[e5india]

You have a really low bar for freedom if the destruction of property is all it takes for you to start justifying unmarked federal agents grabbing people off the street. Further the leadership in these states already have sufficient resources available to handle these protests if they decide it's gotten out of hand. People not from these neighborhoods are proclaiming these protests out of hand summarily.

The people protesting have been exceeding clear about what they are arguing for precisely. Holding police accountable is not some fringe political opinion and in fact the right, according to its own professed beliefs, should be natural allies in this movement. The further this continues the more evidence we have that these concerns about police in the United States acting with impunity are legitimate.

What is clear however, is that a significant portion of the people who have claimed themselves champions of freedom and states' rights always held the caveat that it be in the service of a particular group of people. It is interesting how people who in every other circumstance hold individual liberty as central to their beliefs now place law and order at the center of their arguments at the expense of individual liberty. Where in the Constitution are our rights subject to conditions on behavior? Fucking nowhere. The second amendment itself grants the people the right to violence against a tyrannical government so why then would "not destroying statues" in any way be considered some kind of pre-requisite for legitimite protest?

[dragonwriter]

> The second amendment itself grants the people the right to violence against a tyrannical government

No, it grants them the right to keep and bear arms, it does not grant them the right to use them against the federal or state government, and in fact the Constitution specifically empowers the federal government to act against any who would do so.

Now, the Declaration of Independence appeals to a separate and independent of any human law right to rebel uncertain conditions, but the Second Amendment does not.

[rmah]

The first action of federal troops after the Revolutionary War ended was to suppress a regional rebellion of people who refused to pay their taxes. c.f. "The Whiskey Rebellion.". The US Constitution does not grant right to take up arms against the government, city state or federal. It may be the moral thing to do at some point, but the US Constitution doesn't make it legal.

[dylan604]

The Constitution was written by people that were willing to do exactly what you discuss.

[dragonwriter]

> The Constitution was written by people that were willing to do exactly what you discuss.

It is at least as true to say that the Constitution was written by people who didn't view that as something that was or should be a legal right, and who were willing to violently repress others who tried to do it, both before and after their own Revolution.

[perl4ever]

>The second amendment itself grants the people the right to violence against a tyrannical government

Who believes this? Some people believe in a separate and pre-existing right to rebel, and some may not, at least legally, but I'm not aware that anyone believes the 2nd amendment grants the right. People commonly claim that the motivation for the 2nd amendment is to make rebellion possible, but that's not the same thing as granting the right.

[lawnchair_larry]

Complete and utter nonsense. People absolutely should be arrested for arson. It doesn’t make it any less legitimate when you use scare words like “unmarked” and “abduction”. It doesn’t make their rioting any more legitimate when you call it protesting. There isn’t even anything to protest. Anarchists, who are overrepresented in Portland for some reason, enjoy destroying society and we should not tolerate it. There can be no liberty with anarchy.

[Natsu]

CHAZ was subject to several murders already, so it's not merely "destruction of property" here.

I presume they changed the name to CHOP because someone told them that creating an "autonomous zone" sounded a lot like insurrection, which is also the kind of thing that feds normally involve themselves with, but it's not like the feds need that as an excuse given that they already have plenty of authority to enforce the law whether or not Portland wishes to do so.

> Where in the Constitution are our rights subject to conditions on behavior?

In the 13th amendment:

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

(emphasis added)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_labor_in_the_United_Stat...

[catalogia]

I think there's a bit of a mixup here. CHAZ/CHOP was in Seattle, not Portland. The "CH" stands for Capitol Hill, a neighborhood in Seattle.

[Natsu]

There was another attempt to set up an autonomous zone in Portland so it seems fair to compare them:

https://heavy.com/news/2020/06/portland-autonomous-zone-decl...