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: 6
32
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2020 @ 08:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: TheRedneck

This sounds like a direct road towards literal fascism... unless there's some sort of sarcasm going on?


Agreed.
The Freedom to Protest is a cornerstone of Freedom of Speech.
If the OP wants to go down this road, then we can attack Freedom of Speech from other avenues, like political donations, lobbying, and so on.




posted on Sep, 5 2020 @ 08:39 AM
link   
What needs to be controlled is the MSM - Marxist Stalinist Media.

And to do that you have to look at who's pulling them strings ...
Till then the ignorant emotionally unstable will be gamed.

WAKE UP who you can , and take note of those who can't pull out of this media induced Marxist revolution


Support Law & Order
God Bless America
Godspeed to ALL

edit on 952020 by MetalThunder because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2020 @ 08:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
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



What good does a hidden protest do?
Perhaps those that disagree with protests would rather the 1000+ protesters hold them out in the desert so they are out of sight, out of mind and not in anyones way?



posted on Sep, 5 2020 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Yes and no. If a person has failed to look up whether the correct paperwork has been completed they're still indivdually liable for arrest; ignorance of the law/legal situation isn't a defence. You can't just turn up at any time and do what you want, if a protest isn't static or your individual actions break the rights granted in the group permit you'd be criminally liable as an indiviual while the organisers would face huge fines.

Fried Chicken is a multi-billion pound industry in America with chains like KFC worldwide and employs hundreds of thousands of people. Protesting Fried Chicken would likely harm their profits and in turn harm national defence (a strong economy) and national security is one of the many criteria under which protests are regulated and banned in America. The DoD is currently spying on and running background checks on anyone attending current BLM/police reform protests be they legal or illegal protests under this clause.




edit on 5-9-2020 by bastion because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2020 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
No, no, no... no one panic! We're not coming after your protests! Everyone has an absolute right to protest! I support that right!

But... come on, man... how many deaths have we seen lately from protesters? I mean, really, the whole point of a protest is to get rowdy, right? And rowdy people wind up hurting other people needlessly. All I am saying is we need to use some common sense measures to protect the innocent. So here's what I am suggesting:
  • 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.
  • 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.

Wait... what's that you say? It's your right to protest? Of course it is! No one is challenging that. But rights aren't absolute either. We can put reasonable restrictions on rights... and we even have a precedent! The right to keep and bear arms is a right as well, but we have these common sense restrictions on that:
  • If you carry a firearm outside of your home, you must be licensed to do so.
  • A firearm license comes with a background check. If someone has been convicted of a violent crime, that person should not be allowed to carry a firearm in open public so they don't get a license.
  • Obviously felons shouldn't be carrying firearms, so felons are denied a firearm license.
  • I think a person who wishes to carry a firearm should take a state-sponsored course in how to safely and correctly use a firearm. The firearm license should not be issued until that course is passed.
  • We have a 73 hour cooling off period for firearm purchases.

Yeah, I get it... we need those common sense restrictions for firearm safety. We also apparently need them for protest safety. We've had far too many people killed during protests lately, so we have to take these common sense measures to ensure that more people are not killed protesting.

So who's with me? We need Protest Control, and we need it now!

TheRedneck


I always wondered how it gets to the level it does?

They must be well aware of the groups movements. But when the destruction and assaults start the cops are no where to be found.

They actually stay on the side line and watch, like his is being let to happen. Very strange



posted on Sep, 5 2020 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

A right is something that should not need a permit to execute, otherwise it is a right in name only.
needing a permit, means that the right is not your own.
a right should not require payment.

otherwise you only have the right to get a permit at the behest of the state, which run inverse to a constitution for 'the people'

That law enforcement are not able to carry out their mandate, should not bring into question the rights of a citizen.
Unless by constitutional amendment,
good luck with that.

i don't think requiring a permit of competence for owning a dangerous object, impedes the right to do so.
It protects the right to safety for others if your misadventures get out of hand.

rights and privileges are inverse concepts

edit on 0000009010091America/Chicago05 by rom12345 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2020 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: rom12345


needing a permit, means that the right is not your own.
a right should not require payment.

i don't think requiring a permit of competence for owning a dangerous object, impedes the right to do so.

Do you honestly not see the hypocrisy between those two statements? "A right doesn't need a permit, but this right needs to use permits"?


It protects the right to safety for others if your misadventures get out of hand.

There seems to be quite a lot of people losing that right to safety lately over "protests" getting out of hand and turning into riots.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 5 2020 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I agree with your sentiment, but not your interpretation of what a right is.

The 'protesters' that were breaking the law need to be brought to book, with existing laws.
"Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done." - R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy

I do think it would be civil for a protest group to get permission to use public spaces in the execution of their right to protest, it projects the correct intention.

Civil disobedience is ok, Civil unrest most time about 'f*ck' your rules.
Civil unrest is pushing it.
Looting and Rioting is obviously way out of hand, it is criminal.
Civil war, is when civilians try to over throw the state, or form opposing armed militia, which is sometimes justified.

All on the table, not fun.

"What we've got here is failure to communicate" - Cool Hand Luke.

edit on 0000009051195America/Chicago05 by rom12345 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2020 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: rom12345


"What we've got here is failure to communicate" - Cool Hand Luke.

I do believe that is accurate.

Personally, I believe that no rights should be restricted to any kind of governmental approval, aka permitting process. A right is a right. My point in this thread is that we have strayed already from that philosophy. It is therefore disingenuous to say that what we have now is OK, but we're going to change the rules now so we can stop any interference in this right just because we accepted interference in that right.

There are only two possibilities I can accept: either all rights are subject to permitting and restriction, or no rights are subject to permitting and restriction. I will simply not accept that one right is and another isn't... that idea would be seen as unjust by a 5 year old! So we need to either accept that gun restrictions should be loosened or accept that protest restrictions must be tightened. There is no other reasonable alternative.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 5 2020 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck
At the end of the day, governments decide what is and isn't a right and how inalienable each one is.

You can refuse to accept it until you are blue in the face but that isn't going to change the reality before us.



posted on Sep, 5 2020 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: jacobe001


What good does a hidden protest do?

About as much good as an unloaded gun behind lock and key does.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 5 2020 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik


At the end of the day, governments decide what is and isn't a right and how inalienable each one is.

I disagree. My rights come from God, not from any government. That's what founding the US was all about. That was the Great Experiment.

Governments interfere with rights, using force. A government unrestrained can stop the free exercise of rights, but they can never remove them. Tale away my ability to speak, and I'll still have the right to speak. Take away my ability to protest, and I'll still have the right to protest. Take away my ability to defend myself, and I'll still have the right to defend myself.

When we give a government the right to give and take rights as they choose, we truly give up our rights.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 5 2020 @ 09:25 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck
Your rights come from being alive. If "they" put an end to that, your rights end.

People would prefer that not to happen so they give them up, it also allows them to live in the society they want to live in.

Once in that situation, gov defines what those rights are and how each one can be restricted. That is where you are, like it or not.



edit on 5-9-2020 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2020 @ 10:55 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik


Your rights come from being alive.

That's another way of putting it, agreed.


People would prefer that not to happen so they give them up, it also allows them to live in the society they want to live in.

Once in that situation, gov defines what those rights are and how each one can be restricted. That is where you are, like it or not.

That may be where you are. I still have my rights. I have lived a long, full life and I am not afraid to die. If government wants my rights, they'll have to take them all... and pay the associated price.

People give up their rights to government, agreed. Some give them up for simple convenience; some, like you say, out of fear of death. Please don't try to place me in either category.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 5 2020 @ 11:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
No, no, no... no one panic! We're not coming after your protests! Everyone has an absolute right to protest! I support that right!

But... come on, man... how many deaths have we seen lately from protesters? I mean, really, the whole point of a protest is to get rowdy, right? And rowdy people wind up hurting other people needlessly. All I am saying is we need to use some common sense measures to protect the innocent. So here's what I am suggesting:
  • 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.
  • 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.

Wait... what's that you say? It's your right to protest? Of course it is! No one is challenging that. But rights aren't absolute either. We can put reasonable restrictions on rights... and we even have a precedent! The right to keep and bear arms is a right as well, but we have these common sense restrictions on that:
  • If you carry a firearm outside of your home, you must be licensed to do so.
  • A firearm license comes with a background check. If someone has been convicted of a violent crime, that person should not be allowed to carry a firearm in open public so they don't get a license.
  • Obviously felons shouldn't be carrying firearms, so felons are denied a firearm license.
  • I think a person who wishes to carry a firearm should take a state-sponsored course in how to safely and correctly use a firearm. The firearm license should not be issued until that course is passed.
  • We have a 73 hour cooling off period for firearm purchases.

Yeah, I get it... we need those common sense restrictions for firearm safety. We also apparently need them for protest safety. We've had far too many people killed during protests lately, so we have to take these common sense measures to ensure that more people are not killed protesting.

So who's with me? We need Protest Control, and we need it now!

TheRedneck


They should implement that for posting stuff online.



posted on Sep, 5 2020 @ 11:36 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Seems to me you don't understand what that situation is.

Every law that you follow because of the inconvenience of fines and/or incarceration puts you in the same boat.

Just because some actions have been given importance and slapped with a label that reads "rights" doesn't change the fact that they can and are being restricted unevenly. Your opinion about them and whether they should all be permitted or restricted equally doesn't amount to a hill of beans when policy is actually being formed.

That is the reality I was talking about. Keep on disagreeing all you want. Keep setting up that strawman about "you and your rights". Makes no difference.
edit on 5-9-2020 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2020 @ 11:59 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik


Every law that you follow because of the inconvenience of fines and/or incarceration puts you in the same boat.

Not really. For example, I do not have a right to drive a car on the highway. I don't own the highway. That is a privilege, so I abide by the laws enacted to maintain order... and yes, to avoid paying a fine. On the other hand, the seat belt law has nothing to do with maintaining order on the highway, and I do not abide by it.

That law interferes with my right to keep myself as safe as possible. I believe I am safer without the belt than with it because I pay close attention to the road.

As a matter of fact, the only law that I do comply with that interferes with my human rights is the one about carrying a pistol. I do have a permit for that, despite it being an inconvenience and expense. I justify it by telling myself that it is to keep any cops who stop me from freaking out and getting one of us hurt... not sure if that's mental gymnastics or not. I do understand that a permit is the only way to try and keep felons from walking around armed.

The mask mandate? Nope, haven't worn one yet. I did try one for a couple of minutes, and it had severe consequences to my ability to walk. So no mask. If I am challenged, I just say "medical exemption." I had a recent MRI where they were pretty adamant about me using a mask. They finally explained that using a mask reduced the amount of area they needed to wipe down after a visit, and offered to let me use a face shield. That worked OK.

People don't seem to understand what a right is and is not. Precious little that one does off of their own property, with the sole exception of self-defense/survival, is a right. It can't be; one is using someone else's property. Smoking ordinances are a good example. I cannot smoke in someone else's property without their consent. But as long as I am in my car, that is my property and I have designated it a smoking-permitted area. Good luck telling me I can't smoke there!

So I really don't know which rights and laws you are referring to...

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 6 2020 @ 12:19 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

What's with the Umbrellas, during this Summer of Love display in Manhattan this weekend?

ANTIFA-BLM Short Clip: twitter.com...



posted on Sep, 6 2020 @ 12:20 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck
No, people don't agree with you on what a right is and is not. Some of those people are the ones making policy and that is why you disagree with the policies they enact.

Around 230 years ago a group of people decided to say keeping and bearing arms was a right, that is what the thread is ultimately about. Since then, that right has been demoted to a privilege. If you are a felon then that privilege is revoked.

If you are still above room temp you can still get one and carry it around. You can also get, carry and use other illegal substances, does that mean possession/use of these things is a right?

Is it just the label that government gave to something that makes it a right? Are they really all equal, as you have argued? Apparently not. At least not outside of your opinion. That is reality before us that you just refuse to accept. It makes no difference if you agree or not.



posted on Sep, 6 2020 @ 01:04 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik


No, people don't agree with you on what a right is and is not.

I wouldn't paint with such a broad brush... I'm sure I'm not alone in those beliefs.

I'm also sure not everyone agrees with me.


Around 230 years ago a group of people decided to say keeping and bearing arms was a right, that is what the thread is ultimately about. Since then, that right has been demoted to a privilege. If you are a felon then that privilege is revoked.

Interesting hypothesis, but it really doesn't jibe with the realities of life at the time. There were no Walmarts, you know, no grocery stores at all really. People needed to procure food, and that requires some type of arms. Therefore the right to keep and bear arms was in one sense a matter of survival.

In addition, the colonists had just had their freedoms threatened by an oppressive government. They fought off this oppressive government with the use of arms. I seriously doubt they would have prevailed had their only defense been sticks and rocks. Ergo, they enumerated the right to keep and bear arms also as a method of preserving other rights if necessary.

Finally, the colonists were faced with wild animals that also shared this continent with them, some of which had no real issue eating a colonist or two. Arms were the main source of self-defense against such attacks; therefore the right to keep and bear arms is a necessary complement to the right to survival. Over time, the number of four-legged critters that present an issue has admittedly dropped, but the number of two-legged critters one needs defense from has risen quite appreciably.

"Arms" does not mean "guns." "Arms" means "weapons," and especially long-range weaponry. Bows and arrows are arms; a sufficently powerful slingshot could be considered an arm. Bombs are arms. Tanks are arms. Guns are only one small group of arms, but one which has shown great promise in fulfilling the needs arms fill in society.

So yes, in a society where others may possess arms, I have the right to possess arms sufficient to protect me from any expected threat. That is a condition of the contract which gives the US government the privilege of governing. If that right is abridged, the government may morally be overthrown and replaced, as they have broken the contract which gives them their power.

Incidentally, it also my right, as long as it does not interfere with the rights of others (aka, I am at home), to use mind-altering substances (I should state here that I do not do such, by choice, with the exception of an occasional PBR). Thus my position on the War on Drugs, that it is an unconstitutional exercise that needs to be rescinded. I have a feeling you would agree with me on that position, and I find it strange that you do not arrive at such a conclusion based on human rights. It certainly is a human rights issue.

TheRedneck




top topics



 
32
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join