| 73Q Music Videos | Vote On Clips | Submit | Login   |

Reddit Digg Stumble Facebook
Desc:Officer Niceguy bends the law into a pretzel.
Category:Horror, Military
Tags:bullshit, 1st amendment, OWS, occupy fresno
Submitted:Ursa_minor
Date:11/09/11
Views:2106
Rating:
View Ratings
Register to vote for this video

People Who Liked This Video Also Liked:
Lincoln Chafee on Glass Steagall
The Tom Selleck Mustache
Star Trek - Data Rolls
Richard Dawkins on Post Modernism Invading Science
Creepiest un-boxing video I've seen so far
Stoner chick apple commercial
Kindred: The Embraced Intro
Bai Ling covers 'I Touch Myself'
Do you know anything about techno?
Angry Roid Gamer Has A Tantrum
Comment count is 18
Cena_mark - 2011-11-09
The police weren't so bad here, and as the cop said, "If you don't like it take it to court."
The law isn't there to stop protests. Its so that homeless people can't take over the park and say "We're not lodging. This is a peaceful protest."
fatatty - 2011-11-09
So the constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper to you huh?

Cena_mark - 2011-11-09
I've sworn to die for that piece of paper.

Bort - 2011-11-09
Don't make me take Cena_mark's side here ... there isn't a city in America that doesn't have rules and limitations about how common resources such as parks can be shared. The policeman's "lodging" argument sounds like it might be fishy (based on this tiny contextless clip), and Cena is as usual overly eager to side with the police against protesters; but "the constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper to you" is a junk counterargument.

memedumpster - 2011-11-09
The Constitution, in its inability to defend the homeless Cena mentioned, is rendered a goddamned piece of paper. The fact that it can't defend protesters either just makes it a waste of a goddamned piece of paper.

Bort - 2011-11-09
The important part of what I said before is that public resources are SHARED resources, which means that the government has some legitimate grounds to manage how they are shared. I get the feeling that the police may be acting dickish in this case because they can, but the non-absolute nature of rights doesn't render the Constitution null and void.

Even on your own property, there are limits on how you may express yourself.

Cena_mark - 2011-11-09
Memedumbster, The Constitution can't defend the homeless. So sleeping on a park bench is now considered a form of protest? And it does defend protesters. These protesters will just have to jump through some hoops to continue their protest.
Since when has occupying an area 24/7 been a legitimate form of protest? Especially when said protest area is a public use area like a park, wouldn't this 24/7 protest ruin the park for everyone else?
Thank you for being a voice of reason SuperawesomeBort.
memedumpster - 2011-11-10
This is the first time you've made fun of my name! Good turn, by the way, I thought I covered all the bases in choosing this moniker. I believe you misunderstood me, though. I was saying the Constitution can't defend anything because it is, in fact, a piece of paper. It takes people willing to defend it to defend it. Nah, the homeless are just the homeless, the important thing is the paper. By being just a piece of paper and not, say, a giant killer robot, it has no actual power. So the power rests in those who understand it, agree with its message, and act in defense of their own expression of those things. So in order for a Constitutional society to work, the populace, individually, must act Constitutionally. So in closing, fuck those fucking pigs. What's that, Constitution, those pigs have rights? I caaaan't heeeeeaaaar yoooooou....

Cena_mark - 2011-11-10
Of course we need people to protect the Constitution. That's why the USCG is here.
I swear I've called you "cumdumpster" in the past.

Cena_mark - 2011-11-10
You liberals have an issue with these local ordinances stomping on the First Amendment, yet you guys don't have a problem with state and city laws that stomp on the Second Amendment. Goddamn it, if I want to own a pistol in NYC I should be allowed to.
Explain yourselves memedumbster, and Fatty.
DrDoalot - 2011-11-10
You liberals and conservatives with your precious first and second amendments. Both of those are taken far to seriously when they fly in the face of our necessary public ordinances. Where is my protection in basis of the third amendment? I've had my home destroyed and finances ruined by hosting this whole platoon in my two bedroom apartment. Signing off before they see this.

memedumpster - 2011-11-10
I think gun registration is also unconstitutional, and during the Bush administration I was all about a fully armed citizenry living like coiled for violence overlords over the naive evil of the government. You see, during that time, all liberals were Teabaggers, but we never thought to start a movement because protesters were herded into small zones and had the fuck all shit beat out of them. So when the O-bomber came along, all he had to do was act like a one man liberal teabagger party and we all flocked to his service. Now that we're fucked over by him as well, I actually fully endorse the two prong attack of the Teabaggers destroying all credibility of over half the government while the OWS crowd destroys big business. It has nothing to do with the Constitution, I don't even believe it should be consulted until some movement also destroys the credibility of the Supreme Court. By the way, you can have a pistol in NYC.

fatatty - 2011-11-10
Considering that the second amendment was created in a time when the arms they were bearing were single shot muskets and pistols I think limits on it are entirely acceptable. Had the forefathers known that fully automatic machine guns were coming in mass produced millions they probably would have had more specific limitations on what arms and in what capacity they were legal.

And of course the 10th amendment gives states the ability to create rules not mentioned in the constitution so Texas can let everyone wear gun hats and New York can make you jump through hoops of fire to even carry a gun at all.

Cena_mark - 2011-11-10
I can turn the "If only the forefathers knew" argument against the First Amendement. If only the forefathers knew about internet porn and gangsta rap they probably would have placed more specific on the limitations on free speech.
That's why I hate that argument.

fatatty - 2011-11-10
There's plenty of speech that we don't considered protected under the 1st amendment. Calls to violence and verbal assault are not protected speech. Graphic poetry and depictions of sexual acts I think are a much more difficult thing to say the FFs would want to restrict than heavy duty military hardware.

But if you don't like that argument, how about the "where do you draw the line?" argument. If you think we should have unrestricted right to bear arms, do you have a cut off? If not assault weapons then what about RPGs? Missile launchers? TNT? Nuclear Weapons?

Any reasonable person understands that there need to be limits on weaponry that average citizens are allowed to own. Allowing states to increase or decrease their restrictions allows us to more quickly determine what the appropriate limitations are.

I fail to see how allowing states to limit citizens ability to peacefully assemble and protest has similar societal benefits.

OgreMkIV - 2011-11-10
I don't know... Franklin was pretty pervy. He would have been all over internet porn, especially granny porn. Jefferson would definitely have a paid subscription to BigBlackButts.com if he were around.
Cena_mark - 2011-11-10
I'm sure others like Button Gwinnett were far more uptight.

OgreMkIV - 2011-11-10
He's not exactly an influential figure in the early Republic, is he?

Register or login To Post a Comment







Video content copyright the respective clip/station owners please see hosting site for more information.
Privacy Statement