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: 5
32
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2020 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Huh? All you're doing is mental gymnastics.

This thread is right wing propaganda "there is no peaceful protests."

If you have a felony on your record and you get arrested for any crime; theft, arson, destruction property etc based upon the state you'll face stricter penalties than compared to someone with a clean record. That's what happens in the United States, except black and brown people get shot and killed and white people are treated with dignity by the police.

So a person with a felony on their record going to a protest to cause destruction is putting themselves at risk for serious penalities. They would be pretty foolish to do so, unless the didn't give AF.

Anyone not being able to "protest" like a rock band Rage Against the Machine is un-American. We aren't Russia who threw P***y Riot in jail over a song. Protesting can be as simple as being black and braiding your hair and going to work. Or being gay and wearing a pink shirt to work.

You're redefining the word protest in this thread with Qanon illogic. Lame.




posted on Sep, 4 2020 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: THeGreaTZoiD

No, I am not advocating for gun control. I am comparing the right to protest to the right to keep and bear arms, and pointing out how similar restrictions on protesting would likely look like.

I am a proud arsenal owner.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 4 2020 @ 05:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: game over man
Protesting can be as simple as being black and braiding your hair and going to work. Or being gay and wearing a pink shirt to work.

You're redefining the word protest in this thread with Qanon illogic. Lame.

It's you that redefines it on the fly in the lines I quoted.

You can call that protesting but it's a silent protest nobody notices, so what is it worth other than stroking the ego and pretending it does make any difference to anyone because I braid my hair or wear a certain color.

That's not logical either.

Add: nor is it brave or anything.
edit on 4.9.2020 by ThatDamnDuckAgain because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2020 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Maybe restrict how many poster boards someone can buy in a month ?

Or maybe restrict how many words can be loaded into, I mean written on a sign at one time ?

Or maybe some kind of restriction on stuff that allows for quick sign changes? That way no one is quickly firing thru hateful messages in a rapid manner...

What if you have to show ID, and run thru a graffiti background check when purchasing Sharpies ?


There's a lot of things we could do !



posted on Sep, 4 2020 @ 05:47 PM
link   
@TheRedneck
I support the right to bear arms and also the right to protest.
Rioting and looting is not valid protest in my book, and is already illegal I would hope.
I think the recent violence and the defund the police thing illustrates the need for the 2nd Amendment. I was under the impression also that it had a more noble reason to exits, than just personal protection.

edit on 0000009054895America/Chicago04 by rom12345 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2020 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: CrawlingChaos
Silly you, you forgot that if the sign contains an "A" that has to be considered "assault". Especially when it looks "mean" and "intimidating".



posted on Sep, 4 2020 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: game over man


This thread is right wing propaganda "there is no peaceful protests."

Huh?

Martin Luther King Jr. held peaceful protests. Susan B. Anthony held peaceful protests. I watched for a while last night as there was a protest in Washington DC; what I saw looked peaceful enough (no idea what happened later on). You, on the other hand, are trying to claim something that simply isn't true: that anyone considered "right wing" is going to think like someone else who is "right wing."

It might interest you (or not) to know that I am actually a moderate... at least I was. In my youth I was considered "liberal." Today I am considered "conservative." I have not changed one single tenet of my beliefs in all that time. I still believe that people should be able to protest... I'm not going to listen to them if they become violent or cannot clearly describe a reasonable demand... but they can protest if they want. I believe in a social safety net... just not a social safety hammock full of holes under a drip. I am all for a better way to provide health care... someone show me one that will work. I believe in the right to own and carry a firearm... any firearm! If I want to carry a bazooka around, I should be allowed to... and every cop for miles around has every right to watch me like a hawk while I do it.

Tanks, even... although with road weight limits they might not be too useful unless things fall completely apart.

I actually support Trump because he is not "right wing." He's really a centrist. You guys defined "right wing," not me. I'm right where I have always been. I will push back harder the more politics strays from the common sense of pragmatic solutions instead of lofty, unobtainable, empty promises... but that's not because of politics. It's because I am human.

So please, continue to show your bias. You're only making every argument you make moot by trying to throw identity politics around.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 4 2020 @ 06:00 PM
link   
Unfortunately opportunistic criminals often use valid protests as cover.
I have a question,
If you protest and you don't get what you wan't, when is it ok to take up arms in order to get your way ?
I suppose it may be, by all means do so, but be prepared to get shot.

If every one gets a tank, the cops will need nukes.
I would love some recreational nukes.
edit on 0000009060296America/Chicago04 by rom12345 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2020 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Our right to protest is part of our Democracy. There is no right to riot or destroy property. People smart enough to tie their own shoes know the difference.



posted on Sep, 4 2020 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: game over man

"That's what happens in the United States, except black and brown people get shot and killed and white people are treated with dignity by the police."

So, for posterity, can you please post the statistics of police killings by race?

I mean the facts should back up your conjecture.

Also, protesting is not illegal and no one is being charged with protesting. However, the point of the thread is to draw lines between rights and equality between them.



posted on Sep, 4 2020 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Wow, looks like many folks need to calibrate their 'sarcasm sensors', based on reaction to this post!

I know it's meant to be tongue in cheek, but if there's one thing to take away from 2020, there needs to be better laws and enforcement around distinguishing 'peaceful protests' from violent anarchy.



posted on Sep, 4 2020 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

TR, we are past the time for needing COMMON SENSE PROTEST CONTROL

Because, save lives.



posted on Sep, 4 2020 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

Agreed

A few folks here need to locate their sarcasm/wit/sense of humor and look into reinstalling it



posted on Sep, 4 2020 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

It's astounding, how many people let this fly right over their heads.

I understood where he was going three or four sentences in.



posted on Sep, 5 2020 @ 03:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: THeGreaTZoiD

No, I am not advocating for gun control. I am comparing the right to protest to the right to keep and bear arms, and pointing out how similar restrictions on protesting would likely look like.

I am a proud arsenal owner.

TheRedneck


The point you were trying to make is onvious and one of the best anti-gun control arguments I've seen but half the hypothetical restrictions on protests you came up with already exist and are more severe than any proposed gun legislation. (safety, risk assesment, submitting applicatiion to local authority for approval, one months 'cooling off period' where a protest plan/permit must be registered, failure to comply is illegal and jailable offence, three or more causing unrest during a protest makes it legally a riot, heavy police presence, get maced, clubbed and shot with 'non lethal' rounds if a riot/illegal protest doesn't disperse and is common;y used against legal peaceful protests to antagonise crowds etc....deliberately allowing places to be damaged, burnt, looted with no police in sight yet mysteriously all the media are inside the targetted buildings ready to film the events before they happen (as the plans are posted on facebook by morons dumd enough to do that kind of thing)....



posted on Sep, 5 2020 @ 06:11 AM
link   
a reply to: bastion

The largest difference between gun control and protest control is the individuality of a firearm permit. With a protest, a group submits an application and that one permit covers anyone who shows up with a sign and a good set of lungs. Anyone can involve themselves at any time. There is no circumstance where a group can apply for a single firearms permit that covers everyone in that group, much less anyone who suddenly wishes to join in for the night.

My proposal called for individual permits to be able to protest for any reason, just like a firearm permit applies to an individual who carries a firearm for any reason. People tend to ignore group permits since there are leaders of these events who handle the paperwork; people do not tend to ignore individual permits because they have to take some action to become permitted themselves.

Example: if someone wants to stage a protest complaining about fried chicken in my town, and I am dead-set against fried chicken, all I need do is get a poster, write "DOWN WITH FRIED CHICKEN!" on in, and show up. I do not have to get the permit... the American League Against Fried Chicken (ALAFC) already did that. If someone wants to open a pistol target range and I want to join in to practice killing pieces of paper, I cannot just grab a gun and go to the target range to waste lead. I have to have a permit to carry that pistol to the target range. There are also limitations on what kind of pistol, how much ammunition I have, what kind of ammunition I have, as well as background checks and paperwork that has to be filled out to get the pistol in the first place. This is all in addition to the business license and ATF licensing required for the target range to open up in the first place.

A similar procedure for the protest would be that I had to have a background check conducted to buy the poster and markers, a special protester permit for myself in addition to the permit for the protest itself, and restrictions on the size of the signs, how loud I can chant my chants, how many letters I use on my sign, etc.

That would make the two comparable... and cause significant decreases in the amount of criminality that might occur as a result of the protests as the number of would-be criminals would be reduced. My question: is that worth it?

If it's not worth it for the right to protest, it is not worth it for the right to keep and bear arms.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 5 2020 @ 06:39 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I would most definitely protest a law requiring a permit to protest.

perhaps a permit if you want to bring a gun to a protest.

There are already laws to deal with criminals, they should be used.

The more laws say what you can't do, the less freedom exists.

I do agree that if a "Identified Group" stages a protest, they should be accountable for property damage.

So perhaps if you want to protest, you need 3rd party liability insurance,

Organic chaos is what happens when large crowds of angry people with out fail.
Permit or otherwise.

Testosterone mixed with adrenaline impedes impulse control.
mix in a few guns, and it's a foregone conclusion.




edit on 0000009065096America/Chicago05 by rom12345 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2020 @ 06:57 AM
link   
a reply to: rom12345


I would most definitely protest a law requiring a permit to protest.

perhaps a permit if you want to bring a gun to a protest.

Now, see, that is the confusing part. If one needs a permit to exercise one right, why does one not need a permit to exercise another? Is a right a right, or are rights different in your opinion? In my opinion, the very definition of a "right" is something that one is allowed to do without interference.

Add in that in the Constitution, the word "protest" does not appear. Not once. The right to protest is the right to assembly plus the right to redress the government for grievances. It is never enumerated specifically. The right to keep and bear arms is enumerated specifically.

So we have one right which is specifically enumerated which you say should be restricted, and another right that is not specifically mentioned at all which you say should not be restricted in any way. Both are accepted rights, and both have been shown to have the potential to cause death to innocent people. Why is one so different from the other in your opinion?

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 5 2020 @ 08:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: carewemust

No, no, we tried that with firearms. Stiffer sentences didn't do the job. We have to enact Protest Control! It's the only way! Besides, people protesting aren't the problem... it's the protests themselves! Unlicensed protests kill!

It's the only civilized way...

TheRedneck


Protests by thier very nature are supposed to be disruptive. That is the whole point no matter what country you look at. You have those whining against protests blocking the streets and sidewalks. So if a group of 5000 want to protest, how are you going to assemble them out in public where they are not in the way?

Well, some have suggested they protest inside a building, which is stupid because the whole idea is to bring it out in the open for everyone to see, not hidden away.

Also, having a license to protest is stupid. The issuer can just deny your license if they do not agree with the protest.

Imagine going to city hall where police hq usually is and asking for a permit to protest the police? You cannot even get a complaint form from some police without being harrasssed.

Making protests illegal without state consent is just giving the state and evil big government more power over our lives.



posted on Sep, 5 2020 @ 08:34 AM
link   
a reply to: jacobe001


Making protests illegal without state consent is just giving the state and evil big government more power over our lives.

Why does that not apply to other rights?

TheRedneck



new topics




 
32
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join