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: 7
32
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2020 @ 01:37 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck
No broad brush. It only applies to those who don't agree. Some might even partially agree.

I wasn't talking about the inclusion of that right at that time. I was talking about its demotion to privilege over time and that is an example of a right not being set in stone. Seems like some others have changed as well.


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).

Why would it interfering with someone else's rights have any bearing on it being your right or not?

While in your philosophical approach to a discussion of rights you can point out many "rights", they are not treated as such by the reality before us. In the end they are just a label you stuck on them and hold in high regard.
edit on 6-9-2020 by daskakik because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 6 2020 @ 01:40 AM
link   
Protest control is against our constitution. Pest control isn't.



posted on Sep, 6 2020 @ 06:51 AM
link   
No, sounds like you want big government rules and policies everywhere to solve an issue for you. It will be good until it’s bad, and then it would be terrible. How do you stop a kid who’s having a tantrum? You don’t just ban tantrums... you talk about why they are wrong to be acting this way and why they are of the wrong opinion. You teach error of ways. And yes, you have the biggest stick being the adult in the room.

Didn’t think you’d be calling for such leftist beaurocratic type rules.
a reply to: TheRedneck


edit on 6-9-2020 by Rob808 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2020 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik


I wasn't talking about the inclusion of that right at that time. I was talking about its demotion to privilege over time and that is an example of a right not being set in stone. Seems like some others have changed as well.

And that is the real issue, which is what I have been trying to point out. Rights have been interfered with by government, with the approval of far too many people, for some time now. By doing so, that opens the door to other rights being interfered with. If one right can be minimized, so can all others.

The right to keep and bear arms has certainly been infringed upon. So why cannot the right to protest be infringed upon? Because someone doesn't want it to be? A lot of people don;t want the right to keep and ber arms to be infringed upon either.

People need to wake up to the reality of what is happening to freedom. As you said previously, government can interfere with the free exercise of rights... as long as people allow it.


Why would it interfering with someone else's rights have any bearing on it being your right or not?

Because all humans are equal. All humans have rights. A right cannot negate the rights of others.

A good example is the supposed right to healthcare. No one has that right, because it requires someone else to treat them. That negates the provider's right to freedom. Is it a good idea to have universal healthcare? Sure (assuming someone can show me a plan that works), but it's not a right.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 6 2020 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Rob808


No, sounds like you want big government rules and policies everywhere to solve an issue for you.

Actually, I am just trying to make everything fair. Why is the right to protest different from other rights?

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 6 2020 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
And that is the real issue, which is what I have been trying to point out. Rights have been interfered with by government, with the approval of far too many people, for some time now.



A good example is the supposed right to healthcare. No one has that right, because it requires someone else to treat them. That negates the provider's right to freedom. Is it a good idea to have universal healthcare? Sure (assuming someone can show me a plan that works), but it's not a right.

This is the real issue, people disagreeing on what is and isn't a right.

You are applying your criteria and others apply theirs.

My analysis, being as objective as I can be, is that within society they are all privileges with some being given more importance in the tug of war between the people and government and the 2nd and healthcare being perfect examples of that.

200+ years ago the right to keep and bear arms was important enough to give it the "right" label. Over time that has changed.

Today, healthcare, among others, are being argued as important enough to carry the label of a "right".

You can still continue to believe that there is some set of rights that humans are born with but that doesn't really seem to be the case because the rights they have depends on the society they are born into and that is the reality before them.

Your argument is merely philosophical.



posted on Sep, 6 2020 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Rights are those things that all free men can do to protect themselves, their prosperity, and their freedom. Rights cannot infringe upon another's rights.

That's really all there is to say. That was the definition when the Constitution was written, and that is the definition still used today. You can argue with it all day long, but that is what a right is.

The redefining of terms is the single greatest threat to freedom and liberty that has ever existed, and you have fallen into that trap. Next year, blue could mean green... up could mean left... rectangle could mean circle. It doesn't change what each one is; words are simply labels we give to things.

What you are doing with words is what used to be done by shoplifters to price tags: they would find a price tag for a cheap item that was loose, pull it off, and then stick it over the price tag on an expensive item. At checkout, more often than not the clerk would never notice and the shoplifter just bought a $100 item for $1.99.

It was dishonest then; it is dishonest now.

I realize that this is not your idea... this has been programmed into you over the years. I only hope that you will someday wake up to what is actually going on before it is too late to do anything about it. Maybe, just maybe, you won't find yourself in some grudgery making barely enough to eat and giving most of what you make back to the government you are working for... a peasant, owned and operated by the state.

Read some history: that has been the primary form of control of people for the vast majority of human life on the planet. Don't think it can't happen again.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 6 2020 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

There you go preaching your beliefs on what rights are. Others disagree. That is the reality before you.

I'm actually a bit of a romantic and like your take on rights but I'm also a realist. "My idea" isn't the one that was programmed into me growing up, that "rights are god given", or the one that says "people should be cared for from the cradle to the grave".

The idea that I put out in this thread is mine and that is that rights are an amorphous ideal that differ from person to person and, that despite sounding nice, don't really exist in the real world power struggle between a populace and their government.

You appeal to authority, the FF and the Constitution and BOR. Others appeal to pulling of heartstrings with hardship cases. I'm not buying into either of those 2 things or even saying one is right and the other wrong. They have both been/are being used to control people. I'm pointing out the mechanics behind both of those veneers. I have no vested interest in either of them.



posted on Sep, 6 2020 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik


There you go preaching your beliefs on what rights are.

And there you go redefining.

Look, we're never going to agree on this. I live in a reality where words and ideas have set definitions. You live in one where definitions are fluid. Those two are simply not compatible, and yours cannot exist in an orderly society. The very basis of contract law is that the contract exists and does not change meaning. Otherwise, there is no contractual obligation and no one progresses.

Good luck with the redefinitions. I'll stand my ground.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 6 2020 @ 06:25 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck
The sad part is that I'm not doing the redefining.

I'm just pointing out that the redefining is happening, much to your chagrin, and that no matter how firm you stand your ground, it isn't going to make a difference.

That is the reality you live in which, apparently, you think refusing to accept is going to change.



posted on Sep, 7 2020 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Hah. You want us to believe that.

Redefining will not happen. You won't legislate redefine or vote away our rights. I promise you that.

Over my dead contorted body.

There are no number of lives, money or anything more valuable than our rights. I'd sacrifice every antiamerican to preserve them

If you truly believe that, might as well prepare for total war and get this over with.
edit on 9/7/2020 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2020 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

It has already happened. I hear people claim the 2nd has been infringed upon. Others say freedom of speech is being infringed upon. I'm sure there are more/similar gripes out there.

I don't have to prepare for anything. I don't care one way or the other. I'm just pointing out that this has/is happening.



posted on Sep, 7 2020 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

I don't mean you as in you're donig it, I mean if you want to preserve what we've got and prevent "them" from doing this.

Which I highly support and encourage


If you "don't care" about the infringement of civil rights, how is this any different from those who stood by and watched the rise of Hitler?
edit on 9/7/2020 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2020 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
If you "don't care" about the infringement of civil rights, how is this any different from those who stood by and watched the rise of Hitler?

Some of it has already happened. Many stood by and watched, including you.



posted on Sep, 7 2020 @ 02:08 PM
link   
"We have the right to peacefully assemble," shouted over the sound of breaking glass on a backdrop of burning buildings.

Your right to assemble ended when the first stone was thrown. My right to shoot you in the face began when you threw that stone at me.



posted on Sep, 9 2020 @ 04:43 AM
link   
Im not giving it any special status like you’re claiming, im just not advocating for a ruling body to issue a permit or whatever because of my political opponents using protests to behave badly. You listed off a lot of rules you think we should have, it looks like you’re pro big govt pure and simple. I don’t think giving the government power to continually limit my rights is something that’s very conservative, I’ll hold my original position. Blown away you’re compromising your values or perhaps you’ve just misrepresented yourself. I’m sure joe will appreciate your support if he can just remember for what...

a reply to: TheRedneck


edit on 9-9-2020 by Rob808 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2020 @ 07:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Rob808


Im not giving it any special status like you’re claiming, im just not advocating for a ruling body to issue a permit or whatever because of my political opponents using protests to behave badly.

Then you are giving the right to protest superior status over the right to keep and bear arms. Both are rights; both can be dangerous to others if abused, but only one is allowed to be permitted and tightly controlled according to you.

Can you not put together a reasonable argument as to why the right to keep and bear arms is so highly regulatable but the right to protest is so sacred and untouchable? Name-calling doesn't count; I have been called a flaming liberal many many times already, to my face, not by someone unable to argue their case on the Internet. Show me the difference between the right to keep and bear arms and the right to protest that allows them to be treated so differently.


I don’t think giving the government power to continually limit my rights is something that’s very conservative, I’ll hold my original position. Blown away you’re compromising your values or perhaps you’ve just misrepresented yourself.

I have always been for equal treatment under the law, and that is exactly what i am advocating. Your position is that some rights are more precious than others; mine is that all rights should be treated as equally important and subject to the same restrictions. You can claim equality under the law is somehow "anti-conservative" all you want, but I see it as quite conservative. More important, I consider it a basic tenet of my beliefs.


I’m sure joe will appreciate your support if he can just remember for what...

Joe can't remember anything. Joe has dementia.

TheRedneck







 
32
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join