It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

The Reasonable Exercise of Rights: A Proposal

page: 1
15
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Sometimes one can realize that they have been wrong about something all along... be it an epiphany of realization or just admission of incapability of reasonable resistance to public opinion. I may have been wrong about something... and that something is the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

It seems that maybe that right is not so absolute after all. Perhaps it is subject to "reasonable" restrictions. Maybe it is OK to make firearms prohibitively expensive and difficult to obtain and/or use effectively if needed. Maybe it is time to re-evaluate this whole concept of rights.

Of course, that brings up some other issues. There are several rights in the Constitution, and all carry the same legal weight as the 2nd Amendment. So in fairness, since we're talking about reasonable restrictions, I think a few reasonable restrictions on other rights are needed.

We have the right to free speech... but I think a few reasonable restrictions are needed. We all know we can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, but what about political speech? We all know people can be extremely offended by certain words and terms, so I propose a permitting process. Every person must apply for and receive a permit for their speech, which must be renewed every year. The cost will be minor as long as one does not use certain terms that the state will deem as offensive, but if one does disobey all manner of decorum and use those words, well, the permit cost will increase drastically in order for those offended people to be reimbursed for their mental anguish. I definitely think that untruths in politics should require high penalties fees, and that would include anything that happened to disagree with elected politicians. Of course, it will need to be illegal to not hold a permit, since we don't want to go around cutting people's tongues out. Penalties could include exile to solitary sound-proof confinement where any improper words would not be heard by anyone else.

I mean, that's reasonable, right? We don't want to be offending people, after all.

We have the right to freedom of the press... but again, a little common sense regulation only makes sense. For instance, I think that every news network must be permitted and the cost of that permit should be dependent on the balance of the news stories presented. Too much pro-Trump news or too little pro-Trump news would both result in much higher fees. Also, I think once a news reporter goes too far (too far being determined by the state of course, who else?), they should have to submit their stories to the state for approval 30 days prior to publication.

That's reasonable. We still have freedom of the press. Print balanced stories and the permit cost will be minimal.

We have freedom of religion, but we need to be sure that isn't abused! After all, look at Westboro Baptist Church! Horrible! And those Jehovah's Witnesses, coming to your door every other day talking about things you don't want to hear... and those holier-than-thou Christians complaining because one Muslim believer killed a few of their fellow believers... that doesn't negate the religion of peace. So we have to ensure that the freedom of religion is practiced in a reasonable fashion. Everyone who espouses a religious belief must get a permit for it, and that permit should come with restrictions: oh, I don't know, things like no practicing any religious beliefs outside a properly permitted religious institution. Anyone who does so should cause their institution to be liable for all damages, and that should include mental anguish from offense. Also, no religious institutions should be allowed to be located near any school or other public assembly. As a matter of fact, maybe all religious institutions should be located in a religious zone, to prevent anyone from violating these reasonable restrictions by happening to be in an area where we might need a school. Hey, nothing wrong with making sure no one gets offended, right? People can still practice their religion at church (or synagogue or temple or mosque). Hmmm... I wonder if the state would classify atheism as a religious belief?

We have the right to protest, and that right is sacred! So we have to ensure it is exercised properly... any protest must be permitted, and we can put in a reasonable cooling off period (I say maybe 100 days?) as well as a cash bond at time of application to cover any damage to property, cleanup costs, and extra required police protection to protect the protestors... say, a minimum cash bond of $1 million? That should cover it for small protests, and the cost can go up based on the number of protestors. Of course, if someone applies for a permit for 1000 protestors and 10,000 show up, only the first 1000 can attend. After all, the right is secure if the organizers just were honest about how big it was going to be.

I keep hearing there is a right to abortion. OK, I can accept this, as long as it is practiced subject to reasonable restrictions. Surely it is reasonable to apply for a permit if one is pregnant and wants an abortion. I think it is reasonable to have a cooling off period of maybe 10 months?

The right to vote is a major right, and certainly should be subject to reasonable restrictions. I think it's reasonable to make sure that one is properly trained before being able to exercise such an important right. Maybe a required test on current events at the polls? We do need educated, informed voters to prevent those who do not know how to wield the power of their vote from trying to do so and hurting someone (like a candidate). And of course, photo ID is required to take a test... everyone knows that. We don't need to require ID to vote, just to take the test.

We can further make all these reasonable restrictions more reasonable by simply making all reasonable restrictions on rights a state's right issue. We don't need the Federal government telling us what to do! This way, if someone doesn't think the restrictions in Ohio are reasonable, they can just go protest the last Cincinnati city council decision in Reno Nevada... there will probably be less restrictions there. If the price to get a free speech permit in California is too high, one can just move to Alabama. Their rights are still maintained. No one has the right for their rights to be affordable, right?

This way we can quit arguing about the 2nd Amendment... we can allow restrictions in ammunition, restrictions on who can own what, restrictions on how one's right can be curtailed, even restrictions on how hard it is to use a gun for self-defense. Now, please... no one bring up the argument that the right to own a firearm is something that can be practiced in private, while free speech, religion, voting, abortion, and protest must by definition be a public exercise. After all, everyone will be subject to the same laws, and everyone will obviously follow those laws. No one is going to have an illegal gun stored in a closet somewhere.

Or... we could always just allow people to freely exercise all their rights. But hey, that's just me tossing out some silliness... we NEED reasonable restrictions!

Right?

TheRedneck




posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 03:33 PM
link   
States have no rights anymore.
en.wikipedia.org...

Another incremental step towards tyranny. The constution is nothing more than a political tool these days.



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Oh my.

What a common sense thread!





posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




Ummm...I disagree...

Rights are enumerated in order to restrict the government from infringement...not to allow the government to infringe upon those enumerated rights...

Case in point...speech...

Freedom of speech is not to protect some vacuous definition of offense from speech...I.E. "hate speech"...

There are no reasonable restrictions against being offended when offense is always a choice and not a prerequisite...to infringement...


I totally disagree









YouSir



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Isn't "common sense" like the definition of oxymoron today?

I'm thinking it overtook "military intelligence" a few years ago.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: YouSir

But, but, but... all rights are rights, right? Shouldn't all rights be treated like all other rights?

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Your state's rights end where my state's rights begin.

Your state does not have the right to pollute my water.


edit on 8/16/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 03:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: YouSir

But, but, but... all rights are rights, right? Shouldn't all rights be treated like all other rights?

TheRedneck


I see what you did there.


Perfectly reasonable. We have to restrict rights so that everyone can enjoy them.


After all, what good are rights when some abuse them to the detriment of others?



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 03:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
Your state's rights end where my state's rights begin.

Your state does not have the right to pollute my water.



More true than you know.



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Where is that line?

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

The line at which your state's right interfere with my state's rights.

See edit above for an example.


edit on 8/16/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: DBCowboy

Isn't "common sense" like the definition of oxymoron today?

I'm thinking it overtook "military intelligence" a few years ago.

TheRedneck


The abuse and redefinition of our language has brought it to such a point where I need a translator much of the time.



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

How much water is "your" water? Do I get a right to have any water?

I think Hawaii is abusing their right to water. They're hoarding an entire ocean.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

I've been working on a liberal translator. Biggest problem right now is it tends to overheat whenever certain people speak.

The last time I turned it on when Fredricka Williams was speaking, it started a minor fire. I had to put it out with baking soda since Phage claims all the water rights.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
Your state's rights end where my state's rights begin.

Your state does not have the right to pollute my water.



Especially with Glyphosate.

πŸ’₯πŸ˜ƒπŸ’₯



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

True, Pennsylvania would have a hard time polluting Hawaiian streams.



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Not sure how Alabama could pull that off either.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Phage
Your state's rights end where my state's rights begin.

Your state does not have the right to pollute my water.



Especially with Glyphosate.

πŸ’₯πŸ˜ƒπŸ’₯





Farmers don't have a right to protect their crops from pests? If a state says they do, the feds should keep out of it?



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Everyone knows Alabama doesn't pollute.



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

You're being purposely facetious. Faulty premise from the very beginning, just trying to gain stars and flags. If you'd like to have actual discourse about this, I'd love to. But this thread seems like a typical echo chamber.
I'm in the disagree completely camp.
Clarification: I know the point you're trying to make, but you're comparing apples to watermelons.
edit on 16-8-2018 by narrator because: wording




top topics



 
15
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join