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.

 

Draw A Political Cartoon? - GO TO JAIL!

page: 1
8

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 11:51 PM
link   
Only in the land of the free and home of the brave.

What is bravery?

Infowars reports:


In the wake of the tragic Arizona shooting, Rep. Bob Brady (D-PA) says he plans to introduce a bill criminalizing the use of certain forms of threatening imagery against lawmakers and judges.

“You can’t threaten the president with a bullseye or a crosshair,” Brady told the New York Times. He explained to CNN that his bill would also ban symbols or language that threaten “a congressman, senator or federal judge.”

He was referring to a map published last year by Sarah Palin in which House Democrats were targeted for electoral defeat with crosshairs over their districts.


How about a bill that bans the State’s use of threats against innocent citizens instead.

How about a bill that makes taxes voluntary instead of mandatory.

How about a bill that allows private currencies to compete against the current Fed monopoly money and ends the use of violently imposed legal tender laws.

How about a bill that allows people to opt out of the violently funded State retirement ponzi scheme.

Watching the State’s sycophants running around like scared chickens over this event would almost be humorous if the consequences of their actions weren’t so heinous.




posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 01:38 AM
link   
I could almost see a bill like that pass these days.
Pretty sad statement there.
First it;'s no crosshairs then it's no religious figures or symbols, then it's blah blah blah.

Can only Art save us?
I wonder that on occasion.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 02:50 AM
link   
A clever artist could use this reaction to become famous. An exhibition of pictures of your favorite politicians framed in rope that is decorated with tar and feathers. Splatter them with blood for added shock value. That would be volunteering for some jail time there.

To quote Mr. D, my high school art teacher, "Projects were due yesterday!"
edit on 11-1-2011 by MichiganSwampBuck because: to add the quotation



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 03:04 AM
link   
So what, instead of gun imagery people could just use seltzer bottles(instead of guns) and cream filled pies(instead of explosives). Drive by seltzer'ings could be banned next!



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


This is definitely a concern. I think people in public should think long and hard about the possible consequences of the messages that they're putting out there, but to make it a law is entirely over the top and is an absolute violation of the First Amendment. Pictures don't incite by themselves. Without the power of a movement or person behind them, they are relatively meaningless. Sarah's cross hairs are harmless without her message of 'reloading' and her yippie ki-yay attitude against her opponents.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I didn't realize S. Palin was now publishing battle plans for the American Revolution 2.0. Only someone who is insane would take her political rhetoric as somehow meaning more than what it is. She just used common US gun culture slang to show that she is pro gun. The government is only making a fuss NOW because it shows them how easy it is to get at THEM even if you are totally bat nuts insane. Where is law to stop rappers from calling to its listeners to shoot the police? Where is the law to stop MSM pundits for calling for the death of whomever is in thier sights(assange anybody)? There is none, because they are not elites.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by LordBaskettIV
I didn't realize S. Palin was now publishing battle plans for the American Revolution 2.0.


I didn't either. DO you have a source on that?



Only someone who is insane would take her political rhetoric as somehow meaning more than what it is.


I disagree. I've seen a lot of talk even here on ATS about resorting to violence and I don't think those people are insane. They are upset, angry, afraid, and ready and willing to take action when the time comes. I have no doubt that this political atmosphere could lead to violence among perfectly sane people. And I mean more than bullets and rocks through windows.



She just used common US gun culture slang to show that she is pro gun.


Yes, I know. But does everyone understand that? I don't think so. And it's not just Sarah. It's the left and the right, battling it out for the win.


Where is law to stop rappers from calling to its listeners to shoot the police? Where is the law to stop MSM pundits for calling for the death of whomever is in thier sights(assange anybody)?


If this bill passes, that's next.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 10:33 AM
link   
While I do think that people with a large audience should chose their words and symbolism carefully, I do not think censorship is the answer.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   
I know you didn't mean that it was a battle plan, but that is how alot of people are acting. If people are scared,afraid,ect...that smells an awful lot like tyanny. Passing crap laws will do nothing to fix that. I would wager no tea partyer would even attack the gov due the fact that they had so much cash taken for SS. It would be a lose lose for them.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 12:18 PM
link   
The State always favors legislation that protects itself from the plebes.

Notice the bill is designed to protect politicians, not the common man.

Indeed all actions undertaken by the State are to protect the State (as an institution of theft) and not the people it loots from.

What is war other than two systems of theft in confrontation with each other.

War does not protect the people, it protects the State from usurpation.


edit on 11-1-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 12:32 PM
link   
I guess then this would extend to the use of the common phrase: "I have you in my crosshairs".

I'm not sure what I find more disgusting -- politicians using this tragedy to further curtail and control our rights or the people on this site and others that are helping them do it.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by lpowell0627
 


It is certainly disturbing that people view violence as a proper means to an end.

As Tom Delay said: “Just because somebody disagrees with you they got to put you in jail, bankrupt you, destroy your family,” he said." - just before he was hauled off to prison.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   
This should not pass. I don't think even 10 more Jared Loughner's can get us to that point. I think the american public is ignorent of a lot of things, but they won't let such an extreme violation of free speach come to pass.... yet.

If it does happen, it will be under the radar. We won't know about it until some law enforcement agency uses it to get a warrant or wiretap someone. Possibly, it may already exist.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by DINSTAAR
 


What the American people think about this is fairly immaterial.

We have a kleptocracy running our government that has no compunction about destroying freedom.

Such henious legislation has already been passed and put into law previously in our nations history - several times over.

I have no doubt that such legislation would pass again if given the chance.

The State looks out for itself.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I still think that the people in the US are smart enough not to allow something like this to pass in thewide open.

They are, however, not smart enough to realize its happening when it happens under the radar and do not possess the balls to change it after the fact.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 02:27 AM
link   
The "Freedom Of Expression" and "Freedom Of The Press" clause in The 1st clearly allows for this and to incarceraite people on doing nothing more then a sketch infringies highly upon the Constitution.

Hook, line, sinker, SUNK!



new topics

top topics



 
8

log in

join