Protests in Enclosed areas should be banned

[Jackson]

I'm looking at the protests in JFK Airport. How can this be allowed? It put travelers in danger and it is too easy for a terrorist to mingle withing the crowd and possibly cause a horrendous outcome.

President Trump's next EO should be that the nation's airports be free from demonstrations and should be outside one mile from the airports.

I understand that we have the freedom to protest, but when it poses a threat to the nation's security, federal guidelines should take priority.

Common sense should prevail.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Why does lib protesting always involve punishing people just going about their business......That's not protest

 

[Jackson]

Why does lib protesting always involve punishing people just going about their business......That's not protest

I suppose in a strictly defined protest argument, it qualifies for a protest, but it puts our nation's security at risk. We need federal guidelines, not state guidelines for any weaknesses we have in terms of gatherings that could be dangerous.

Just as protests inside schools, churches, hospitals, etc could be dangerous for the common citizens action should take place.

Protesting is a right given to by the constitution, thus a federal right. It should have federal boundaries as well.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I'm looking at the protests in JFK Airport. How can this be allowed? It put travelers in danger and it is too easy for a terrorist to mingle withing the crowd and possibly cause a horrendous outcome.

President Trump's next EO should be that the nation's airports be free from demonstrations and should be outside one mile from the airports.

I understand that we have the freedom to protest, but when it poses a threat to the nation's security, federal guidelines should take priority.

Common sense should prevail.

"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.

Now, if you support an infringement of the Right to such peaceful protests, for common sense reasons, then we must presume you also support infringements on the Rights to the 2nd Amendment allowing common sense to prevail.

 

[Fenton Lum]

A political and economic system that cannot withstand "the people" questioning it is an authoritarian system on very shaky ground, and ostensibly this right is what differentiates our “exceptional” system from “lesser” systems. If we are going to abandon that principle the power structure should announce this to “the people” openly.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Your rights end when they interfere with others

 

[Wry Catcher]

Why does lib protesting always involve punishing people just going about their business......That's not protest

Why does the NRA and its followers not apply common sense to gun controls, thus allowing the killing and maiming of innocent people with guns just going about their usual business and recreational activity?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Your rights end when they interfere with others

To life, liberty and property? So, when I take my grandson to a pizza restaurant and a man with a side arm comes in, his right to the 2nd A. ought to be infringed?

 

[Fang]

Agreed. People are free to protest as long as it doesn't put others in danger. If there was a security risk or travelers were impeded at the airport then that's an issue.

 

[Jackson]

I'm looking at the protests in JFK Airport. How can this be allowed? It put travelers in danger and it is too easy for a terrorist to mingle withing the crowd and possibly cause a horrendous outcome.

President Trump's next EO should be that the nation's airports be free from demonstrations and should be outside one mile from the airports.

I understand that we have the freedom to protest, but when it poses a threat to the nation's security, federal guidelines should take priority.

Common sense should prevail.

"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.

Now, if you support an infringement of the Right to such peaceful protests, for common sense reasons, then we must presume you also support infringements on the Rights to the 2nd Amendment allowing common sense to prevail.

Catcher, I think there is a compromise that could take place as you brought up. One which I would agree, is that the type of weapons be banned for it would not be in the interest of average citizen to arm himself with AK-47's just as protest guidelines be enacted to preserve the welfare of people and businesses.

 

[Jackson]

Your rights end when they interfere with others

To life, liberty and property? So, when I take my grandson to a pizza restaurant and a man with a side arm comes in, his right to the 2nd A. ought to be infringed?

Side arms would be sanctioned for individual defense, but not weapons that cause mass harm.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Agreed. People are free to protest as long as it doesn't put others in danger. If there was a security risk or travelers were impeded at the airport then that's an issue.

What those above seem to be suggesting, is this: The First Amendment is malleable, and the Second Amendment is rigid.

 

[Jackson]

A political and economic system that cannot withstand "the people" questioning it is an authoritarian system on very shaky ground, and ostensibly this right is what differentiates our “exceptional” system from “lesser” systems. If we are going to abandon that principle the power structure should announce this to “the people” openly.

I agree F.L!

 

[Manonthestreet]

Your rights end when they interfere with others

To life, liberty and property? So, when I take my grandson to a pizza restaurant and a man with a side arm comes in, his right to the 2nd A. ought to be infringed?

N

Your rights end when they interfere with others

To life, liberty and property? So, when I take my grandson to a pizza restaurant and a man with a side arm comes in, his right to the 2nd A. ought to be infringed?

Your rights are not infringed by his presence...Protesters clearly infringing others rights

Your rights end when they interfere with others

To life, liberty and property? So, when I take my grandson to a pizza restaurant and a man with a side arm comes in, his right to the 2nd A. ought to be infringed?

Your rights not infringed by his presence...Protestors clearly infringing on others rights

 

[Jackson]

Agreed. People are free to protest as long as it doesn't put others in danger. If there was a security risk or travelers were impeded at the airport then that's an issue.

What those above seem to be suggesting, is this: The First Amendment is malleable, and the Second Amendment is rigid.

No, a compromise could be used in both cases. What we need is another pamphlet like Thomas Paine's "Common Sense"... that could even be the preface for making changes in our constitution...

 

[Fang]

Agreed. People are free to protest as long as it doesn't put others in danger. If there was a security risk or travelers were impeded at the airport then that's an issue.

What those above seem to be suggesting, is this: The First Amendment is malleable, and the Second Amendment is rigid.

The 1st Amendment is rigid as is the 2nd Amendment. However, neither amendment gives you the right to put others in danger or impede others. I have freedom of speech, but I can't yell "fire" in a theatre because others could be harmed. I can own a gun, but obviously I can't shoot some one.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I'm looking at the protests in JFK Airport. How can this be allowed? It put travelers in danger and it is too easy for a terrorist to mingle withing the crowd and possibly cause a horrendous outcome.

President Trump's next EO should be that the nation's airports be free from demonstrations and should be outside one mile from the airports.

I understand that we have the freedom to protest, but when it poses a threat to the nation's security, federal guidelines should take priority.

Common sense should prevail.

"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.

Now, if you support an infringement of the Right to such peaceful protests, for common sense reasons, then we must presume you also support infringements on the Rights to the 2nd Amendment allowing common sense to prevail.

Catcher, I think there is a compromise that could take place as you brought up. One which I would agree, is that the type of weapons be banned for it would not be in the interest of average citizen to arm himself with AK-47's just as protest guidelines be enacted to preserve the welfare of people and businesses.

Thank you, but I doubt the NRA would agree, or many of its members. All firearms are lethal weapons, and a small caliber hollow point can kill and maim very well indeed.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Agreed. People are free to protest as long as it doesn't put others in danger. If there was a security risk or travelers were impeded at the airport then that's an issue.

What those above seem to be suggesting, is this: The First Amendment is malleable, and the Second Amendment is rigid.

The 1st Amendment is rigid as is the 2nd Amendment. However, neither amendment gives you the right to put others in danger or impede others. I have freedom of speech, but I can't yell "fire" in a theatre because others could be harmed. I can own a gun, but obviously I can't shoot some one.

You can do both, the law cannot prevent speech, but laws can reduce the number, type of weapon and projectile sold; vet the gun owner and license him or her and register his or her weapons.

 

[Anathema]

Protests should be banned in ALL areas. If you've a beef, ACT on it. Don't stand around and whine.... ACT. Pull out the guns and ACT.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Agreed. People are free to protest as long as it doesn't put others in danger. If there was a security risk or travelers were impeded at the airport then that's an issue.

What those above seem to be suggesting, is this: The First Amendment is malleable, and the Second Amendment is rigid.

The 1st Amendment is rigid as is the 2nd Amendment. However, neither amendment gives you the right to put others in danger or impede others. I have freedom of speech, but I can't yell "fire" in a theatre because others could be harmed. I can own a gun, but obviously I can't shoot some one.

You can do both, the law cannot prevent speech, but laws can reduce the number, type of weapon and projectile sold; vet the gun owner and license him or her and register his or her weapons.