeral, IMHO, serves no purpose other than to further disrespect the dead.

[Buckmark.35]

Originally Posted by ChamberedRound

I can't speak for all the other members who've posted to this thread, but given that I don't think anyone here is arguing this point. Plese see my previous post.

Also, the 1st Amendment, and the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution as a whole, do not give anyone any rights. It's intent is to outline rights that are already ours, rights which cannot be taken away by anyone or any government. To suggest that the Bill of Rights vis-a-vis the government "gives" us rights implies that the government can take away those rights, which is not in any way, shape, or form in keeping with the intent of the Framers of the Constitution.

Ok.. wasn't really arguing with anyone here.. and there's no reason to get picky about semantics.. you got the point.

I am amazed that any rational person would suggest inciting violence as a logical course of action, at least in these circumstances. There is a time to fight, but a funeral? To incite violence against a group of people protesting a funeral, IMHO, serves no purpose other than to further disrespect the dead.

I guess I didn't really clearly make my point. I wasn't saying.. Go and fight these people.. I was saying the only way that the government could have legally stopped the protest is if it turned violent. Not endorsing it as a tool to stop this protest that didn't even happen... Just an observation.

[doug]

Actually, there is a new law on the PA books, PA Senate Bill 1150, which makes it a 2nd degree misdemeanor to protest within 500 feet of a funeral (military or civilian) for one hour after, and one hour before services. It also provides the legal framework to bring civil lawsuits against any funeral prostestors for emotional distress and punative damages. The next time these clowns picket a funeral in PA in violation of this Law, we can all attend, and later sue them in civil court and hit them where it hurts, their bank accounts.

passed this summer by the Republican State House and Senate, and signed into law by Fast Eddie. (who is on record for officially calling this group of haters "Idiots")

-douglas