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.

 

It's Time for Protest Control

page: 2
32
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2020 @ 04:52 AM
link   
a reply to: bastion


Instead of removing basic human rights and freedoms essential for democracy to function just get Police to enforce pre-existing laws.

I agree that does sound better... but it doesn't seem to work with guns. Why would it work with protests?

Also, I am talking about individual protest licenses. You know, so everyone has to have a license to be part of a protest.

TheRedneck




posted on Sep, 4 2020 @ 04:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: JinMI

Looks like there was no need to omit the second half of my post.


TheRedneck


Touche`




posted on Sep, 4 2020 @ 04:54 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik


What you are suggesting is just plain BS and un-american to boot.

In my neck of the woods people protest to put food on their table.

Besides, the FF had the foresight to include the right to protest in case we the people ever had the need to take down a tyrannical government.

Wow... where have I heard that argument before?

I'm sure I'll recall it, so don't worry.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 4 2020 @ 04:55 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck
Are you suggesting that free speech should be limited to those with passes?

I disagree



posted on Sep, 4 2020 @ 05:10 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Hey, I just followed your lead.

To be honest, when the people want to revolt they are not going to ask permission to protest or bear arms.

I got your OP but, as someone hinted earlier, demonstrations are restricted in much the same way legal firearm ownership is. People will get permits when they plan to act within the law in both situations.
edit on 4-9-2020 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2020 @ 05:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar


Are you suggesting that free speech should be limited to those with passes?

Oh, no! I'm just saying that since we have a precedent, maybe we should require a license. It's a dangerous right, after all. Might be different if we didn't have that precedent, but hey... it is what it is.

No one wants to take away your right to protest. I'm just saying we need to take precedented steps to ensure it doesn't get out of control. You can still protest as much as you want at home. That's fair, right?

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 4 2020 @ 05:49 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik


Hey, I just followed your lead.

And very well, I might add. Thanks for "getting it."

As for permits, no, it's not the same. A single permit allows an entire group of people to protest and others can join in without any restrictions whatsoever. If we're going to license the way we license guns, every protestor has to be personally licensed outside of their own home.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 4 2020 @ 05:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: bastion


Instead of removing basic human rights and freedoms essential for democracy to function just get Police to enforce pre-existing laws.

I agree that does sound better... but it doesn't seem to work with guns. Why would it work with protests?

Also, I am talking about individual protest licenses. You know, so everyone has to have a license to be part of a protest.

TheRedneck


While the right to bear arms is in the US Constitution it isn't part of international political, human and civil rights laws. By definition a protest is a peaceful assembly of people, otherwise it's a riot and no longer protected by universal human rights.

Yup, your OP was clear and I understood you meant individual liscences, my response was probably unclear as brain is on strike today but the latter part of my post was adressing that.

See the UK for examples of how undercover police and government treat activists. UK police have spied on, been married to and even had children with peaceful protestors when working undercover to infiltrate peaceful activist groups.
www.bbc.co.uk...




The 14 hours of labour that delivered Jacqui's first child was the most intimate moment of her life. In her words, she shared it with a ghost.

Alongside her as she prepared to bring a child into the world was the man she loved, Bob Robinson. She thought he loved her, too. "Well done Jac," he wrote to her in a note after their boy was born.

That was 1985. Two years later he disappeared into the ether, leaving Jacqui tormented and a toddler without a dad.


For a couple of decades the UK government has had a highly illegal 'blacklisting' scheme where the government spies on main people involved in organising or taking part in legal, peaceful protests and members of Unions then sells the information on to employers to effectively ban anyone involved from employment. Several thuosand were made homeless and comitted suicide as a result www.morrishsolicitors.com...




Dave Smith, a successful Engineer who had the pick of engineering jobs throughout London, was employed by Carillion. In 1998 he was driving a 4 x 4 vehicle but by 2000 he could not even get a job as an Engineer, despite the longest building boom this country has ever known. He even stopped receiving calls from employment agencies.

All this because he was brave enough to complain about the dangers of asbestos on construction sites and attempted to improve health and safety conditions through union activism. Sadly, for Dave this resulted in selling personal belongings, defaulting mortgage payments and borrowing from friends and family.

The Carillion blacklisting scandal was aired on BBC Radio 4. The company had been paying The Consulting Association to keep files on Dave and circulate a blacklist, with his name, among 40 construction companies. The blacklist had thousands of names on it, meaning Carillion had been complicit in one of the biggest industrial scandals in British history. Dave was one of the “lucky” ones to be affected – unfortunately for others this outrageous scandal left hundreds of workers homeless, without family and some sadly took their own lives.


The US has been doing far worse to Americans since 2002 using shipping containers declared legally sovereign territory of Saudi Arabia to circumvent US law and protections and allow everything including torture to legally be used. Handing even more power and spying tools is a slippery slope.

EDIT: If a permit was in the form of an anonymous writen test free indendent classes on the topic people are protesting about and guides to the differences between legal and illegal protests and how to spot trouble before it flares up to weed out people who are only there to cause trouble or pose for selfies I'd be fully on board with that but if it's pinned to someone's I'd it's rife for abuse by government.
edit on 4-9-2020 by bastion because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2020 @ 06:10 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I don't know. There is no restriction in you letting someone else shoot a gun registered to you.

ETA: There may be some, like age, so "no restriction" might be wrong.

My point is that permits do exist for legal protests. There is already protest control, maybe not the same because of the nature of a protest but whatever restrictions apply to the protest allowed apply to those participating. For example, if it is confined to a designated area then anyone participating has to stay in that area.
edit on 4-9-2020 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2020 @ 06:18 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck
Not really...
You're free to protest provided nobody sees it?

Doesn't seem right.



posted on Sep, 4 2020 @ 06:53 AM
link   


Everyone who protests outside their home must be licensed to do so.

A protest license must have a background check. If someone has been convicted of illegalities during protests, that person should not be allowed to protest in open public so they don't get a license.


How is that even enforceable? All that will do is give cops an excuse to round people up for processing their liscense.

This is a horrible idea. If congress was going to pass a law to federally ban guns, would you want to go through a long backed-up process to get a protesting clearance so you can join a march on congress?

No, i guarentee you wouldnt wait and miss your opportunity. Furthermore, what is going to stop pro-2nd amendment protestors from being rounded up by police to verify protester badges..

You're proposing draconian measures because of your dislike for what blm protests have become. Yet, your proposals would greatly hurt all future protests...



posted on Sep, 4 2020 @ 06:59 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

That is a terrible idea that will never work and lead to mass arrests by police who will use the lack of protestor permits to just round up froups of people to check for permits.

Furthermore, who knows how long the backlog for background checks would be. If i wanted to protest something going into law this week, how long would i have to wait for the Government to process my background check.

Especially if hundreds of thousands are asking for background checks nationwide..

How is this even enforeable in lafge protests...

This would greatly hurt one of our most important freedoms.



posted on Sep, 4 2020 @ 07:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck

  • A protest license must have a background check. If someone has been convicted of illegalities during protests, that person should not be allowed to protest in open public so they don't get a license.
  • Obviously felons are a large part of the problem, so felons are denied a protest license.
  • I think a person who wishes to protest should take a state-sponsored course in how to safely and correctly protest, with some civics thrown in for good measure. The license should not be issued until that course is passed.
  • We also need a 72-hour cooling off period before the license is issued.That's all I am suggesting. Not too bad is it? After all, it's just common sense restrictions.



  • So, let me get this right. You are wanting the state to issue state sponsored licenses to the people they deem worthy to protest, and only those who they deem worthy. The same state that the people are protesting against. And, on top of that, you want people to have to take a state-sponsored course on how to "correctly protest" according to the state they protesting against?


    edit on 4/9/2020 by Iamonlyhuman because: (no reason given)



    posted on Sep, 4 2020 @ 07:28 AM
    link   
    a reply to: TheRedneck

    Yaaay! More government!!!

    No thanks, Fed.



    posted on Sep, 4 2020 @ 08:22 AM
    link   
    a reply to: TheRedneck

    If it'll save just one life, then it'll be worth it.

    Just think of the children!




    posted on Sep, 4 2020 @ 09:33 AM
    link   
    Enforce existing laws. If it turns into a riot it should be treated as such. If local authorities decide to tell the police to stand down they should be arrested and held personally liable for everything that happens during said riot. No need for more laws when there are already laws on the books.



    posted on Sep, 4 2020 @ 09:34 AM
    link   
    When the 1st Amendment was written, I don't think the Founding Fathers had the concept of assault speech or words of war.



    posted on Sep, 4 2020 @ 09:42 AM
    link   
    This thread is hilarious because of the number of people who missed the point.



    posted on Sep, 4 2020 @ 11:06 AM
    link   
    a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar


    You're free to protest provided nobody sees it?

    Doesn't seem right.

    You're free to have a gun provided it is locked up and unloaded so it can't be used?

    Doesn't seem right.

    TheRedneck



    posted on Sep, 4 2020 @ 11:12 AM
    link   
    a reply to: blueman12


    If congress was going to pass a law to federally ban guns, would you want to go through a long backed-up process to get a protesting clearance so you can join a march on congress?

    But Congress has already banned some guns, and many are planning on banning more. I'm just thinking we might as well apply the present restrictions on guns to other rights, like protests.

    Is there something wrong with fair treatment?


    You're proposing draconian measures because of your dislike for what blm protests have become.

    While I do dislike the idea of people burning, looting, and murdering (Is that what BLM stands for now?), no, I haven't mentioned BLM. My proposal would conceivably do away with BLM protests though... if we can say a sawed-off shotgun is illegal, we can say that BLM protests are illegal.

    Fair is fair!

    TheRedneck




    top topics



     
    32
    << 1    3  4  5 >>

    log in

    join