It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Ironic Independence Day Pic

page: 6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 09:53 AM
a reply to: Thorneblood

I understand the need for safety and their desire to prevent litigation. But c'mon.. that sign is ludicrous. We have not needed or had such signs in the past. At 10s of thousands of 4th of July celebrations over the decades, there hasn't been a spate of dog attack, drunken people with weapons in tents, children blowing themselves up with fireworks, people with bombs requiring their bags to be checked.. and so on. What happened with people policing themselves?

That's how it used to be... parents were responsible for their children's' safety. People would stand up and call out morons, or call the authorities if one idiot was ruining it for everyone else. When you give up all your freedoms to protect yourself from a danger, you certainly don't deserve that freedom any longer. I can understand a sign with some basic guidelines for safeties sake. That sign reads like something straight out of an Orwellian nightmare. How anyone could defend it boggles the mind.

posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 10:33 AM
a reply to: CagliostroTheGreat
I feel sorry for people that have to go to those kinds of places because they live in places with no yards. I am grateful I live here, and can have beer and shoot off fireworks, or guns etc, whenever I feel like it. Plenty of room for a huge family gathering or whatever.

posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 11:00 AM

originally posted by: ChouChou
The only rule on there that bothers me is the one about no dogs. But considering how crowded it could get on the 4th and the potential for a nerve wracking situation for the dogs, that's best for them anyway. Sadly, the founding fathers never would have anticipated that rules like that would be needed. But having been in the middle of more than one holiday celebration that turned bad because of some (usually alcohol-fueled) idiots, I have no problem with any of the rules that were posted there. I didn't always feel that way, but after seeing attacks on people and property as part of "celebrations", I know exactly why that park posted those rules. If there were no crimes against people and property on days that large groups congregate and often drink...then yes, those rules would be a shame.

I've lived in large cities and small towns and one of the worst things I saw was a guy who got so drunk during a "celebration" he tried to throw a dog into a bonfire. That particular incident was in a small town. In cities large and small I saw or walked into the aftermath of fights, fires (not controlled) cars getting damaged, facilities (like bathrooms, picnic shelters) getting vandalized. Things like that are what make rules like that the reality they are. And they don't happen every time, but they happen often enough that this is what ends up happening - rules that wouldn't be necessary if so many people didn't make them necessary.

The thing is, there are already laws against doing all the things you mentioned. It's already against the law to vandalize property, etc. What they should be doing is enforcing laws already on the books, not throwing new rules out there and searching anyone they feel like "because public safety."

I'm pretty confident that anyone who was going to break a law anyway isn't going to be stopped by a sign.

posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 11:38 AM
a reply to: Pimpish

There are laws against doing the things I mentioned, of course. But the freedom to do simple things that shouldn't get out of hand has made rules like this necessary because too many people can't handle that freedom now and then things do get out of hand.

Over the years, whether it's a city or small town, I've experienced that more frequently, when you get a large group of people together for a "celebration" usually turns out badly for some innocent and maybe not innocent by-stander/s. If people's bags have to be searched because history has proven that in certain situations...things might get ugly for even one person (including other animals) or there is the chance of destruction of property, then measures have to be taken against that. There was a time that measures like this weren't necessary and I wouldn't have supported it - then. I've been alive long enough to see what has happened and changed my mind.

When I'm going to go to a place where I know there's a large group and things might get out of hand, I have no problem with my bag being searched. And I have no problem with certain activities being restricted that I've already seen go bad before.

For me, a celebration doesn't require anyone other than my family and friends, although of course being in a big group of people celebrating can also be a lot of fun (unless something goes wrong). And while "public safety" might be something to put in doesn't feel that way for the person who got attacked or their family and friends after it's happened.

So what is the solution? People don't want rules that they feel are unfair. They don't want anyone hanging around to enforce those rules....until something goes wrong. Sadly we live in a time where things go wrong often enough to need rules that yes, were one time, unfair.
edit on 5-7-2014 by ChouChou because: missing word

posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 11:47 AM
a reply to: ChouChou

I guess all I am trying to say is that if there were no history of anyone getting hurt with as much frequency as what has started to happen over the years and if there wasn't a chance that people would get out of hand and destroy property that other people use and have a good time (public places for get togethers, etc.), then yes...these rules would be unfair. They are sad no matter which side you support.

posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 11:47 AM

originally posted by: CagliostroTheGreat
is it just me or does that just make it seem like we slipped through a wormhole into the "Nazis won WWII" universe?

They did win WW2.

posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 12:03 PM
a reply to: Pimpish

And you are right, they won't be stopped by a sign. But if they have to go through a bag search they might move along somewhere else. That won't stop them doing something to someone else, but it won't happen in that particular park. And if they are a young person who's not really a criminal, then that young person will probably chill out, too, because they don't want to 'get in trouble'. The real criminals look for isolated victims or happen to a specific person who is going to be a target no matter where they go. There are definitely crimes that happen to innocent people because they weren't protected. And anyone who wants to go to a park to just enjoy some time with family and friends can do that even if they can't fire up a grill.

The sign isn't meant to take away freedom. It's a sad commentary on what has happened over time. This is only my opinion and if I'm wrong, I will admit it.

posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 01:34 PM
Photoshopped , You can definitely easily see the clone tool marks around the lettering used to smudge out the original lettering.

posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 04:31 PM

originally posted by: SpaDe_
a reply to: skunkape23

I know this is off topic, but please do get a video of that 10lb charge of tannerite and upload it for all of us here to enjoy that can't make it to the festivities.

I got video. A friend is going to edit it. Should have it in a few days. It went boom real good. The concussion wave at 100 yards felt like getting slapped with a pillow. I was surprised no law enforcement showed up. I have a friend several miles away that heard it. Helluva firecracker.

edit on 5-7-2014 by skunkape23 because: a

posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 10:25 PM
Well that is nothing..

How about no people allowed - period.

I remember taking a trip up the NE coast in the US and stopping along here and there to see the shores - almost all of it is private and 'restricted'. I couldn't see anything in most cases.

I remember trying to explore particular inlets in Connecticut off the Long Island sound and again - you couldn't even get next to the water to take a look - it was all private land. You were not allowed to partake in the beauty.

I remember trying to do similar things on the Big Island of Hawaii - and again - the same thing - so much private land.

I am all for private ownership of land, but c'mon this is ridiculous. There should be a requirement of a certain percentage of 'scenic' land to be state owned and accessible.

This is definitely less of a problem on the west coast.

posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 11:29 AM
Who's in control of parks and all the other things that seem to infringe on Americans liberty?? Who I ask!!!

It sounds like this particular park is being controlled by Nazis. Are Nazi's in control of this park?? Who is the park supervisor?

posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 11:37 AM
Yup, it's official.
The terrorists won

posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 12:24 PM

originally posted by: CagliostroTheGreat

I mean f###ing seriously? Police will search bags and coolers for "reasons of public safety" is it just me or does that just make it seem like we slipped through a wormhole into the "Nazis won WWII" universe?

They may have...

Tighter and tighter the screws are being wound, one day something will snap...

top topics

<< 3  4  5   >>

log in