Using Weapons of Compliance to Stamp Out Protest

E

EmptyTimCup

Guest
The New American Order: Using Weapons of Compliance to Stamp Out Protest





Once entrusted to serve and protect the people, America's law enforcement has sadly shifted its allegiance from the citizenry to the state. With their foreboding uniforms and phalanx of lethal weapons, today's militarized law enforcement officials act preemptively to ward off any possible challenges to governmental power. And in such an environment, warns John Whitehead in this week's vodcast, free speech is little more than a nuisance to be stamped out.
 
I

itsrequired

New Member
What a bunch of malarkey. A lot of rhetoric, but no facts to back it up. This guy has operational plans for swat teams? I know the police agency I work and several others I meet with on a regular basis aren't being supplied by the military. Some of the photos he showed were from the U.C. Davis protest where protesters were blocking the way for students and other traffic to get by. They were given ample warning to leave but chose to stay and get pepper sprayed.
 
2ndAmendment

2ndAmendment

Just a forgiven sinner
PREMO Member
Just remember, the Constitution was written to limit the power of government, not the power of the citizens. When things break down, make sure you are on the right side.
 
I

itsrequired

New Member
2ndAmendment said:
Just remember, the Constitution was written to limit the power of government, not the power of the citizens. When things break down, make sure you are on the right side.
Click to expand...

I took an oath to support and defend the constitution. If things break down, I will be there to uphold my oath. That, however is not what is happening.

Free speech has limits. You can't block police officers in who are justifiably arresting people who broke the law, and threaten to keep the officers blocked until they set the people free in the name of free speech. Look up U.C. Davis.
 
2ndAmendment

2ndAmendment

Just a forgiven sinner
PREMO Member
itsrequired said:
I took an oath to support and defend the constitution. If things break down, I will be there to uphold my oath. That, however is not what is happening.

Free speech has limits. You can't block police officers in who are justifiably arresting people who broke the law, and threaten to keep the officers blocked until they set the people free in the name of free speech. Look up U.C. Davis.
Click to expand...

Just because some court somewhere found in a direction you support does not make it correct. It makes the court's decision unconstitutional.

If you and other that swore to support and defend the Constitution really did so, you would be arresting almost everyone in Congress and the POTUS.

I see no limits on freedom of speech anywhere in the First Amendment.
Amendment I (1791)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Click to expand...
Of course the First Amendment only limits one group of people; the Congress. But the First is not applied in that way. It is applied unconstitutionally by limiting the displaying of the Ten Commandments, a Nativity Scene, a Christmas play, or prayer in schools.

So don't hold up some court decision that is unconstitutional as a basis for unconstitutional actions by police or other government agencies.
 
I

itsrequired

New Member
2ndAmendment said:
Just because some court somewhere found in a direction you support does not make it correct. It makes the court's decision unconstitutional.

If you and other that swore to support and defend the Constitution really did so, you would be arresting almost everyone in Congress and the POTUS.

I see no limits on freedom of speech anywhere in the First Amendment.
Of course the First Amendment only limits one group of people; the Congress. But the First is not applied in that way. It is applied unconstitutionally by limiting the displaying of the Ten Commandments, a Nativity Scene, a Christmas play, or prayer in schools.

So don't hold up some court decision that is unconstitutional as a basis for unconstitutional actions by police or other government agencies.
Click to expand...

Claiming it is your right to free speech doesn't give you the right to infringe on other's rights to be safe and secure. Screaming fire into a crowded theater has been long found to be a test for "free speech".

People blocking law enforcement officers who have arrested protesters for trespassing and setting up tents in violation of the law is not expressing free speech. It is hindering those officers in the performance of their duties.

You can have free speech all you want, but there are limits to where you can say what you would like to say. If I want to pray in my church but you stand outside with a bull horn screaming, aren't you then infringing on my religious freedom?
 
Toxick

Toxick

Splat
itsrequired said:
You can have free speech all you want, but there are limits to where you can say what you would like to say.
Click to expand...


This is a self-contradicting sentence.

If you can have free speech "all you want", then there are, by definition, no limits.

If there are limits to where you can say what you would like to say, then you cannot, by definition, have free speech "all you want".



If you're against freedom of speech, then just say so.
 
D

daileyck1

New Member
Ever notice that so many police officers are quite "beefy" and have short tempers??
There is an epidemic of steriod abuse across the country in the ranks of the cops.
 
glhs837

glhs837

Power with Control
Daily? Really, where do you get that from. And guys, as IR stated, there are, and have been, I might add, limits on speech. Your right to free speech doesnt allow you to enter my private property to tell me things, correct? And it doesnt allow you to damage property in the process of practicing your right? Go anywhere in public you want, say anything you want. But when the practice of free speech impinges on the rights of other citizens to go about thier lives, something has to give.

Look at the Tea Party. Practiced thier right to free speech across the country. Loudly, and in large numbers. Were they gassed? Or given wood shampoos? Nope. Why? Because the respected the rights of other citizens while doing so.

Sorry, Whitehead is a another conspiracy guy. Look at his graphics, listen to his way of speaking. this isn't informational content, this is propaganda.
 
I

itsrequired

New Member
Toxick said:
This is a self-contradicting sentence.

If you can have free speech "all you want", then there are, by definition, no limits.

If there are limits to where you can say what you would like to say, then you cannot, by definition, have free speech "all you want".



If you're against freedom of speech, then just say so.
Click to expand...

You're correct, and I should rephrase that. The principle of free speech doesn't trump the rights of others. You can say what ever you like as long as where you are saying it doesn't infringe on other's peoples rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top