In a number of states, you need to take a safety course before you're allowed to purchase a gun.
Compare that with the 1st amendment. If they passed laws saying "You can say whatever you want in public, but only after you've taken this course that informs you on what is acceptable and unacceptable to say in public", would you say there is free speech?
Or "You are free to practice any religion, but only after you've taken a course that ..."?
But let's not say the 1st and 2nd amendments in the same breath. One is real, and the other is much less so.
> The First Amendment to the Constitution, prohibiting Congress from abridging the right to assemble and petition, was not intended to limit the action of the State governments in respect to their own citizens, but to operate upon the National Government alone.
Before the 14th Amendment, your hypothetical was quite possible at a state level.
See citizens and ICE.
Stop making stuff up.
In the US at least automatic weapons are nominally legal at the federal level after hefty tax stamps and background checks but states / local jurisdictions can and do regulate more / outright ban them.
They're still not illegal, as OP said.
You should ask Alex Pretti how he was able to criticize to criticize the government without repercussion.
His death had nothing to do with the Constitution, it was because of a trigger-happy, confused cop who had his back to the guy, then noticed a gun next to him (that another officer previously put there). The US government had no part in that situation at all.
What are cops if they're not the government? Are they private corporations?
Of course cops are the government, but they're also humans that make mistakes and commit crimes themselves. But this isn't actually related to some greater constitutional crisis or anything, unless you have some evidence that suggests they were instructed to act the way they did... but I've never seen anyone come forward with that yet.
You have government officials tyranizing the population and now the argument is "of course it can't prevent that".
What good is it then?
I think the key point is that it allows this "petitioning" of the government in the first place, that's what it's good for. But you still have to go through the court system to right any wrongs, which includes misbehaving police who may be breaking the law themselves.
The Constitution is not a judge, jury or executioner, so in a way it was always "limited" in what it can do if it's not actually respected.
Anyone can write high minded promises. It's the real life application that makes them rights.
"The government" isn't some abstract cloud somewhere. It's a collection of people, and it's their actions that count, not their marketing.
Hard disagree, there is no evidence that the agent acted in that exact way at the instruction of the government, I do not believe that it makes people's rights worth any less.
To me this is like saying rights are somehow fundamentally useless just because murderers exist in the world. Or accidents. Makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.
The constitution is just some rules people wrote up generations ago. It's not a magic spell that has power by itself, it is only effective as a social contract as long as power structures agree to follow it.
If armed government enforcers break it with impunity, what good is it?
> Under French law and Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), authorities may prohibit particular demonstrations when serious public-order risks make restrictions necessary and proportionate. They cannot impose an indiscriminate prohibition on peaceful assemblies simply because previous demonstrations have descended into violence.
It’s not a blank check to run over people holding signs you don’t like as you drive home from work.
Lmao. Jim Tyranny has had what? 3 cracks at him? Hardly protection.