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.

 

Here’s what happens to conservatives when try to practice their first amendment rights .

page: 5
34
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2020 @ 05:03 AM
link   
I'll say it again..if the police and politicians wont do anything.

Then patriotic citizens need to form private militias to counter these groups.

It's time they go...these are not protest.




posted on Jul, 27 2020 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Fallingdown
And why has the left mobilized a small army on social media to keep pushing for everybody to wear masks? I'm not anti mask, although they are minimal in effectiveness when combined with the completely arbitrary and meaningless 6 foot social distance. That and lock downs and forced business closings which absolutely were unnecessary and self inflicted damage to the US economy and the US national debt. But I go on several social media sites and its always apparently young people lashing out at older people or " karens" who resist being forced to wear masks. They decry them as anti science( like they've ever picked up a science book either), flat earthers, climate deniers, selfish and dangerous. Same manifesto. You point out that they seem to show little tolerance and you get jumped on by a bunch of them who immediately attack you. They have to be bots. The left accuses others of doing what they are guilty of. But why force masks on us when they do very little to stop a VERY contagious but also VERY non serious pandemic. I could get the closures, they threw billions of extra dollars to the big retailers. At the cost of the small business owners. I can get the chaos of the BLM riots and protests. George Soros makes his money destabilizing economies. I can can get blowing up the US debt. The world banker smake money that way. But masks are so pointless. Why are they so dead set on making everybody wear them?



posted on Jul, 27 2020 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: jtma508

I think your confusing 1st amendment rights..

You have the right to protest and have your opinion heard, but it ends when you violate the rights of someone else IE destruction of property.. inciting violence.. holding up traffic..



posted on Jul, 27 2020 @ 10:26 AM
link   
The First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Please pay special attention to the part that is in bold text above. The key word here is peaceably. If you consider rioting and assault to be peaceable, then we have a fundamental difference in our vocabulary.

Keep it peaceful (and lawful) and I'll have no choice but to respect their right to protest. Start breaking the law, rioting or assaulting people? Then they lose the constitutional protections that allow them to protest as they are violating the "peaceable" part of that amendment.

I can't put it in any plainer language. If you don't like it, start the process to propose a new amendment to the Constitution that is more inline with your desires.



posted on Jul, 27 2020 @ 10:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gratheil
a reply to: jtma508

I think your confusing 1st amendment rights..

You have the right to protest and have your opinion heard, but it ends when you violate the rights of someone else IE destruction of property.. inciting violence.. holding up traffic..


Not confused at all. YOU are confused in that your (and others') opinion is that if there are rioters/looters piggy-backing on legitimate protests ten EVERYONE is an anarchist and NO ONE has any first amendment rights. It's genius actually. Send in some right-wing agitators where there is a legitimate protest going on, have those agitators create some sh!t then blame the protesters and gas them all. Not saying the agitators necessary ARE right-wing but you can't say they're not.



posted on Jul, 27 2020 @ 07:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: BomSquad
The First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Please pay special attention to the part that is in bold text above. The key word here is peaceably. If you consider rioting and assault to be peaceable, then we have a fundamental difference in our vocabulary.

Keep it peaceful (and lawful) and I'll have no choice but to respect their right to protest. Start breaking the law, rioting or assaulting people? Then they lose the constitutional protections that allow them to protest as they are violating the "peaceable" part of that amendment.

I can't put it in any plainer language. If you don't like it, start the process to propose a new amendment to the Constitution that is more inline with your desires.


It started peaceful and then the police/gov decided to start tear gassing and cracking heads for no reason. This was seen by all in real time the first few days of protests. Deny it all you want, video doesn't lie. A National Guard officer is about to testify to congress that the protesters were totally peacefully when Barr ordered them attacked so the pres could take a photo op. (let me guess, the officer is antifa paid by Soros to lie to congress! ROTFL) The gov started a war and now we have the right to defend ourselves.



posted on Jul, 27 2020 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: jtma508

Now, you're just making stuff up, and saying things just to start #.



posted on Jul, 27 2020 @ 07:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: FishBait

originally posted by: BomSquad
The First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Please pay special attention to the part that is in bold text above. The key word here is peaceably. If you consider rioting and assault to be peaceable, then we have a fundamental difference in our vocabulary.

Keep it peaceful (and lawful) and I'll have no choice but to respect their right to protest. Start breaking the law, rioting or assaulting people? Then they lose the constitutional protections that allow them to protest as they are violating the "peaceable" part of that amendment.

I can't put it in any plainer language. If you don't like it, start the process to propose a new amendment to the Constitution that is more inline with your desires.


It started peaceful and then the police/gov decided to start tear gassing and cracking heads for no reason. This was seen by all in real time the first few days of protests. Deny it all you want, video doesn't lie. A National Guard officer is about to testify to congress that the protesters were totally peacefully when Barr ordered them attacked so the pres could take a photo op. (let me guess, the officer is antifa paid by Soros to lie to congress! ROTFL) The gov started a war and now we have the right to defend ourselves.


Yep, they started tear gassing and cracking heads for no reason.

Proof? Any proof at all that it wasn't because of rioters?

And you got a source about this NG officer testifying to Congress?

Does he have any proof? Or is it just his word?



posted on Jul, 28 2020 @ 09:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: AutomateThis1

originally posted by: FishBait

originally posted by: BomSquad
The First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Please pay special attention to the part that is in bold text above. The key word here is peaceably. If you consider rioting and assault to be peaceable, then we have a fundamental difference in our vocabulary.

Keep it peaceful (and lawful) and I'll have no choice but to respect their right to protest. Start breaking the law, rioting or assaulting people? Then they lose the constitutional protections that allow them to protest as they are violating the "peaceable" part of that amendment.

I can't put it in any plainer language. If you don't like it, start the process to propose a new amendment to the Constitution that is more inline with your desires.


It started peaceful and then the police/gov decided to start tear gassing and cracking heads for no reason. This was seen by all in real time the first few days of protests. Deny it all you want, video doesn't lie. A National Guard officer is about to testify to congress that the protesters were totally peacefully when Barr ordered them attacked so the pres could take a photo op. (let me guess, the officer is antifa paid by Soros to lie to congress! ROTFL) The gov started a war and now we have the right to defend ourselves.


Yep, they started tear gassing and cracking heads for no reason.

Proof? Any proof at all that it wasn't because of rioters?

And you got a source about this NG officer testifying to Congress?

Does he have any proof? Or is it just his word?


You clearly know how to use the internet. I don't have to do all your researching for you. It's a headline on every news source right now that congress is having inquires into the protests and police/fed responses. If you actually cared about this stuff you would follow this. The headline yesterday was the NG officer testifying the protestors were peaceful when they were tear gassed under orders from White House for photo op. Today will be Barr saying he didn't give the order and trying to blame it on the police. It's amazing how you all post crazy conspiracy stuff and think a link validates it. If I post anything you'll just yell "fake news" so why bother.

There are endless videos of police attacking peaceful protestor and shooting reporters who are holding cameras and mics posing no threat what so ever. One reported lost an eye for god's sake. I'm not posting links to everyone of those. If you'd followed the story you would have seen them and then yelled to yourselves "those commies did something to deserve it".



posted on Jul, 28 2020 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: oddnutz

Really?

So, to spite them, you'll deny a particular group their Constitutional rights?

Hmm...that's interesting. Not in a good way, either.

So which "enemy" would you deny civil rights to next??



posted on Jul, 28 2020 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Trump is literally shutting down free speech and the right to assemble.

You're anti Constitution traitors and you're not American.



posted on Jul, 28 2020 @ 06:55 PM
link   
There is a huge difference between protesting and rioting.

This country was born from protest and we should all want to defend the right to political protest.

Destruction of property and violence are not protest. Rioters should be arrested and made to pay for the property they have destroyed.

Sometimes it's very hard to figure out who is a legitimate protestor and who is a rioter.



posted on Jul, 28 2020 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Thecakeisalie


Another 'I'm not racist, but asians' thread.


You lost me on that one .


Little help?



posted on Jul, 28 2020 @ 08:35 PM
link   
a reply to: FishBait


Peaceful protesters getting beatings, shot by rubber bullets and tear gassed by cops is what started the riots. Cops escalate violence every chance they get. Walking into an angry crowd alone with your flag quite frankly is a really dumb idea.


Why would it be a bad idea if it was peaceful protesters as you claim ?



posted on Jul, 29 2020 @ 11:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: FishBait


Peaceful protesters getting beatings, shot by rubber bullets and tear gassed by cops is what started the riots. Cops escalate violence every chance they get. Walking into an angry crowd alone with your flag quite frankly is a really dumb idea.


Why would it be a bad idea if it was peaceful protesters as you claim ?


You guys are the best at conflating. You can't separate anything. I've said the same thing the whole time but you like to spin. There are peaceful protests and there are rioters. Even if you don't want to admit they are separate entities they are. You can have peacefully protestors and rioters in the same large group and sometimes each isn't even in the same part of town. Shocking! The rioters started after the cops went ape sh## on peacefully protestors with no provocation when the protest first started weeks ago. This guy walked his flag into rioters. Bad idea.

There is also the completely separate argument of why people are rioting and if it's justified. I say it is justified (self defense as ATS loves to yell everyday) but they shouldn't hurt innocent people like the guy with the flag. Damaging a federal building, I don't really care.
edit on 29-7-2020 by FishBait because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2020 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: AutomateThis1

He’s been following me around just trying to troll .

Pay him no mind .



posted on Jul, 30 2020 @ 09:50 PM
link   
OK, so the first amendment doesn't cover rioting. Lets say there is some sort of protest going on, in which you have 1,000 peaceful protesters and 1,000 rioters totaling 2,000 people. Do the actions of the 1,000 rioters allow the revocation of ALL 2,000 people's first amendment rights?

Do the actions of a few mass shooters allow the revocation of everyone else's 2nd amendment rights?



posted on Jul, 30 2020 @ 09:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: FishBait

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: FishBait


Peaceful protesters getting beatings, shot by rubber bullets and tear gassed by cops is what started the riots. Cops escalate violence every chance they get. Walking into an angry crowd alone with your flag quite frankly is a really dumb idea.


Why would it be a bad idea if it was peaceful protesters as you claim ?


You guys are the best at conflating. You can't separate anything. I've said the same thing the whole time but you like to spin. There are peaceful protests and there are rioters. Even if you don't want to admit they are separate entities they are. You can have peacefully protestors and rioters in the same large group and sometimes each isn't even in the same part of town. Shocking! The rioters started after the cops went ape sh## on peacefully protestors with no provocation when the protest first started weeks ago. This guy walked his flag into rioters. Bad idea.

There is also the completely separate argument of why people are rioting and if it's justified. I say it is justified (self defense as ATS loves to yell everyday) but they shouldn't hurt innocent people like the guy with the flag. Damaging a federal building, I don't really care.

You’re so full of #.



posted on Jul, 31 2020 @ 08:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: FishBait

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: FishBait


Peaceful protesters getting beatings, shot by rubber bullets and tear gassed by cops is what started the riots. Cops escalate violence every chance they get. Walking into an angry crowd alone with your flag quite frankly is a really dumb idea.


Why would it be a bad idea if it was peaceful protesters as you claim ?


You guys are the best at conflating. You can't separate anything. I've said the same thing the whole time but you like to spin. There are peaceful protests and there are rioters. Even if you don't want to admit they are separate entities they are. You can have peacefully protestors and rioters in the same large group and sometimes each isn't even in the same part of town. Shocking! The rioters started after the cops went ape sh## on peacefully protestors with no provocation when the protest first started weeks ago. This guy walked his flag into rioters. Bad idea.

There is also the completely separate argument of why people are rioting and if it's justified. I say it is justified (self defense as ATS loves to yell everyday) but they shouldn't hurt innocent people like the guy with the flag. Damaging a federal building, I don't really care.

You’re so full of #.


Triggered? LMFAO



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join