Another ICE shooting in MN.

[Defilade]

View attachment IMG_0027.MP4

 

[stokes]

Really, is that what youre looking to do here? I could dig around online and find cases where US citizens have had their rights violated by ICE agents just to prove a point, but thats not my intention here. I dont like the paid protestors/rioters any more than you or any other rational person, but Im also not going to blindly support any agency of the govt.

We're talking about recent rvrnts in Minneapolis not history. You keep refering to these "protesters" being denied some rights you think they have when they are doing nothing more than impeding LE. You talk about "blindly supporting ICE" and I dont see it that way. I merely asked for examples of rights being denied here and now. It seems to me that you show more support for the mutts in Minn that LE.

 

[Celt]

. It seems to me that you show more support for the mutts in Minn that LE.

100% wrong on that.

 

[stokes]

100% wrong on that.

Ok

 

[Steal2B]

 

[spat]

The only ingredient in that recipe is would be protesters deliberately interfering with police officers performing their duties. This could be rectified if the local LE did their job and kept the protesters from breaking the law.

The constitution guarantees the right to speak freely, and the right to assembly peaceably. Combining those allows protests, within limits.

But there is no right for any protest outside of that, so if you assemble peacefully and nobody wants to listen to what you're saying, there is no right to make yourself into a PITA to try to force them to listen.

And there is *really* no right to interfere with law enforcement.

Likewise, the 2A gives you the right to keep and bear arms, it does not give you the right to use them to stop the government from doing anything.

And while it will be necessary to go beyond that to stop a truly tyrannical regime, that is explicitly *not* a right the constitution protects. So, if you're going to go beyond peaceful speech, then you'd better be prepared to bring all the violence necessary to end their ability to tyrannize.

Note, that *none* of that includes "generally be obnoxious". You either protest peacefully and without interfering, or you shoot the fuckers in the head at the first opportunity. There is no middle ground.

 

[Rap]

The constitution guarantees the right to speak freely, and the right to assembly peaceably. Combining those allows protests, within limits.

But there is no right for any protest outside of that, so if you assemble peacefully and nobody wants to listen to what you're saying, there is no right to make yourself into a PITA to try to force them to listen.

And there is *really* no right to interfere with law enforcement.

Likewise, the 2A gives you the right to keep and bear arms, it does not give you the right to use them to stop the government from doing anything.

And while it will be necessary to go beyond that to stop a truly tyrannical regime, that is explicitly *not* a right the constitution protects. So, if you're going to go beyond peaceful speech, then you'd better be prepared to bring all the violence necessary to end their ability to tyrannize.

Note, that *none* of that includes "generally be obnoxious". You either protest peacefully and without interfering, or you shoot the fuckers in the head at the first opportunity. There is no middle ground.

That’s a false binary.
Democratic change has always relied on nonviolent disruption. Polite, permitted speech can be and is often ignored.

Interfering with the status quo *forces* a reckoning. The more disruptive the better; particularly when the actions or policies of the power structure are unjust.

The civil rights movement explicitly leveraged interruptive tactics in the face of oppressive policies backed by the full weight of the law -- up to and including the Constitution at the time!

Pretending that 1A protects only quiet, non-interfering speech drains it of any real meaning.

 

[fresch]

That’s a false binary.
Democratic change has always relied on nonviolent disruption. Polite, permitted speech can be and is often ignored.

Interfering with the status quo *forces* a reckoning. The more disruptive the better; particularly when the actions or policies of the power structure are unjust.

The civil rights movement explicitly leveraged interruptive tactics in the face of oppressive policies backed by the full weight of the law -- up to and including the Constitution at the time!

Pretending that 1A protects only quiet, non-interfering speech drains it of any real meaning.

So you are for illegals stealing your tax dollars?
You are for people just coming into this country and spinning off your hard work.
When I heard bull shit like this at work I would tell them to give me their lunch; because you are ok with people stealing from you in the open.
Send me a check for $10K Rap., put up or shut up.

 

[Celt]

Ok

What are your thoughts on the anti 2a retoric coming from Kristi Noem, Kash Patel, and President Trump?

Regardless of what anyone thinks of Pretti, he absolutely had the right to carry, and carry spare mags.

The fact that they are painting this situation that he came to inflict "maximum damage" with a "loaded 9mm and TWO magazines", is bullshit in my opinion. If that was the case hed be on a roof line, with a rifle, and alot more than two mags. And Trump saying "I didnt like that he had a gun and two fully loaded magazines, and thats a lot of bad stuff" is just playing into the agenda.

Just like the bs "sensitive places" law in NY, I wont be surprised if we see something like this nationally once the left takes their turn in control. They will try to make carrying in more places illegal.

 

[Grimscale]

Interfering with the status quo *forces* a reckoning.

yes, it does.
And that "reckoning" could result in the perpetrator's arrest, injury, and even death. That's the risk you take for stepping over the line.

How many of the civil rights movement ended up planted because of their actions before any change was made?

But that's immaterial to this discussion.

particularly when the actions or policies of the power structure are unjust.

So what is unjust about what is going on here?
People who are illegally in this country are being picked up for deportation. These people are, by definition, criminals breaking the law.
If it weren't for the "protesters" it would more likely be quick and peaceful. Once these "protesters" decided to cross the line between protesting and interfering it ratcheted up the strife.

Are you saying that people who broke the law should not be arrested? That they should be allowed to remain? That every step a lawfully naturalized citizen partook to achieve American citizenship was just a waste of time?
And don't give me that ridiculous whine about "they are your neighbors and co-workers" drivel. 2 months or 10 years they are still ILLEGAL. And the longer they've been in the country illegally the more time they had to try to do the right thing and didn't.


The 1A protects peaceful assembly. Once it is no longer peaceful you have two choices: win or die.

 

[spat]

That’s a false binary.
Democratic change has always relied on nonviolent disruption. Polite, permitted speech can be and is often ignored.

Interfering with the status quo *forces* a reckoning. The more disruptive the better; particularly when the actions or policies of the power structure are unjust.

The civil rights movement explicitly leveraged interruptive tactics in the face of oppressive policies backed by the full weight of the law -- up to and including the Constitution at the time!

Pretending that 1A protects only quiet, non-interfering speech drains it of any real meaning.

Literally peaceful speech is all it protects.

You don't get to harass people who don't want to listen and call it "speech".

Likewise, you don't get to call for violence, at least not specific violence.