Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For all the self-proclaimed Constitutional scholars here (lol), recall that the First Amendment protects "the right of the people peaceably to assemble".
Yes because protests like these have become violent in the past and do meet the definitions. The idea is to start out peacefully but the mob cannot be controlled and quickly turn to criminal acts.
Yes because protests like these have become violent in the past and do meet the definitions. The idea is to start out peacefully but the mob cannot be controlled and quickly turn to criminal acts.
So violate peoples constitutional rights because something *might* occur?
Sure they can and I'm not surprised this question has arisen in this time and place in our country's history. Its very sad how little people understand the Constitution, our history, our rights. I wonder what this country will look like in 50 years.
What happens when an ambulance get's caught in a parade or a politician's motorcade?
When a politician like a President is in town most people are aware and will avoid certain areas. And parade? lol Again, parades just don't happen out of no where. People are aware of parades that go around.
Nice try though trying to make an exception for these people.
Had a debate yesterday with some people regarding the blocking of the Minneapolis Airport (and hence the Mall of America and the stores in Chicago)
Some claim that the protests can be considered domestic terrorism because they are used to "intimidate the civilian population". So, I looked up the definition and I think they might have a point...
Under current United States law, set forth in the USA PATRIOT Act, acts of domestic terrorism are those which: "(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."[2]
I am no fan of the idiots in BLM by any stretch of the imagination. However I do not have a problem with them legally protesting in the public arena, no matter how misguided or racist they are.
[I will also add the caveat that so long as they are not given special PC treatment of not being suspended/expelled for disrupting campuses, not arrested when blocking bridges/commerce, etc. all because they are black (that would likely happen to a white group)]
Otherwise, they or anyone in this country has the right to protest or congregate together to redress issues or air grievances.
I'd say the same for Nazi's, Black Panthers, KKK, Nation of Islam, Sharpton, etc.
To label such things as terrorism not only would be wrong, but diminishes the actual hideousness of the definition of terrorism.
Death and mayhem brought upon innocent civilians is the very definition of what terrorism is. So if the fools of BLM call for killing cops, they may be arrested for inciting violence, but it is not terrorism in my view.
I'd rather error on the side of freedom of speech/protest than allowing the government the ability to restrict it.
Remember the slippery slope knows no bounds, and what tactics you may approve of today, might be used against something you do not approve of tomorrow.
People who block public access are endangering lives, their own and others. IDIOTS. I think tanker trucks should be out there spraying them with water.
Anyhow, I don't think peaceful protests are domestic terrorism but look at the Christians in Dearborn who had rocks thrown at them by the Islamics and the police asked the Christians to leave. WTH? Since when is assault legal in the US? Arrest those throwing rocks. Arrest those blocking freeways. They are doing it wrong.
Yes because protests like these have become violent in the past and do meet the definitions. The idea is to start out peacefully but the mob cannot be controlled and quickly turn to criminal acts.
Location: When you take flak it means you are on target
7,647 posts, read 9,943,762 times
Reputation: 16465
Yes, protesting is now terrorism. Protestors should be rounded up and sent to political prisons for reeducation, or just gunned down in the streets by cops in exmilitary Mraps. That'll teach 'em not to express opinions.
Also, anyone who posts, or reads commentary here or anywhere online is a clear threat to the government and should be immediately arrested for treason or sumpthin, lest their subersive patriotic American ideals undermine the regimes plans for total tyranny.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
