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.

 

Man arrested for meme in Connecticut "showing interest in mass shooting"

page: 5
20
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: gallop

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
Opposing every move to even begin to stop the maddness of mass shootings is madness as well.


There was no mass shooting though, this is presuming guilt.


Would you rather wait until people are dead and then say 'I knew there was something odd going on'?


Hindsight is always 20/20.

Would you rather live in a police-state?


It isn't a police state not to act on information received and proceed accordingly, it's common sense.



dressing anti-freedom as "common sense" is in itself, frightening.


using free speech for ill intent, is worse, imo.


So you would censor the state rep hat just wished that Trump be assassinated?


Did the said rep say they would carry out the assassination? I'm guessing not. If they had, an there was a risk it was a credible threat do you not think that should be investigated? You do know that any such threats are - at least were investigated routinely by the FBI if someone had made comments to suggest it was a valid threat don't you?


So you'd want to censor her.

'kay.

Or at the very least, punish her for having made an offensive statement.


So as usual you don't listen, what do you mean by 'censor'? I gave a scenario, you skip over it, like you talk about despising anti-freedom but want to deny it from someone who chooses abortion. You are a bit light when it comes to backing up your own statements aren't you?

Making an offensive statement such as wishing Trump was assassinated? No threat in that. If it was stated that she is going to carry out the assassination and has credible means and opportunity - threat.

If you disagree it says more about you than it ever possibly could about me.




posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 12:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Gargoyle91

So the police state is here and people are going to cheer


If it stops one person being murdered you ought to be happy, but then that's a common sense reaction, you don't do that do you?



posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 12:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Gargoyle91

So the police state is here and people are going to cheer


They already are.

Plenty of them in this thread.



posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

All it does it violate due process.

But if that makes you feel happy...Well, you do you.

I'll be over here criticizing draconian laws.
edit on 8 22 2019 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Gargoyle91

So the police state is here and people are going to cheer


If it stops one person being murdered you ought to be happy, but then that's a common sense reaction, you don't do that do you?


Use that argument in an abortion debate, see how far it gets you



posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 12:34 PM
link   
This isn't censorship. It's more like profiling. I think it's pretty obvious that mass shootings usually involve people with a screw loose. How can you prevent them from carrying out murder when they hear voices in their head or are convinced snakes and spiders are crawling all over them? You take away their stash and get them some help.

I'm pro-2nd amendment but I wouldn't want to be in the company of armed idiots. In fact, I'm armed in case one of those idiots comes into my house uninvited.



posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

A fetus is not legally considered a person and abortion is not considered murder..



posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

Thats a common reaction.. not to be conflated with a common sense reaction.

Its a horrifically myopic viewpoint, to be blunt. If its not obvious "why," both historically and in modern context, then probably no need to respond.



posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: DBCowboy

A fetus is not legally considered a person and abortion is not considered murder..


It is a living human.



posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: LogicalGraphitti
This isn't censorship. It's more like profiling. I think it's pretty obvious that mass shootings usually involve people with a screw loose. How can you prevent them from carrying out murder when they hear voices in their head or are convinced snakes and spiders are crawling all over them? You take away their stash and get them some help.

I'm pro-2nd amendment but I wouldn't want to be in the company of armed idiots. In fact, I'm armed in case one of those idiots comes into my house uninvited.


All mass shootings are done by people with screws loose because normal people don't conduct mass shootings.

But not all people with screws loose conduct mass shootings.

This IS censorship because if everything you say or do is now suspect, then people will just self-censor their activities and STILL conduct mass shootings!



posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 12:49 PM
link   
this is a slippery slope. The kid needed to be questioned, due to his online activity. If we ignore this, we might allow the next mass shooting. But he can't be arrested for speech. If it's as stated, and he was arrested for illegal weapons accessories, then he only has himself to blame for running his gob when he didn't have his house in order.

So if all is as advertised, this seems fine. But, if online comments are used to jail someone, then where is the line?

I'd like to know if this assessment is flawed and why.



posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 12:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: uncommitted

All it does it violate due process.

But if that makes you feel happy...Well, you do you.

I'll be over here criticizing draconian laws.


I'm sorry, would you like to say that in a way that actually makes sense based on what I actually wrote?



posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 12:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Serdgiam

He was arrested because he was found to be in possession of something that was illegal to own, wasn't he??


...it could also be said he was arrested for the 2nd Amendment equivalent of being Rosa Parks and refusing to comply with a law that's obviously horsecrap... but that's not convenient to your narrative of boogeymen and fear mongering over inanimate objects in a world where the actual problem is the absence of morality and an abundance of drugs and mental disorders (many of which are directly pandered to by the same side trying to blame guns for the problems they pander to.)



posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 12:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Gargoyle91

So the police state is here and people are going to cheer


If it stops one person being murdered you ought to be happy, but then that's a common sense reaction, you don't do that do you?


Use that argument in an abortion debate, see how far it gets you


Because abortion isn't the same thing as someone setting out to commit mass murder based on nothing but hate, but I wouldn't expect the slightly stupid to see the difference. You'll get it sooner or later. But hey, you are against anti-freedom so your abortion stance must have radically changed.



posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Serdgiam
a reply to: uncommitted

Thats a common reaction.. not to be conflated with a common sense reaction.

Its a horrifically myopic viewpoint, to be blunt. If its not obvious "why," both historically and in modern context, then probably no need to respond.


What an absolutely stupid response. So I posted -


If it stops one person being murdered you ought to be happy, but then that's a common sense reaction, you don't do that do you?


And that was your response? And you call me myopic? I thought America went back to school this week?



posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: DBCowboy

A fetus is not legally considered a person and abortion is not considered murder..


...but when the SCOTUS eventually changes tack on that decision and does extend personhood to the fetus and does classify abortion as murder, I'm sure you'll be first in line to call all those abortion seeking murderous *word-I-cannot-use-in-America-but-UK-and-Aussies-use-as-noun-verb-and-adjective-daily* law breakers and demanding they get jail time, right? No, obviously you won't because you only value some Rights and freedoms and are a hypocrite where ones you don't personally value are concerned.



posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 12:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: DBCowboy

A fetus is not legally considered a person and abortion is not considered murder..


It is a living human.


And should be freedom of the woman to decide whether to carry or not, surely, Mr against anti-freedom?

You should check into hypocrites anonymous ASAP, if only so they can laugh at you and see you as the lowest level from which they must rise.



posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Gargoyle91

So the police state is here and people are going to cheer


If it stops one person being murdered you ought to be happy, but then that's a common sense reaction, you don't do that do you?


Use that argument in an abortion debate, see how far it gets you


Because abortion isn't the same thing as someone setting out to commit mass murder based on nothing but hate, but I wouldn't expect the slightly stupid to see the difference. You'll get it sooner or later. But hey, you are against anti-freedom so your abortion stance must have radically changed.



If you want to have draconian, dystopian laws, you'll get them soon enough.

*mumbles about leading a horse to water. . . . . . . *



posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: DBCowboy

A fetus is not legally considered a person and abortion is not considered murder..


It is a living human.


And should be freedom of the woman to decide whether to carry or not, surely, Mr against anti-freedom?

You should check into hypocrites anonymous ASAP, if only so they can laugh at you and see you as the lowest level from which they must rise.


So while the unborn have no rights, this is something you intend to celebrate.

Kay.



posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 01:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: DBCowboy

A fetus is not legally considered a person and abortion is not considered murder..


...but when the SCOTUS eventually changes tack on that decision and does extend personhood to the fetus and does classify abortion as murder, I'm sure you'll be first in line to call all those abortion seeking murderous *word-I-cannot-use-in-America-but-UK-and-Aussies-use-as-noun-verb-and-adjective-daily* law breakers and demanding they get jail time, right? No, obviously you won't because you only value some Rights and freedoms and are a hypocrite where ones you don't personally value are concerned.


Not sure WTF the thing about the UK and Australian peoples use of verb and adjective was all about, but you are being a hypocrite on what you write.................... but seeing as it suits you, then you are ok with it, yeah?

If someone lets others know they have an intent to kill, and there is reason to believe they have the means to do so, then you and some others on here have been suggesting that no investigation should take place to ensure there is no actual risk, but there is then to prosecute accordingly - you think that is wrong? It's an easy answer, just if you can actually say it.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join