when exactly would you people be ok with limiting freedom of assembly? we have an active insurrection, it's just very very retarded. There was an assassination attempt on the president, there was a successful assassination of a major political figure. There are people out in the street every day interfering with the orderly operation of federal law enforcement. We're at the "put American citizens in camps" stage. Or do you think it was bad when FDR did that too?
You're operating from a frame of "limiting a freedom" and not simply enforcing unlawful assembly laws that are
already on the books.
The reason I'm somewhat meanly picking on you is because you are, perhaps without meaning to, asking for a limit on a freedom when I suspect you are actually
meaning to ask for enforcement of existing laws.
In the same way gun control advocates look at gun crimes and mass shootings and demand a limit on the freedom guaranteed in the 2nd amendment.
What they really should be doing (if gun control advocates were operating in good faith) were to look at
1. How the gun was acquired.
In 95% of cases, this already shows existing gun laws were flouted. And more abridgements of the right to bear arms would not have saved anyone.
Back to the topic at hand, if existing laws regarding riots, unlawful assembly, etc. were dutifully enforced, a limit on the scale your phrasing suggests would be unnecessary and redundant.
Don't look to abridge constitutional right when you just want existing laws diligently enforced.
