If yours was an obvious tongue-in-cheek comment, then it was your responsibility to make sure that the first person to whom it was obvious was me. Otherwise, I regret to say, it was not obvious enough, was it? You may be referencing previous sorties, when I let your comments pass.
The point in the discussion suggested by Denise is that only those without ID or lawbreakers will be offended by being asked for identification. My offense and the possible offense of others proves her wrong. We object on a number of possible reasons, including possible infringement of the rights to equal protection and due process. I know I believe I have a decent argument to make, certainly one worth talking over, and I've made it with some care, one place or another. It certainly was not made by demonstrating in the street, though I believe that demonstrating is perfectly reasonable. I kept my reasoning reasonably moderate. I did not use qualifiers such as "always," but used "sometimes" and such less sweeping choices as I could come up with because they avoid histrionics; because they are less dramatic. These choices were made on purpose, because they avoided the more dramatic responses.
Given the restraint in my language use here, your comments seem less that tongue-in-cheek. Nor does open display of distress about violations of their own rights and the rights of their fellows suggest lack of sincerity, nor would it have to be less than worthy of serious consideration than whatever it is that you might define as "real" concern. Perhaps you may believe that you have the right to establish which methods of expression may carry real and legal weight, but I would find it surprising if the constitution was entirely in agreement with you there. Rights are not judged by who is Michael Mack and who isn't.
When you insult those who feel their rights and the rights of others have been violated, the insult does not make those rights vanish. Treating them as though they meant nothing does not make that a fact. Nor does it make your position more constitutional than it was before.
I am willing to talk about how I may well be wrong here, Mike, but I am not willing to allow myself to go along with the use of this sort of "tongue-in-cheek" casual contempt that attempts to attack the person rather than addressing the plusses and minuses of the notions involved.
Simply by standing up and saying that, yes, I have identification papers; and I still find having having the police demand that I show my identification papers under circumstances that I believe to be of questionable necessity or legality is upsetting enough to disprove Denise's assertion. Not only do I find this upsetting for me, but I find it upsetting when it is demanded of other people as well. I want less intrusion by the government into my movements, and not more.
I understand the police mean well.
While they may mean well, that doesn't mean that their actions turn out well. Mine don't, much of the time. I doubt yours do. Almost everybody thinks of themselves as a good guy and a hero. The constitution isn't there to protect us against people's best intentions, it's there to protect us against certain sorts of actions that governments indulge in, often with the best of intentions.
It's there to protect us, among other things, from police powers gone too far, and to help us understand what they may be. Telling me that I'm overly dramatic says absolutely nothing about the powers in question. Among the powers that the constitution tries to protect us against is the government favoring one group over another, in this case white skinned folks over brown skinned folks.
The Arizona State Government today appears to have passed a law that forbids teaching any sort of minority education in any Schools in the State of Arizona. This means that what the Schools in Arizona get is essentially White History and Culture, near as I can Tell, with a solid mixture of Christian History and Western European Culture, essentially the same as Schools have gotten for the last couple of hundred years.
This sounds a lot like Christian Fundamentalism 101, since the largest text book Market is Texas, and those tend to be the lies that are spread.