[Billthedrill]

Great article, and thanks for posting. Yeah, the proggies have taken their masks off lately and what is revealed isn't pretty. Kaul, who actually did call for the imprisonment of political opponents and stated that their murder would be "fine with me" is hardly an isolated case. The NY Times has floated the idea that the Constitution should be disregarded, there was a suggestion that gun owners should be forced to wear red badges (no yellow Stars of David just yet) - this is not the stuff of metaphor, it's very literal. These are not reasonable people looking for a compromise. This is not a "dialogue".

Underlying all of this is the assumption that such violence may be conducted under the auspices of the State with themselves unaffected; that they may send thugs under the old "let's you and him fight" scam and then deplore both sides for violence. What needs most to be communicated in this "dialogue" is that (1) this is not Nazi Germany, where the victims had been disarmed; (2) those screaming for blood will be held as culpable as those spilling it; and (3) that the First Amendment is no protection for those intending to overthrow the Constitution by destroying the Second. You either respect the document or you don't, it isn't a cafeteria plan.

Imprisonment and murder of political opponents is neither "dialogue" nor free speech, it is warfare. There is no safe way to conduct that, even if the Left appears to think that they've found one.

[neverdem]

The NY Times has floated the idea that the Constitution should be disregarded,

The Times gave Louis Michael Seidman a guest OpEd column.

Wikipedia links the column near the end of their entry for him.

The Times has a history of such columns from across the political spectrum. How balanced is it? I don't go there usually if I can avoid it, except their health and science sections. There, they can be first rate if it doesn't involve politics.