Topless OC Demonstration

imported post

They werent breaking the law. And good for them if they did, thats how to change things. Our own history is rooted in that.

Better to be a criminal, than a sheep.

imported post

stainless1911 wrote:

They werent breaking the law. And good for them if they did, thats how to change things. Our own history is rooted in that.

Better to be a criminal, than a sheep.

Click to expand...

I don't know about that one Stainless...at least if you're a sheep you can always change your mind and possess a firearm if you choose to do so--but I know what ya mean.

imported post

stainless1911 wrote:

They werent breaking the law. And good for them if they did, thats how to change things. Our own history is rooted in that.

Better to be a criminal, than a sheep.

Click to expand...

She was breaking the law did you not hear the cop cite it? Next if we are talking about breaking the law for some change hows that working out for ya?

The founding fathers wrote a declaration to the king (which is in our first Amend.), where upon the king retaliated. Big difference between Human right atrocities, and a Civil infraction.

imported post

CrossPistols wrote:

stainless1911 wrote:

They werent breaking the law. And good for them if they did, thats how to change things. Our own history is rooted in that.

Better to be a criminal, than a sheep.

Click to expand...

She was breaking the law did you not hear the cop cite it? Next if we are talking about breaking the law for some change hows that working out for ya?

The founding fathers wrote a declaration to the king (which is in our first Amend.), where upon the king retaliated. Big difference between Human right atrocities, and a Civil infraction.

Click to expand...

I've heard police 'cite' law that I'm breaking by OC'ing. City Ordinances, for instance.

A cop citing law doesn't convince me that what she did was A) Against the law or B) that the law is constitutional.

imported post

CrossPistols wrote:

She was breaking the law did you not hear the cop cite it? Next if we are talking about breaking the law for some change hows that working out for ya?

Click to expand...

If youre referring to my case, I wasnt breaking the law.

imported post

Phoenixphire wrote:

I think you guys are missing the point.

The sidearm and the toplessness had nothing to do with each other.

Cassidy is a daily open-carrier. She carries all the time.

The toplessness was an inequality protest. The point being that men can go with out a shirt; women should not suffer legal sanctions for doing participating in the exact same activity.




Edit: I can't spell for a donkey's butt.

Click to expand...

Why would you spell for a donkey's butt in the first place?Was it speaking to you? Whew! LOL!

imported post

stainless1911 wrote:

They werent breaking the law. And good for them if they did, thats how to change things. Our own history is rooted in that.

Better to be a criminal, than a sheep.

Click to expand...

I'm going to have to agree with stainless here.

First of all, charges were dropped, so it's hard to argue that she broke any laws (maybe it being a form of speech made it defensible in the eyes of the CA).

Secondly, the notion that it's "conservative" to obey immoral laws, and "liberal claptrap" to advocate civil disobedience of the same, is historically baseless, and something to which I am inclined to take personal affront.

It is an inherently authoritarian, statist, and otherwise anti-freedom mindset. I would suggest that it belongs elsewhere, but this board *is* about lawful OC and not liberty in general.

At any rate, there will ever be disagreement about the issue of "civil disobedience", but your attempts to turn it into a partisan issue are invalid.

imported post

marshaul wrote:

stainless1911 wrote:

They werent breaking the law. And good for them if they did, thats how to change things. Our own history is rooted in that.

Better to be a criminal, than a sheep.

Click to expand...

I'm going to have to agree with stainless here.

First of all, charges were dropped, so it's hard to argue that she broke any laws (maybe it being a form of speech made it defensible in the eyes of the CA).

Secondly, the notion that it's "conservative" to obey immoral laws, and "liberal claptrap" to advocate civil disobedience of the same, is historically baseless, and something to which I am inclined to take personal affront.

It is an inherently authoritarian, statist, and otherwise anti-freedom mindset. I would suggest that it belongs elsewhere, but this board *is* about lawful OC and not liberty in general.

At any rate, there will ever be disagreement about the issue of "civil disobedience", but your attempts to turn it into a partisan issue are invalid.

Click to expand...

On what do you agree? They werent breaking the law? better to be a criminal than a sheep? or that breaking the law is how we here in America we change law?

Don't tell me you think nudism was the intent of the founding fathers when they wrote Freedom of Speech, I think her nudism broke not only that cities law, but violated the 1st Amend. (Peaceably Assemble)

Just because conservative is an ID doesn't mean every opinion is that of conservative thought, it may be that its logic, or common sense. I can't believe you (Marshall) of all people believes a law prohibiting indecent exposure falls under immoral? I reserve that word for slavery, or segregation but not a civil/or misdemeanor violation please!

You brought the word partisan, no one else!

imported post

Nudism isn't peaceable? Exactly whom does it assault? :shock:

I could have some fun with this thread...

imported post

http://www.gotopless.org/

imported post

Yooper wrote:

http://www.gotopless.org/

Click to expand...

thanks for the read very interesting..

imported post

CrossPistols, if you believe the Bill of Rights is black letter law, then you should also be aware that the BOR restrains government actions, not the actions of "the people". As such, it's impossible for an individual to violate the the 1st Amendment.

If there is no injury, physical or economic, there is no crime and therefore no role for the government to interfere in the activities of individuals. The very notion of government is the antithesis of liberty.

So the lady was topless, so what? Sure she may have violated someone's sense of acceptable social convention, but did she injure anyone? No. Those that advocate the use of force (government action=force) where there is no injury have, in fact, become the aggressor.

imported post

CoonDog wrote:

CrossPistols, if you believe the Bill of Rights is black letter law, then you should also be aware that the BOR restrains government actions, not the actions of "the people". As such, it's impossible for an individual to violate the the 1st Amendment.

If there is no injury, physical or economic, there is no crime and therefore no role for the government to interfere in the activities of individuals. The very notion of government is the antithesis of liberty.

So the lady was topless, so what? Sure she may have violated someone's sense of acceptable social convention, but did she injure anyone? No. Those that advocate the use of force (government action=force) where there is no injury have, in fact, become the aggressor.

Click to expand...

Just because something becomes acceptable doesn't necessarily mean it's right. All I am saying is that If the people (Not Govt.) of that city passed a law requiring clothing in public then she violated the law. If she feels that it violates her so called speech rights, then she can petition the People with a redress of grievance, or take it through the court system.
This all comes down to a time and a place for this kinda of social behavior. This all comes down to freedom isn't free, it comes with responsibility, and respect (IN PUBLIC) for other peoples Pursuit of Happiness. I am all for topless women, as well as I am sure women are for topless men they just don't admit it. It's the visualization of topless women by society to be sexual that has caused it to be restricted.
I bet even with the well accepted presence of shirtless men, there are some women who don't want there 12-13 yr. old young daughters to see it till she feels the daughter is ready. As I want a little control as to when & where my 12 yr. old son to see topless women.
Whether or not peaceable assemble means injury or not I am not sure. May I burn the flag in the town center, or should I get a burn permit?. if no one gets hurt whats the harm? Hell why don't we just go totally nude!. After all I'm sure that's what George Washington wanted was a city where we could go nude with long guns, having sex while drinking beer, & smoking dope amongst the children!

Wait! maybe liberalism ain't so bad...NOT! :celebrate

imported post

Custom, decorum, social convention, etc. are the forces that determine and drive people toward acceptable behavior. We don't need laws, i.e. force of arms, for that purpose. How is it more acceptable to point the barrel of a gun at person because one finds their behavior unacceptable (whatever that means to them). In my opinion, this isn't about whether one condones public nudity (fwiw, I do not), but whether it's appropriate to authorize the initiation of force against the nude party. If I, as an individual, cannot justify the use of force against that person, how can I authorize my local government to do so?


(edit: typo)

imported post

I thought the supreme court ruled that women can go topless as long as its in the form of a protest. Maybe that was a State supreme court.