I am surprised by your assumptions of words used, and mischaracterization of words not used when declaring constitutionality of concepts. To wit:
1A explicitly forbids the USFG from abridging (shorten, curtail) the freedom of speech or peaceful assembly.
If a "peaceful assembly" turns peaceless [i.e. the rights of participants and bystanders [including owners of property, real or otherwise], or law enforcement become endangered] the exclusion of abridgment is null and void by the first action of peacelessness by the now peaceless assembly. Same condition as yelling "fire!" in a crowd wherein there is not fire.
but it does seem to be an article that trump, proud boys, boogaloos and other looters hold in common.
(history suggests he almost inevitably will start killing dissenters provided that his self-delusion of righteous competence is permitted to escalate unchecked).
Convenient, but baseless accusation. Evidence, pls.
doesn't the prevailing, (conservative) interpretation of 2A as an citizen based contingency necessary to keep our freedom secure (especially from Federal overreach) confer the right of violent protest as did our Founding Fathers?
No. The 2A confers the right to bear arms [weapons - not just guns, mind you. It does not specify just guns - that's a provocative progressivism, because my thumb can kill, and it is a borne arm that s not going to be banned anytime soon], but not to use them in ]illegal violence.
Certainly, the Declaration of Independence justifies violent and unlawful acts
"when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security"
Trump reveals his despotic design when he admires Putin and Xi and Kim. Trump reveals his tyrranical mindset when he chastizes the governors
"You have to dominate, you’re going to look like a bunch of jerks. You have to do retribution, and you can’t do the deal where they get one week in jail,” he said. “These are terrorists. These are terrorists. And they’re looking to do bad things to our country.”
You and Trump seems to share the unconstitutional view that governments are in the business of vengeance. You said 1A doesn't shield "reprisal from law enforcement." Trump says "you have to do retribution" This is quite wrong. No democratic govt. or govt official (cops included) is ever permitted the authority to revenge.
Have a care to understand the meaning of words you state, and to avoid assuming definitions that are not synonymous. Let's take a few words out of your extended commentary above: reprisal, retribution, dominate, revenge. The first three are not useable in terms of physical force, as you clearly imply [thus "justifying" Trump is a bully.] Justified, legal force, yes, but not physical. My OED says otherwise. Revenge, alone, a word Trump does not use, but you do,
Reprisal [n], An act or instance of retaliation for any (alleged) loss or injury; (International Law) a measure, such as a boycott or embargo, taken by one state against another in retaliation for allegedly illegal or unjustified conduct.
Retribution [n], Punishment for bad conduct, criminal actions, etc., typically considered in terms of redress or repaying a debt to society; the avenging of wrong deeds, etc.; vengeance; an instance of this.
Dominate: [transitive], To bear rule over, control, sway; to have a commanding influence on; to master.
You and Trump seems to share the unconstitutional view that governments are in the business of vengeance. You said 1A doesn't shield "reprisal from law enforcement." Trump says "you have to do retribution" This is quite wrong. No democratic govt. or govt official (cops included) is ever permitted the authority to revenge.
Revenge [n], The action of hurting, harming, or otherwise obtaining satisfaction from someone in return for an injury or wrong suffered at his or her hands; satisfaction obtained by repaying an injury or wrong.
So, what is wrong with reprisal, retribution, and domination within the law? Show me the statute declaring Trump wrong. It is in neither the Constitution nor the Declaration.
Yet, by your own words, you are lumping all four words together as if synonymous. Nope. You're better than that, but you have a blind spot relative to Trump. You're in good company; many have the same myopia. Words mean things, but they don't mean all things, as I have just shown. Same with elections. Get over it. Yes, Trump is belligerent. That's not illegal. Trump is proud. That's not illegal. Trump is in your face. That's not illegal. Trump is telling the world "America First." That's not illegal. The world laughs at Trump. So what? Who said they're right. Yes, Trump has, at times, praise his adversaries. Read Sun Tsu lately? It's not illegal, and it does not demonstrate that he agrees with everything they do. That's ridiculous. It's politics. dirty game, and this example is part of it. I'll admit, I had a blind spot with Oba'a. I think he was as useless as tits on boar. Case in point: my reply to you does not mean we're adversaries, and it does not mean we are not. We have been in debate, and, given the right subject, will be again, but, we're also friends, meaning we can get along in spite of differences of opinion. That's civility. You trounced me on definition in debate. Fair enough. I'm returning the favor; that's all.
