Goodbye, First Amendment: ‘Trespass Bill’ will make protest illegal

page: 2
59
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by GD21D
 


I'll give you that now. There are a lot of things that have been passed lately that are very questionable. The ability to call anyone a Enemy Combatant and lock them up indefinitely for example without legal representation I might add. That is one loaded law right there. I mean you, myself, or anyone on ATS could be deemed undesirable by the government and poof we vanish with 0 legal rights? That is way more scary then this in my humble opinion. Like you said these are laws that aren't a threat now, but very well could be in the future. Further reason to do something about it before we lose all our rights. The 1st step to change in all this is to put an end to the 2 Party Dominance of the White House. Dems and Reps need to go. It's high time we elect a Independent to remind them they can lose.




posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by jrkelly77
 

It does give you a bad feeling.

When leaders cannot freely mingle among citizens for fear of being killed or being made a joke of, they will soon become so detached from normal citizen life that they'll be living in a different world.

How can they lead a people that they do not understand and do not live with?

I've also heard that about 40% of congressmen are millionaires. Yet, only 8% of the population are millionaires. So we have a situation where a disproportionate number of our leaders are .. not representative. How many congressmen have served in the military? How many US presidents?

I get the feeling that the bottom half of this country is increasingly alien to the leadership.

Look at Rome. Rome collapsed because of infighting and... barbarians. How is that related? Well, no offense, but I'm comparing the bottom half of the country to barbarians. Not in a bad way, but only to demonstrate that if the bottom half of the country is not represented fairly then ... the fall of Rome? In our globalized world, the peasant labor could be from another country. But what about the peasant workers in your own country? Should you ignore them in favor of the peasants that live elsewhere? To what end?

Sorry for losing focus and going off topic. But there's a pattern to all this, it seems.
edit on 28-2-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Okay, what am I missing here? I went and read the summary of the bill and this deals with the White House or where the President and Vice President may appear or be for a period of time. Additionally, it covers national security events like the Super Bowl, World Series or similar national, high profile and high value type events.

Where is the problem?


Hmm, well...I think the problem might lie in the amendment, which doesn't link from the main bill properly, and I am already damn suspicious about that.


Sec. 1752. Restricted building or grounds

`(a) Whoever--

`(1) knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so;

`(2) knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;

`(3) knowingly, and with the intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds; or

`(4) knowingly engages in any act of physical violence against any person or property in any restricted building or grounds;

or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).

`(b) The punishment for a violation of subsection (a) is--

`(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if--

`(A) the person, during and in relation to the offense, uses or carries a deadly or dangerous weapon or firearm; or

`(B) the offense results in significant bodily injury as defined by section 2118(e)(3); and

`(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in any other case.

`(c) In this section--

`(1) the term `restricted buildings or grounds' means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area--

`(A) of the White House or its grounds, or the Vice President's official residence or its grounds;

`(B) of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting; or

`(C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance; and

`(2) the term `other person protected by the Secret Service' means any person whom the United States Secret Service is authorized to protect under section 3056 of this title or by Presidential memorandum, when such person has not declined such protection.'.


Thomas.gov



If people are going to get so mad about an issue as to take it to the streets and up in their faces, I'll be damned if they are going to not only look the other way, but fine the crap out of you and put you in prison for ten years.

No. Just no. F*** them.
edit on Tue Feb 28th 2012 by TrueAmerican because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by jrkelly77


Hours after the act passed, presidential candidate Rick Santorum was granted Secret Service protection. For the American protester, this indeed means that glitter-bombing the former Pennsylvania senator is officially a very big no-no



Where did you derive the quote above? You provided no link to it.

Also, has anyone bothered to go to the source (i.e., the actual bill in the House and the engrossed Senate Amendments) to see what they were about? Or do we all take for fact what others tell us?



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 09:33 PM
link   
what truly worries me is the amount of bills decreasing our rights that have been passed in a short amount of time add to that the fact that most american citizens are nothing more than couch potato, TV watching, chip munching, pill popping zombies who rarely pay attention to the world around them well it doesn't bode well for us in my opinion.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


The quote is in the article i posted the link for which is at the bottom of the page sorry.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by GD21D
reply to post by Phantom28804
 
In all honesty I don't think protesting really does anything. Does anyone really think standing outside with some signs really touches these guys? What I'm trying to say is it's vague wording that can be interpreted any way they want. It's not what they're doing now, it's where will it end. Slowly but surely stripping those rights.


I agree, with what was said by GD21D. I've come to believe that traditional protesting at times only gives negative press to the very thing you are protesting for, which defeats the purpose. The best form of protesting is probably your vote. However, the bigger problem is the 2 party system we have currently.

There's been some protesting that led to positive change lately, such as the Komen controversy and SOPA, but from what I remember another version of SOPA/PIPA was introduced. Although, I can't remember if that reworked bill was only introduced in England and not the US. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

I'm interested to see for what purpose this law was introduced and how it will be applied. I don't see this as a conspiracy, more of a law that can be abused by corrupt politicians to aid their political agendas.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican


`(b) The punishment for a violation of subsection (a) is--

`(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if--

`(A) the person, during and in relation to the offense, uses or carries a deadly or dangerous weapon or firearm; or

`(B) the offense results in significant bodily injury as defined by section 2118(e)(3); and

`(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in any other case.



Are you willfully missing the clause? 10 years would only apply to persons attempting bodily harm or enters such buildings (i.e., Federal Court House, The House, the Senate, etc. -- even taking it further; if Secret Service is running a joint operation with the FAA during a Presidential visit and a nut job shows up) it isn't a blanket statement that you have portrayed.



If people are going to get so mad about an issue as to take it to the streets and up in their faces, I'll be damned if they are going to not only look the other way, but fine the crap out of you and put you in prison for ten years.

No. Just no. F*** them.


Heck yeah fine you and charge you if you enter a public building with the intent to injury. Or does that fall under the Right to Peaceably Assemble to some?!
edit on 28-2-2012 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)
edit on 28-2-2012 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Phantom28804
 
That's what I'm saying. There comes a point when you have to draw a line in the sand and say "that's it". Or these guys are going to keep doing what they're doing. It's like a kid with a lax parent, the kid will keep pushing it and pushing it. At some point the parent has to take a stance and say it's enough. If they don't they'll end up with a delinquent kid because the parent never set any boundaries. Has any of the protesting changed anything? The debt ceiling continues to be raised, the Fed still operates with impunity, and they continue to pass any legislation they want regardless of what the citizens want. I could go on and on.The real question people should be asking is, how do we set the boundaries at this point? How do we make the consequences really mean something?



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by GD21D
 


That is a good question and something that is very hard at this stage in the game. We have been allowing them to strip our rights more and more for decades. Not just allowing but inviting them to take a bigger role in our lives. Things should have never been allowed to go this far.

I don't really know how to change things at this point. I do know that we need to do something. Lets face it if everyone in America were to say no they couldn't really ignore us anymore. The problem is there is a small majority in this country that like the way things are and aren't gonna give it up easily. Nothing in life is really easy, but at the same time it's not impossible either.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by GD21D
reply to post by Phantom28804
 
Yeah man, I completely understand what you're saying. Furthermore I agree. In all honesty I don't think protesting really does anything. Does anyone really think standing outside with some signs really touches these guys? What I'm trying to say is it's vague wording that can be interpreted any way they want. It's not what they're doing now, it's where will it end. Slowly but surely stripping those rights.


I highly disagree a simple protest could always lead to a full blown riot/revolution
edit on 28-2-2012 by CaLyps0 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by CaLyps0
 
Maybe a revolution is what's needed. It's obvious that peaceably assembling isn't working anyway. Violence isn't always the best option, but it's still an option.

edit on 28-2-2012 by GD21D because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by GD21D
 


Of course its needed. America is lacking men with a set of balls

Where all the real men who will use their arms against these tyrants in control

It pisses me off to watch my country fall
And to see no real physical resistance from so called patriots


I thought we had militias to protect us...
edit on 28-2-2012 by CaLyps0 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by jrkelly77
 


Im not sure why the Government is wasting its time on legislation that will be thrown out by the courts on constitutional grounds, especially when it comes to protests.

What it looks like to me, at least maybe the intent, was to allow Federal law Enforcement to enforce trespassing issues that are normally under local ordinances. Unless there is some type of joint task force, Federal Law enforcement cannot enforce local or state laws, and local / state law enforcement cannot enforce federal law.

The targeting of people who enter government buildings and interrupt proceedings makes sense to an extent, which is to say what we saw in Minnesota (or Wisconsin im drawing a blank) where they protested over the school union issues is fine with me. What occurred in Oakland where the City hall was ransacked and vandalized would be where I am fine with making arrests on those who are actively destroying.

Either or I see court challenges coming from it, and rightfully so.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by GD21D
reply to post by CaLyps0
 
Maybe a revolution is what's needed. It's obvious that peaceably assembling isn't working anyway.



Maybe you should move to redressing your Government rather than standing around peaceably? Revolution takes place ever time we elect new leaders (though we could argue that most are one in the same and would get no where since I detect we would agree).



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 10:07 PM
link   


Of course its needed. America is lacking men with a set of balls Where all the real men who will use their arms against these tyrants in control
reply to post by CaLyps0
 


Or Women with giant balls lol we need all need to step up to the plate and start showing are government that they are suppose to represent us and our well being not corporations and themselves!



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Im not sure why the Government is wasting its time on legislation that will be thrown out by the courts on constitutional grounds, especially when it comes to protests.


I am still unsure where people are deriving protests from this. Can you show me where in 18 USC Section 1752 that is directed at protests?


What it looks like to me, at least maybe the intent, was to allow Federal law Enforcement to enforce trespassing issues that are normally under local ordinances. Unless there is some type of joint task force, Federal Law enforcement cannot enforce local or state laws, and local / state law enforcement cannot enforce federal law.


To me it seems of a bit of clarification in regards to certain situations. Such as the President visits a local school and a person or persons show up and impede the event by actually disrupting the event. Not just protesting outside, but willfully trying to cause.



Either or I see court challenges coming from it, and rightfully so.


On what grounds?



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Ya know what... Thank you for asking that. After rereading the article and checking out HR 347 2 things jumped out at me.

1 - HR 347 clarifies 18 USC 1752.
2 - HR 347 was passed in February - 2011.

My apologies for not digging deeper into the article and checking the source it came from (RT)



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Phantom28804
 
I have to agree with you and wrabbit, on this one. As much as I hate needless laws/bills, this one is a big *meh*.
My home state is Utah. If my Tea Party cronies and I want to protest DC we don't fly to DC, we make enough noise in Utah to get DC to listen.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 10:37 PM
link   
They keep pushing people into a box mark't Terrorist.
will it be any suprise when the have Nothing to lose.
they turn into Real Terrorist!

they are making you Slaves.
mostly slaves in your mineds.
its not ATS that needs help.
it the rest out their.

p.s. dont trust ATS.





new topics

top topics



 
59
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join