Non-lethal weapons for democratic convention

[HelioPrime]

I'm still waiting for an answer from the civili liberties or libertarians crowd

Do venues or events like the national conventions deserve the right to be able to restrict access to the event and prevent disruptions? Obviously as political events there will be many protesters and the past has shown some of these protesters have the desire to cause a display or disruption.

Do people who hold an event have the right and expectation that they can hold is peacefully and keep protesters outside at bay?

Or should they just have to deal with protesters, allowing them to rush on stage and steal the camera? Are we really a country where the unruly mob should be allowed to dictate and control events?

[grandpa]

Quote by: HelioPrime I'm still waiting for an answer from the civili liberties or libertarians crowd Do venues or events like the national conventions deserve the right to be able to restrict access to the event and prevent disruptions? Obviously as political events there will be many protesters and the past has shown some of these protesters have the desire to cause a display or disruption.

People should disrupt the conventions.

Grandpa h.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: grandpa People should disrupt the conventions. Grandpa h.

I could have guess that'd be your response.

I'm still waiting on anyone else. Some people seem pretty heated in the thread about riots being the fault of oppressive police forces. So does everyone agree then people don't deserve the right to assemble in peace and be protected?

When we assemble should we the use our right to bear arms to defend our meeting from outsiders? Shoot them vermin protesters?

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: grandpa People should disrupt the conventions. Grandpa h.

On another note what would that gain?

How would disrupting events and venues gain anything other than leading to the conclusion that only by physically revolting can you gain anything? How can a world function when only through citizens revolts does anything get done?

[grandpa]

Quote by: HelioPrime On another note what would that gain? How would disrupting events and venues gain anything other than leading to the conclusion that only by physically revolting can you gain anything?

That is an appropriate message, as far as I'm concerned. Of course, the disruptions needn't be particularly violent. On a related note, I've read that venues are becoming
increasingly restrictive about what may be brought into the arena. When Bush came to Upper Michigan (my neck of the woods), I believe they screened people to see how loyal they were to the Republican agenda. They're scared.

Grandpa h.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: grandpa People should disrupt the conventions. Grandpa h.

perhaps, but the government is also bound to protect peaceful citizens from violent disruption. Whether they deserve disruption is besides the point.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary perhaps, but the government is also bound to protect peaceful citizens from violent disruption. Whether they deserve disruption is besides the point.

Another moot point; more often than not nonviolent protests are infiltrated with a fifth column from the opposite side of the argument, which then proceeds to throw a few bricks through windows just so the police will gas the whole group.

Oh, and given what happens when you put something that reflects microwaves back up into the magnetron in an ordinary microwave I'd love to see what happens when someone hoists a $5 carefully insulated and grounded piece of sheet metal in front of a million dollar microwave pain ray.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Another moot point; more often than not nonviolent protests are infiltrated with a fifth column from the opposite side of the argument, which then proceeds to throw a few bricks through windows just so the police will gas the whole group.

And a bunch of protesters dress up like policemen and hit people with billy clubs. I'm gonna use that excuse for everything from now on.

And I'm confused as to how you'd approach a debilitating pain ray that's probably mounted behind a barricade or on a truck.

[Deadeye]

Hmmmm; I'm for M-60 machine gun fire, shoot low, then lethal gas. End of problem. If non-lethal gas is selected, since we don't actually have lethal gas in our arsenal of weapons then use CN, as it's worse than is CS (or is it the other way round? I've forgotten).

Fact is this. We should not tolerate riots at any time, in any place for any reason. Demonstrations are legal and we should support them. Riots are a different matter altogether.

I like tanks. Those tracks are deadly and render rioters into a flat layer of protoplasm. They make pretty good pavement. Colorful too.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary perhaps, but the government is also bound to protect peaceful citizens from violent disruption. Whether they deserve disruption is besides the point.

This assumes the disruptions must be particularly violent. I doubt it. One point of disturbing conventions is to attack government policies, which are often violent disruptions. There are standard reasons for opposition to laws. That's hardly "besides the point."

Grandpa h.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary And a bunch of protesters dress up like policemen and hit people with billy clubs. I'm gonna use that excuse for everything from now on.

That was no joke. Here's a sample.

New York Police Covertly Join In at Protest Rallies - New York Times

Quebec police forced to own up to use of agent provocateurs at summit protest - North America / Mexico Repression / prisoners - Anarkismo

And I'm confused as to how you'd approach a debilitating pain ray that's probably mounted behind a barricade or on a truck.

While hiding yourself behind a microwave reflecting shield I suppose. There's a method to my madness.

[Deadeye]

Quote by: grandpa This assumes the disruptions must be particularly violent. I doubt it. One point of disturbing conventions is to attack government policies, which are often violent disruptions. There are standard reasons for opposition to laws. That's hardly "besides the point." Grandpa h.

If the disruptions only work to end the event, then so be it. The Democrat deligates can go home and forget the entire affair. Go ahead and give the demonstrators what they want. After all, conventions are probably old hat anyway. That's why we have replaced them with primaries. Used to be the candidate was selected at the conventions, now he/she is elected by the public.

So when the demonstraters start disrupting the meaningless convention the Demo party people should just pack up and leave. This will allow the rioters to vent their rage upon Wal Mart. They really hate Wal Mart.

[Gods_Mercenary]

That was no joke. Here's a sample. New York Police Covertly Join In at Protest Rallies - New York Times Quebec police forced to own up to use of agent provocateurs at summit protest - North America / Mexico Repression / prisoners - Anarkismo

I never said it was a joke. I was aware of undercover police in protesting crowds.

[Deadeye]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary I never said it was a joke. I was aware of undercover police in protesting crowds.

This is true, cops and other agencies infiltrate radical organizations to learn what their plans are. They've also infiltrated the KKK, which has pretty much put the organization out of business. I think they had more FBI guys enrolled than real red necks. When this became common knowledge the red necks un-joined and went home. they probably gave their uniforms to their kids to wear as Halloween customs.

I support peaceful demonstrations. I abhor riots. It is kind of touch and go when one stops from being one and starts being the other. Riots should be put down with just enough force to stop them. If it takes machine gun fire then so be it. Fact is we are a peaceful nation of laws and we cannot and should not tolerate those who break the peace and the law. Always remember, the law and the order it brings is more important than is the life of a criminal...rioters are criminals you know.

[Gods_Mercenary]

If it takes machine gun fire then so be it.

If you can't put it down with a battalion of armored cops, you're probably dealing with something closer to a rebellion.

[Deadeye]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary If you can't put it down with a battalion of armored cops, you're probably dealing with something closer to a rebellion.

Those armored cops aren't shooting however. They kind of march around with fancy glass shields and expensive helmets with plastic shelds that flop down in front of their faces. Then they carry big sticks. Sometimes they toss a gas grenade. That's a far cry from the employment of machine gun fire.

Now, to be truthful I'd hate to see those cops blasting away with machine guns and I'd hate to see all of those pathetic rioters bleeding and squirming on the ground. If they start to riot they should just turn the event over to the rioters and allow them to tear up the place.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Deadeye Now, to be truthful I'd hate to see those cops blasting away with machine guns and I'd hate to see all of those pathetic rioters bleeding and squirming on the ground. If they start to riot they should just turn the event over to the rioters and allow them to tear up the place.

Sarcasm detected.

Come on, you aren't serious about mowing them down are you?

[Deadeye]

Quote by: Thanatos Sarcasm detected. Come on, you aren't serious about mowing them down are you?

No sarcasm whatsoever. As I said, while I hate riots and rioters I'd not support the cops mowing them down with machine guns. Better stated I might support the cops doing so, but I'd hate to see it actually happen. Does that make sense?

Here's the deal. We cannot tolerate riots or the people who riot. We can and must support the right of the people to congregate and demonstrate, but the line is drawn at rioting. Rioting is lawlessness that destroys other people's property and livelyhood. No one has the right to do such a thing.

If I owned a store and I saw a riot coming my way, and I observd the people damaging store fronts I would be justified in taking up a shotgun and guarding my property. If someone tossed a rock I'd also be justified in shooting that person. That person has no right whatsoever to damage what is mine.....no matter what their "cause" is. There is no justification for a riot. EVER. Rioting cannot be tolerated.

That being said, there can be a justification of a rebellion. But a rebellion and a riot are two very different things. In a rebellion participation is general and the target is the government, not individual store owners. So I guess it's a matter of scope and intent. Be that as it may, if I see a riot I'm justified in using deadly force to protect my property and livelyhood.

I'd much rather it didn't happen though, wouldn't you?

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Deadeye If I owned a store and I saw a riot coming my way, and I observd the people damaging store fronts I would be justified in taking up a shotgun and guarding my property. If someone tossed a rock I'd also be justified in shooting that person. That person has no right whatsoever to damage what is mine.....no matter what their "cause" is. There is no justification for a riot. EVER. Rioting cannot be tolerated.

That bold is just the problem that anarchists and libertarians alike have. They feel rioting is needed and a good way for people to overthrow corruption.

Except in that world you now have leaders in fear of the people. Fear mongering still exists but it has switched sides. Now the power lies not in political parties but in the civil leaders of various groups. People like Jesse Jackson and the other group leaders will hold the power and use the masses as a tool to support their own agenda. True rule of the mob.

Saying people have a right to riot and disrupt and protest anyway they like is just open game to allow an exchange of power. Power never disappears, we will never live in a world of just mutual exchanges and free independent people. All you can do is shift power while trying to ignore the crazed liberties crowd who want nothing to do with power.

[Deadeye]

I suppose it's idealistic to hope that dialogue would overtake rioting. Rule by riot is no rule at all.

I too fear for our republic. I also see the growth of an uneducated public who have no idea how our republic is supposed to function. Nor do they understand how insightful the Founding Fathers were.

I agree that rioters somehow believe they have a right to riot. They do not. They have a right to demonstrate. The two are very different forms of public display.