NEWS - Republicans are attempting to pass a bill an extreme anti-protest bill

[SeventhSandwich]

oops did i say legal i meant lethal lol

Ok, that's more reasonable. But honestly why shouldn't Republicans support it either? Sane usage of force shouldn't be a partisan issue IMO.

[Ad Bot]

[DrenDran]

for real?

Complaining about "authoritarianism" is just one big slippery slope fallacy and the reality is we lose nothing as a nation if we don't allow people to block highways. Worst comes to worst I feel like those guys aren't the sanitary workers, soldiers, construction workers etc. that actually keep society functioning. If we have to set an example by shooting a few wanna-be revolutionaries with useless gender studies majors then so be it. The state won't be worse off, the people I care about won't be worse off, and I won't be worse off.

[Rabbot32]

I loving wonder why. Are you all mental or just edgy?

Also I'm fairly sure this won't pass. The majority of the state congress here is fairly sane and it's a pretty republican thing to not want to make everyone distrust the police force even moreso.

Story here.

This is highly unconstitutional and will most likely be thrown out of the government before it can get off the ground,

[Trogtor]

the problem is there is really no other way stopping all of these riots other than lethal force. but that's never the answer.

[SeventhSandwich]

Complaining about "authoritarianism" is just one big slippery slope fallacy and the reality is we lose nothing as a nation if we don't allow people to block highways.

Again, you're completely missing the point here. Nobody is disputing whether blocking highways should be illegal. In fact, it already is.

The problem is that choosing to legalize lethal force against highway-blockers is completely insane. There already exist dozens of effective crowd dispersal methods that do not involve murdering unarmed civilians.

the problem is there is really no other way stopping all of these riots other than lethal force. but that's never the answer.

This bill has nothing to do with riots. It's about people who block highways.

[Tayasaurus]

If an ambulance needs to get through, then we should start equipping them with high pressure water hoses

[Rabbot32]

I'm not upset over the fact that protesters might get hurt. I'm upset over the fact that the government is attempting to trample on the right to assemble. The first amendment very clearly states

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.

[DrenDran]

Again, you're completely missing the point here. Nobody is disputing whether blocking highways should be illegal. In fact, it already is.

The problem is either they can't effectually enforce the law, or they won't.

The problem is that choosing to legalize lethal force against highway-blockers is completely insane. There already exist dozens of effective crowd dispersal methods that do not involve murdering unarmed civilians.

It doesn't say they must kill all protesters. It doesn't even mention lethal force. It just says they can do whatever's needed to fix the problem. Maybe that does involve non-lethal methods. Better the state have the power and not need it than need it and not have it.

I'm not upset over the fact that protesters might get hurt. I'm upset over the fact that the government is attempting to trample on the right to assemble. The first amendment very clearly states

It says the right to assemble. Not the right to stop traffic.

[Insert Name Here²]

Emphasis on PEACEFULLY

Last I checked, storming through towns yelling x, blocking highways and roads for hours, and attacking people aren't forms of peaceful assembly

[Trogtor]

This bill has nothing to do with riots. It's about people who block highways.

hmmmm ok but ill still stand with what i said

[SeventhSandwich]

The problem is either they can't effectually enforce the law, or they won't.

Police have dispersed tons of protests on interstate highways over the past year. The next logical step might be employing some new microwave dispersal units, not opening fire into crowds of people.

It doesn't even mention lethal force. It just says they can do whatever's needed to fix the problem. Maybe that does involve non-lethal methods.

Or maybe it doesn't. The point is that we follow the letter of the law, not the spirit. If cops decide to mow down 50 protestors on a highway, they can point to this law and say, "Hey, we needed to clear the highway," and then nobody gets punished.

Better the state have the power and not need it than need it and not have it.

Didn't you just self-identify as far-right like ten minutes ago? Do you know what 'far-right' means in the context of American politics?

[Insert Name Here²]

I like how Seventh is dead set on enforcing the mind-set that this bill is 100% geared towards violently murdering protesters, even though it isn't and is never even said to in the original bill

[Planr]

Didn't you just self-identify as far-right like ten minutes ago? Do you know what 'far-right' means in the context of American politics?

well states rights is a right-wing belief

[SeventhSandwich]

I like how Seventh is dead set on enforcing the mind-set that this bill is 100% geared towards violently murdering protesters, even though it isn't and is never even said to in the original bill

Again, you don't seem to understand that allowing police 'any means necessary' to disperse protests effectively legalizes lethal force. Whether or not they use it is irrelevant because the wording of the bill makes it legal.

well states rights is a right-wing belief

Right-wing also means an emphasis on small-government, meaning you wouldn't typically expect someone 'right-wing' to advocate for allowing the government more avenues to kill dissenters.

Isn't that why you guys love guns so much? So that you can overthrow a tyrannical government?

[DrenDran]

Police have dispersed tons of protests on interstate highways over the past year. The next logical step might be employing some new microwave dispersal units, not opening fire into crowds of people.

Part of the problem is that they allow the protests to get to the point where they're blocking traffic in the first place. There's plenty of videos of protests that have been allowed to stay around for quite some time. Microwave dispersal units may very well be the answer, but who's to say they won't be ruled inhumane based on current standards?

Didn't you just self-identify as far-right like ten minutes ago? Do you know what 'far-right' means in the context of American politics?

Well, I'm hardly a libertarian. I did say I was a far-right here:

Yeah, this is what I was thinking. I hate globalism as much as the next far-right guy but this seems ill-advised.

The relevant part is the opposition to globalism. I'm no real fan of the left/right spectrum but I didn't mean to speak strictly based on people's perceptions of America's right-wing. To be "right-wing" means an acknowledgement of the necessity or inevitability of social hierarchy. If you tried to define me based solely on American politics I'd probably be authoritarian center.

To quote Wikipedia:
Right-wing politics hold that certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable, typically defending this position on the basis of natural law, economics or tradition. Hierarchy and inequality may be viewed as natural results of traditional social differences or the competition in market economies. The term right-wing can generally refer to "the conservative or reactionary section of a political party or system."