SoylentNews

The hypocrisy and dishonesty from you is absolutely incredible.

The fact is, I'm not bothered by Trump supporters slowing the bus. And the collision was probably the result of the white SUV trying to stay right behind the bus and two cars trying to fill the same gap behind the bus as it changed lanes. I doubt the collision was an attempt at expressing political views.

In regard to blocking emergency vehicles, both you and the other AC have misrepresented my position, where I explicitly said [soylentnews.org]:

Protesters shouldn't be allowed to block emergency vehicles but should otherwise be free to exercise their freedoms of speech and expression on public property.

You lied when you claimed I didn't care about emergency vehicles being blocked. But we should acknowledge that protests like the Trump Train or the gridlock around Michigan's capitol could also block emergency vehicles, yet conservatives were okay with those protests. Emergency vehicles should always have the right of way. But you're being disingenuous and misrepresenting what I've already said.

Aside from your dishonesty, my objections are that:

People shouldn't need to engage in permits for exercising their first amendment rights. When it comes to marching in the streets, it would be a good idea to notify the authorities to make sure it's done safely, but the permission of the authorities should not be required. In the present day, the government would most certainly refuse to grant a permit for a similar march like the Selma to Montgomery marches. Permits have been used as a tool to silence protests by moving them to a location where they wouldn't be visible or inconvenient.

For that matter, modern protests are usually very tame compared with the methods used by colonists rebelling against British rule. Riots and looting were part of the American Revolution. That is a pretty good description of dumping British East India Company's tea into Boston Harbor. The Slave Insurrection of 1741 involved burning numerous buildings in New York, including the governor's house. The right often justifies the need to own guns as protection from tyranny. However, actually using those guns in such a manner would constitute a violent act of civil disobedience.

Some of the actions taken during civil disobedience are illegal. But that doesn't justify the use of deadly force unless it's to protect someone else from killing or seriously injuring another person. That means you don't get to drive your car into a group of nonviolent protesters blocking the streets, something you claimed you would do earlier in this thread. If a person is accelerating toward a group of protesters with the intent of mowing them down, it should be legal for people to shoot at the car's tires or even at the driver to prevent this from occurring. You don't get to run down protesters just because their civil disobedience is inconvenient for you.

I don't intend to reply to you again because you've shown you won't debate honestly.