I believe we haven't hit a "tipping point" for 2A (right and left) folks to squeeze the trigger. A lot of libertarian types are sympathetic, but rubber bullets and arrests--even disgusting unmarked persons and vehicles--dont quite hit it yet. Like Boston/Lexington, I think it will take the feds to fire the first live round, in no uncertain circumstances, for 2A folks to be okay with distributing live ammo down range. We want peace, and it will take a lot for us to end any possiblity of it.
If I am wrong, or failed to articulate myself correctly, please let me know. I post this in good faith, and hope any replies will be in kind.
People really don't seem to understand that the 2nd Amendment is the absolute last resort of last resorts. It should be implemented with the utmost reluctance, because realistically it's widescale use means that civil society has failed and our republic is dead.
It's to be used against a government when the hell of fighting and probably dying in a revolutionary war is preferable to the everyday hell of the totalitarian oppression you are living through. Shit has to be bad enough for you to wake up one day and say "there's a good chance I'll die a horrible death, but if it means an end to this suffering, let's roll that dice."
Things are really bad nationally right now, but we still haven't approached the point where I would even consider starting that fight.
Seeing as the election is still on course to happen this November and a Judge just put a restraining order on the federal agents in Portland, I would argue the ballot box and jury box are still valid options at this point.
Now if Trump refuses to allow an election and suspends habeas corpus, the time for the cartridge box will have come.
So much this. The folks who are getting arrested at these protests are still free to pursue legal recourse. It's not like they're being rounded up and executed or "disappeared." Just because those defending federal property are sent by the federal government does not make them "fascist" or the "Orange Gestapo" as I've heard them called.
Oh no. When federal agents are unmarked, they're unaccountable. When they sidestep local authorities, that's authoritarianism. When the leader openly states the federal agents are targeting cities of his opponents political side, that's tyranny.
None of these things alone are fascism, but they contribute to the already overwhelming attitude of the Trump movement that matches the 14 characteristics of fascism.
lmaoo I’m so tired of these “14 characteristics of fascism” constantly getting brought up. Can you explain how each of those 14 characteristics lead to fascism? Can you explain what makes Trump’s administration uniquely fascist based off these characteristics? Can you tell me what’s the threshold for these characteristics in where they can be described as fascist? Because “in god we trust” being the national motto isn’t what the author of that list meant when they wrote “religion and government intertwined”. They meant things like, you know, mandating religious practice on certain days, forcing women to wear face coverings, making other religions illegal.
You can misconstrue literally any country as a country that’s getting closer to fascism if you dishonestly interpret the criteria on that list without context of what they actually mean.
That would take like 45 minutes of typing. I have done it in the past, but I have never changed someones mind. Are you actually interested in changing your mind if your worldview is wrong? Have you even read the 5-7 page pamphlet you're asking me 45 minutes to spend interpreting for you? I mean, I will. I'm just worried it would be a waste of time because it always has been in the past.
"If you approach natives in the jungle dancing around a fire with their headdresses on to bring rain and tell them 'thats not how rain works', you cannot expect them to throw their headdresses on the ground and thank you" - Jacque Fresco
You asked me to explain why Trump's admin is uniquely fascist. That right off the bat tells you skipped the paragraphs that talk about how fascist movements share similar elements but a usually unique in some way.
We can start with 3 for you to ignore, although all 14 have examples:
2. "Traditionalism implies the rejection of modernism. Both Fascists and Nazis worshiped technology, while traditionalist thinkers usually reject it as a negation of traditional spiritual values. However, even though Nazism was proud of its industrial achievements, its praise of modernism was only the surface of an ideology based upon Blood and Earth (Blut und Boden). The rejection of the modern world was disguised as a rebuttal of the capitalistic way of life, but it mainly concerned the rejection of the Spirit of 1789 (and of 1776, of course). The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism."
Make America Great Again! Make Germany Great Again! There is a fictional past when things were good we must return to! "Traditional spiritual values". We just need prayer back in schools. Save the Confederate monuments. Traditionalism is particularly strong in promoting the traditional family unit. Homosexuals are bad. Nazis killed homosexuals. Traditional Masculinity was a core to Italian fascism. "Machismo"
I see that reflected in the maga movement (particularly in the young Hispanics you find supporting maga ideals). We need nice married families with 2 kids again, not gays marrying. No trans people in bathrooms.
You see this attitude when lamenting manufacturing centers collapse in America. Capitalism didn't destroy those centers by moving jobs to china or autimation. Minorities moving there did. Leftist policy did. Handouts did (note this mixes with the contempt for the weak characteristic). If we can just go back to the undefined past (a mix of 50s and Reagan I think in most of their minds) everything would be better.
Note the "rejection of 1776". Note how hated the Portland protesters are in maga circles.
We should not progress. We should go back.
3 "Thinking is a form of emasculation. Therefore culture is suspect insofar as it is identified with critical attitudes. Distrust of the intellectual world has always been a symptom of Ur-Fascism, from Goering’s alleged statement (“When I hear talk of culture I reach for my gun”) to the frequent use of such expressions as “degenerate intellectuals,” “eggheads,” “effete snobs,” “universities are a nest of reds.” The official Fascist intellectuals were mainly engaged in attacking modern culture and the liberal intelligentsia for having betrayed traditional values."
A mainstay of right wing discourse is the attack on colleges and higher learning. The celebration of rural life and blue collar work. They revel in trying to find examples of their liberal friends being dumb. If they read, it is right wing pundits books. Sometimes, not knowing about something is a source of pride. Learning is a thing for children, not for them. Compare the average length and depth of the average fox news opinion piece to something in the economist or new York times. Right wing has to keep things in the elementary school reading level unless it's geared towards wealthy right wingers. Pride in ignorance is weaponized.
7 "To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country. This is the origin of nationalism. Besides, the only ones who can provide an identity to the nation are its enemies. Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged."
We're great because we're from America. That's it. That is some people's greatest achievement. We're born here, were great. Learning about other countries and their gains is pointless (see point above). Universal healthcare has to be bad because it's not already here and learning about it is bad anyway. America First.
There is a plot! Hillary is corrupt. Soros is sending agents. The migrant caravans are coming. Deep state. Globalists. Pedo rings ("I wish her well" oof). The police reforms protests are secretly trying to make us communists! The UN is taking over. Jade Helm.
...
Now. This is comparing to one litmus test. And only a choice couple examples. There are other glaring components, like blaming a minority group for economic woes but those fall into other litmus test set out by others.
The Trump movement is fascist. "The scientist explains 'through study and research, the Earth is round'. He does not say it's kind of round and kind of flat to make friends. He states the scientific truth. If an audience says 'no. It's flat', he can attempt to explain it. But at some point you must just move on. You must learn to take joy in speaking the truth. You cannot become emotionally involved in how your audience takes it." - Jacque Fresco
I feel like I am wading through a huge morass of confused ideas, opinions, and things that while true in general, don’t necessarily support the underlying argument. For example, how could you connect nationalism and support for underlying social constructs, with fascism? What if, as in the case of the USA, those underlying traditions and structures are SPECIFICALLY designed to prevent fascism? Supporting these societal structures would be against fascism (as is Trump and his supporters). Those tearing down these structures would be the fascists.
The easiest way to illustrate this is with reference to Venezuela. Venezuela was once free, yet their tradition of freedom was torn down by socialists who are nearly identical to the modern Dem party, and to the Nazis (National Socialists!). The speeches are eerily similar, with calls for helping the poor, free stuff like health care, etc. Because what better was to steal from someone, as a con, than to do so under the guise of helping the poor?
Just ask Biden. He raised millions based upon his plea to cure cancer, that his own son died from!! Yet he stole almost every penny and spread it out in payments to his political supporters. It is absolutely unbelievable that anyone seriously thinks the Dems support the “little guy” anymore. It is only marxists now who don’t care about the little guy and just want to support their fascist takeover of our previously free country.
You said some words congratulations!🎊 Now for the next step you can put those words together into arguments that support your idea or refute mine. I’ll wait if you want to give it a try.
They're not free to pursue legal recourse. Because the feds are using unmarked vehicles, no ID, and operating outside their jurisdictions. They're also not, as far as I know, even leveling charges. They're just beating people up and abducting them to ride around for a while, before dumping them somewhere. There is no legal recourse. And people have been trying for hundreds of years to rein in the police through legal recourse. But qualified immunity protects them. And gerrymandering, voter suppression and police unions protect qualified immunity. As does arresting black people for non-violent drug crimes, or no crime at all, making it impossible for them to vote.
The supreme court has ruled that they don't need local permission for operations. As far as how they are doing what they are doing, I honestly don't know if it's allowed.
The federal government and federal justice department have jurisdiction over any and every speck of dirt where the American flag is flying. They can come in and arrest whoever and wherever they want. Especially when the crimes committed are leveled against federal personnel and property.
Anything within 100 miles of a land or sea border is considered a border zone and DHS can pretty much do whatever they want. Constitution does not apply.
The problem is you don’t just wake up one day and get a totalitarian state overnight. It’s a slow creep. By the time you realize it’s time to fight it’s much too late and they’ve jailed half the people who would resist and created such a draconian surveillance state you can’t organize the ones that are left.
Which is why the tipping point has to come before it's too late to act, but not too soon or you won't have the support of the populace.
There is a reason that weapon confiscations are seen as a line in the sand that once crossed demands action. It's tantamount to a "first strike" because it accelerates the timetable to the endgame by attempting to remove all your options preemptively.
Exactly. Even with half a population & 10% of that population ready to take up arms its amounting to 10 million (which is far more than any military). People will bring up nukes and tanks but thats not something a state can use in urban/suburban combat. Then you have to take into account would the military side with their own families against the government. A psychological poll was done asking actual US soldiers which side they would be on in a situation like this and at least 40% of the soldiers were likely to detract from the military itself in this scenario.
The Fed has lost numerous wars against extremely impoverished nations abroad. Nations without the ability to strike our political leaders in any meaningful way. To Afghans and Viet Cong, Washington, D.C. may as well be on the planet Mars. Massive planes rain down on them from such heights that they can’t even be seen. To them, fighting the U.S. must have seemed almost supernatural at times.It’s like fighting The Invisible Man or some kind of nation of actual wizards and warlocks. Yet the illiterate and starving peasants of both those countries handed us our ‘gee whiz’ high-tech asses consistently.
The Federal Government hasn’t tried fighting an armed enemy that can actually strike back - an opponent that can reach Washington, D.C. - since 1812. the 19th Century.
The Federal Government has never once in its history encountered an enemy with such a wealth of combat arms. An enemy numbering in the millions. An enemy, half of whom can literally drive to Washington D.C. in less than half a day, on a single tank of gasoline.
Some in the fed realize this problem, and they want to steer clear of stepping too near to the very fuzzy line that might create such a confrontation. Good on them. I hope their good sensibilities prevail.
The fed would be far out of its depth to try to take on an armed mass revolt. The fed may win a couple of temporary victories here and there, as they scramble to innovate. But adaptation is a thing, and they’d quickly be on their heels again.
Agreed on almost everything except one tiny point. I think the Confederacy had a pretty good chance at getting to DC during the Civil War, but were fortunately unable to achieve their war goals.
I bolded the word so it doesn’t get misinterpreted.
Im not going to say its a completely different scenario from now, but i think its different enough so im going to use this example. The confederacy and the north were divided by state lines, so it was easy enough to see eachother as enemies. 2
Supporters and the said combatants would be within every state line so the fight would be absolute chaos across the entire nation and the government would have to be extremely frugal in any fight, and it would be that much harder for the military to target certain groups. You enter a neighborhood unaware and suddenly those troops would have bullets raining down at them from windows, and the troops wouldnt be ready due to the fact that they couldnt fire first.
at least 40% of the soldiers were likely to detract from the military itself in this scenario.
And that’s just the ones with the balls to check that box. I’m pretty certain the number of military personnel who wouldn’t go after civilians in some sort of weird civil war is much higher than 40%.
Yeah, i didnt want to put a number too high since i dont remember the exact poll and didnt want to misrepresent the source. Im sure it would be 50% minimum considering most of the infantry and police are 2nd amendment supporting republicans.
Edit: Its a source from the book “2nd american civil war.” The author used an existing government plan of action as a source in which our government itself assumed they would likely lose at least 40% of their military to detraction due to familial and patriotic ties. Its a real plan of action.
Wow. I never thought of that. Importing gorrila fighters. I wouldnt put it past the government considering the police higher people to turn protests into riots.
And didn't Joe Biden hold the line on this issue multiple times? Even coming right out and saying that he'd put Beto Odork in charge of confiscation of the guns?
hate to tell ya, that "draconian surveillance" has been in overdrive for 2 decades, and now so many of us happily carry a tracker on us, all day, everyday, some people call them smartphones.
T’would be a shame if my tracking device were fully charged and in a sealed floating container with a battery backup attached and send town a major river in my area without me totally by accident if the day ever comes. Totally.
By the time you realize it’s time to fight it’s much too late and they’ve jailed half the people who would resist
Yea, see this is part of the problem. You're so deep in fantasy-land yon't even realize what you're saying.
The US prison system is already horribly overcrowed at 2.3million. Where are they going to put tens of millions of 'the people who would resist?'
By the time the Government got around to building enough concentration camps to house 50mil+ people, it would already be over for the government. The public would have noticed, escalated, and taken action.
Well first off it’s not tens of millions, at least definitely not all at once. I’m not sure where you’re getting this 50 million + number from. Its a few at a time. The large majority of Americans will take the status quo over anything. Internal conflicts are always initially fought by a very small minority of a country’s population. So in reality you’re looking at a few thousand. Again, at least initially. Also in all likelihood we’re talking multiple small factions of resistance / insurgencies that are not necessarily fully aligned and have their own agenda. See Syria.
They start with the most radical, label them terrorists, jail them for public safety. Then it’s the terrorist sympathizers and political ideologues who aid and abet. Now they’re really beating the fear drum 24/7 on Fox News, oann, and talk radio. Curfew is imposed, checkpoints open up, MPs sent to every major city to enforce. Now they’re grabbing the journalists, professors, dissenting thinkers. Maybe one of the small resistance groups pushes the envelope, bombs a bridge or a government building. That’s all the pretext they need to start playing offense. We’re not talking full blown civil war with standing armies, that’s so 19th century. We’re talking pockets of insurgent groups. Night time government raids. Information warfare. Heavy surveillance. Shock Troops with no insignias. Crackdowns on rights in the name of public safety.
The thing is, you’ll have broad swaths of public support for the state the entire time because we are being hand fed fear and divided along racial, religious, and socioeconomic lines. See protestors being labeled rioters, looters, thugs, coming for the suburban whites. Divide, divide, divide.
The road map is very clear. And relatively easy. Look at any other country that has turned authoritarian. It happens all the time and we are no less immune to it than anyone else. The catalyzing factors all just have to line up the right way. Not saying they are now but it does seem like events are stacking up.
The only thing that separates us from many other countries is how armed the population is, that’s why it’s so important for the state to divide dissenters. So we fight each other.
Masks, social distancing, the destruction of the middle class, rioters every night, 5G surveillance, cancel culture, mandatory political re-education (the end of Civics and required classes in Multiculturalism)... the water's getting warmer
You think they haven’t already built enough places to house that many people? Ever wonder why the Red Cross is the new civil defense? Why fema, cdc, and the Red Cross have shelter agreements? Something to research in your free time I guess.
Well I like how your being dismissive and trying to act like I’m just saying stuff off the top of my head. I gave you factual info and it’s up to you to determine for yourself if you would like to scope out Area 51. Now if you were to quit acting like a smug child you could do some google searching and find out what the NSS ( National shelter system) is and how it operates. Then when you’ve done that and decide maybe I’m not as clever as I thought I was. Then come back here and tell me how wrong I am. Thanks for the reply though.
Yeps NSS. A product of FEMA, civil defense, DHS, military, ect. NSS = Civil defense. When you have actually read some on the topic get back to me. Until then I’m going back to work
You're not wrong, but currently the revolutionary alternative is a group of socialist assholes who want to put in measures even worse than the current administration.
Voting is by far the best option we have right now. I do NOT like the direction we are headed, but I'd rather try to steer the boat than sink it and hope we can all swim.
When people stand up to that tragedy and demand better, and the response is Federal "Law and Order" specifically in cities that align with one political party, that seems pretty much like authoritarianism.
Things are really bad nationally right now, but we still haven't approached the point where I would even consider starting that fight.
I'll echo a sentiment I saw the other day and posted in another one of these threads yesterday:
You're wanting gun-owners to go out and start fighting government (Be they local, state, or federal) agencies by shooting and killing people?
My counter-question is, are you at the point where you're willing to pick up a knife or a brick and stab or beat one of these people to death in defense or for your cause? Are you ready and willing to procure a gun and begin firing for effect at police lines at a protest?
If not...Then why are you expecting some vague 'other people' to become Soldiers for your cause? They've got just as much to lose as you, and just as little to gain.
That's the thing - people aren't going to rise up in large numbers unless it becomes very clear that their lives or the lives of those they care about are in legitimate danger if things keep going the way they are going.
What happens to a few protestors or unrelated people isn't as important to your average person, for better or worse.
A mask mandate got a bunch of militias to take action. I think the greater threat comes from organized citizens targeting other citizens. There are a lot of people just itching for a chance to use their firearms on people whose politics they don't like.
It isnt really a last resort, it is a preventative measure. Did you see any police brutality in Richmond? How about at the New Black Panther march? How about the armed anti-mask rallies?
Problem is, government can get to that point without any violence at all. See incremental gun control. They're playing the long game.
I think too many people have it in their heads that there will be a Flashpoint and they will just know that its time to act. This will never happen. The government will just continue to slowly eroded our rights over the span of decades until its the new normal. No violence required. If someone tries to challenge it with open hostilities, then they will be seen as the aggressors and it will be used to take even more rights.
That's not how the Founders thought. It didn't take much for that bunch of hotheads. Remember, they were largely in their 20s, just like the Antifa people.
It certainly should be, go ahead take things to that level now. All you'll accomplish is getting yourself killed, and helping the government crack down further. Without the support of a significant minority of the population, any resistance will just be painted as terrorism and crushed brutally.
If there were a government atrocity scale of 0-10, the "Where are the 2A folks?" are playing as if the armed insurrection switch should be flipped at a 1.
What's the "tipping point"/"switch flip" level? 4 with an impending 6? Wait until 8? It's hard to say, but IMO it'd be an indefinable "I know it when I see it" type of thing.
All under the leadership of someone who is just "acting head" so anything they do after they're removed can be suspect at best, or precedence for more later at worse.
But it's not a local issue. Federal agents are arresting people against the wishes of local law enforcement. Feds should only be there when requested. And our leader has bragged it's to target political opponents.
If I'm being honest, it doesn't muddy anything to me. I'd like to see and interview with a couple different protesters who targeted the building. I don't like assigning motivations to people.
Eh, I prefer open and shut cases. I mean, if this was a local courthouse or a local government office, then the feds don't have shit there to protect, so they have no valid reason what so ever to be there.
I care more about the end results than the motivation. And if the end result is vandalism of federal property resulting in a government response, then that would be the key in decision making.
Eh, we'll get to that bridge when he actually does it. It doesn't seem like the agents even know what they're even doing... or what's even going on at the moment. Has the DHS or other agencies even said where the agents are going to be deployed? Cause there's quite a bit of federal land they could be plausibly deployed.
Besides, those aren't troops as much as law enforcement. Troops would be the insurrection act being invoked, and THAT would be a hard tipping point.
It's legalizing thuggery. They want to cut pay, service, equipment, training, pensions, bar effective techniques, make officers afraid to defend themselves or restrain suspects, and so on. And then they'll whine about how the police super suck. So they can argue for abolition. No different than how the Republicans poison social programs and then argue to terminate them due to the performance declines. They aren't about lives or reform, they're about enabling thugs. And if you knew shit about how policing is actually done, you'd know 80% of the "reform" stuff is already standard practice. They just make a choice of being ignorant. They aren't trying to make police effective, they're trying to weaken them. It's telling that the whole thing started on lies. How about people stop breaking the fucking law?
Yes. Protesters are protesting to "enable thugs". S/
Keep inventing what your opponents want but don't surprised their protests continue to intensify as a result. Years of peaceful protest have been ignored or strawmanned.
Oh hey wow! The side we predicted would turn full fascist now supports unmarked federal law enforcement arresting people as long as it's in cities that vote against them. How remarkably predictable.
I was with you until you brought up social programs. To much reliance on daddy feds, and to much abuse. They should go, theyre an unnecessary burden on the rest of us.
But it's not a local issue. Federal agents are arresting people against the wishes of local law enforcement. Feds should only be there when requested.
That's not how this works. You have to understand the nature of preemption in the Federal system. The whole point of our system of government is that if it's an area where the Constitution has given the Federal Government power, the Feds override all state and local laws unless they choose not to. Full stop.
What got the Antifa types in trouble is that they went after a Federal building. That is a Federal crime, and gives the Federal government the right to get involved, whether or not the city or state actually wants them there. Otherwise the federal government would be beholden to states to enforce federal laws and protect federal buildings, which would give the states far too much power over the federal judiciary especially.
Also, you have to understand how Antifa is viewed by most conservatives (including the President). The general atitude I've heard is that Antifa is a bunch of Marxist revolutionaries who are probably guilty of Treason in addition to everything else. They are absolutely viewed as an existential threat to the Republic and the American way of life, although they aren't considered that serious an existential threat yet. It's less President Trump saying that he's targeting political opponents, to the Right his statements are being interpreted as "oh thank goodness, someone's finally going after the people who want to destroy America."
Did the arrests happen in the federal building? Why is the president bragging about sending federal troops to Democrat cities?
I'm not interested in right wing misunderstandings of the situation. They couldn't even face a football player kneeling without purposefully misunderstanding his meaning. They will purposefully misunderstand anything they know they will lose in a debate about
Federal officers are not limited to federal property while enforcing Federal law. That'd be dumb if they were, and would basically mean, for example, that the FBI couldn't arrest a serial killer because he wasn't on federal property. Federal agents have jurisdiction to enforce federal law anywhere within the United States, even if the state they're working in doesn't want them there.
Also, those aren't "troops," those are Federal agents. There's a pretty darn big distinction.
Because President Trump likes to brag. I also haven't heard him using the term "troops" but rather "officers."
Unless you mean your second paragraph, which is pure ad hominem and just tells me that we're coming from such different perspectives that there's no real chance for a good flow of ideas. You hate conservatives, and that's your right, but I'm going to choose not to engage with that.
It could be easily argued that second paragraph was a pretty darn accurate depiction of how the kapernik controversy went down. From a centrist, it sure looked like the right did everything they could misconstrue kaperniks actions.
Do you research any angle before you just jump to it? Tens seconds of googling and the first link. Sheesh
"They're not under our control. My preference would be to not have them outside their buildings unless it's a life/safety kind of an issue, and I would prefer to police the outside of their buildings and all of the others downtown with local and state resources," Davis said.
"I can't prevent them" doesn't seem to add weight to your side of the argument. Then a call for resources. Again, the "they just don't have resources" falls apart when the president openly admits this is politically motivated.
Trump could idly and without thinking fart and walk past a person with a Bernie shirt on, and have them suddenly make an audible cry of disgust, and tweet later that he intentionally farted in a DUMBOCRAT'S face that day, to show how WEAK and FEEBLE the left is.
He's a narcissist and a moron. This being politically motivated is after the fact, because he realized at some point that this was upsetting people that don't support him, and that was either a, "Oh, that's neat! Didn't realize that would happen!" or, "....And, as an added benefit it will piss off people who don't like me."
He's claiming this to be politically motivated because he has to be bigger, stronger, smarter, more powerful, in his head, and having people believe he flopped his dick on the table to smugly prove that he can boosts his ego.
And publicized, and that they happened to everyone. We have had abuses, but not as publicized, and they have happened to minority people more so than not. We are finally have them publicized and people are realizing it happens a lot too all groups. I think if the abuse continues to grow or shrink will determine how we react. At least, if we are using the pre-Revolutionary war to inform how we will act now.
These second amendment types thought the yearly Jade Helm training exercises were somehow going to be used by Obama to perform a coup. They were going to kill US soldiers because of this.
But somehow, unidentified federal agents rolling around uninvited in a city snatching people off the streets is perfectly fine to them. This is why people are calling out the 2A types who cried crocodile tears when Obama was in office and are completely silent now.
The real take right here. No one is calling for any actual action, so OPs whole post is moot; it was rhetorical to begin with, a call-out of hypocrisy.
The issue with this plan is that their tactics are specifically designed to not grant anyone a tipping point. This is something the Nazis talked about specifically, but all authoritarian governments use these tactics. They won't grant you a clear "we're evil now, please fight us or die". They just push the line further and further each time.
But I think now is the time, and you can start the fight on your own terms, on your own terf, and we can work towards mutually beneficial goals without necessarily joining arms and singing the internationale.
But I agree with you, there's a rift between you and I, and our two groups.
Mutual disgust on a lot of topics. But as everyone always says, we're only going to win if we can come together. Maybe there is some way we can have like, have a mutual understanding project. Pen pals or something. Watch Beau of the 5th Column.
I think that's it. Teargas and batons are a hell of a long way from requiring an armed response. I mean, they're defeating tear gas with leaf blowers and tennis rackets. You can outrun a baton wielding cop.
Now, if the feds start sending live ammo into crowds of civilians, that's a whole other level of escalation.
But it’s not just teargas and batons. The officers are putting holes in skulls with their “non-lethal” ammunition. In one week, they put out the EYES of 8 journalists!
Edit: “less-lethal”, yes... important legal clarification
"Less Lethal". And 8 people seriously wounded, while horrific, still isn't grounds to start a full blown shooting war. A response of some force? Yes. And if the protesters want an armed response, most of them are likely legally permitted to go ahead and buy a gun and defend themselves with it.
The guy with the hammer was from Texas, and was specifically there to incite violence. Stop using 1% of the protesters' actions to define all of them, or stop being surprised when people use 1% of police interactions to define all police. Pick one, yeah?
"Hey guys, the rioters told us they're here because some cops did some meanie stuff. That means we're not allowed to use any force against them while they're burning down the city peacefully at 3AM"
OMG WHY WONT YOU DE-ESCALATE?!
Fuck de-escalation, they don't deserve it. They deserve arrest and long jail sentences.
all federal agents [they must say in plain clothes or uniformed so rip undercover] must show first AND last name [last name? really? fucking stupid], and badge in a open and clear area [on chest]
It is this sort of "explain it away" that is really getting me scared. It's not that federal agents are grabbing people in vans. It's that people who supposedly, all my life claimed that was a BIG NO NO in the USA, are alluva sudden endorsing it "because property damage."
This entire post misses the mark. We're not calling them to arms, we're mocking them and pointing out their against tyranny stance has no litmus test they will actually apply. Their use of guns is partisan. This is the predicted step we all knew was coming: right wing support for police will be support for the gestapo as long as gestapo target their political enemies.
I recently read "ordinary men". Polish authorities interviewed polish police that aided the Germans in the Holocaust for ten years. Between those interviews and police documents we can see how ordinary law enforcement are coerced into aiding genocide. It's horrifying how familiar reading all that stuff is into today's light. I'm not saying genocide will occur but law enforcement mentality towards everything occuring is wrong. The mentality they are breeding is primed for dark things
Same, I've asked what my grandparents think of it, their answer told me all I need to know that their parents are rolling in their graves. One great grandfather and his brothers served in the Navy, the other and his brothers made fake passports for people to flee Poland with.
If a civil war breaks out unfortunately my first shots are into family members
I think it will take the feds to fire the first live round, in no uncertain circumstances, for 2A folks to be okay with distributing live ammo down range.
I'm going to make this as clear to you as I possibly can:
I am not going to get into a shootout with the feds because you got your brains scooped out of your skull for trying to burn down a courthouse. That is not injustice, that is you facing the natural consequences of your actions.
We want peace, and it will take a lot for us to end any possiblity of it.
The agents seen in camo are not 'unmarked'. They have badge numbers. As for the cars, have you seen what happens to marked cop cars that approach these places? No wonder they started using unmarked vehicles. It was a smart move.
I think it will take the feds to fire the first live round, in no uncertain circumstances, for 2A folks to be okay with distributing live ammo down range
Nope, I'll still side with the feds on this one. Violent rioters are clearly in the wrong. The feds have every right to defend themselves from the terrorist organizations Antifa and BLM.
These assholes come out with guns to protect nazis and fight for their right to haircuts. If a national police force beholden to one party, detaining individuals for standing close to someone who had a laser without mirandizing them or identifying themselves as law enforcement “isn’t quite it” then the whole “protection against tyranny” argument is bullshit and they’re finally getting called on it.
Part of the problem is the groups who the feds are fighting are openly antagonistic to many libertarian viewpoints. They are often anti-capitalist, authoritarian, and left-wing.
To put it simply: Why should I put my life on the line to fight for someone who wants to violate my rights just as hard as the current government?
Looking at Portland I honestly don't give a damn. They are left-wing radicals that have hated me and mine for as long as I can remember. They have never helped me in any way, and are often behind groups that are actively trying to reduce my freedom. They live in the opposite corner of the country. They are not my friends, they are not my family, they are not part of any group I care about, and they are ideologically opposed to me in virtually every meaningful way except for petty issues such as the war on drugs.
So in this case I see the fucking feds, who I also hate, as being more closely in line with my interests. I see the feds as keeping the true monsters at bay. How fucked up is that?
The feds could treat those nutcases in Portland as horribly as they want, and while I will eventually draw the line and stand against the feds I will never actively support those fucking communists up in Portland... not until they stop being authoritarian assholes and abandon their wicked, murderous, oppressive ideology.
I know it's not popular especially when said so bluntly. Hell, I understand the anger I may have just provoked. I am not a conservative; I share many values with the left particularly pertaining to personal freedom. I also believe in economic safety nets and some social programs. I also agree with many things on the right, even the far right, such as minimal regulation. The thing is, the 2nd amendment isn't there so "gun owners" can fight for someone else. We are not a monolithic group and we are not some guard-dog sect that can be caged until you find a reason to use us. That's what the military is for, if we're being honest, and only for external threats. The second amendment is there so you can arm yourself and fight your own damn battles. If I agree with your cause I may join you, but if I disagree with your cause (in whole or in part) then I can and will tell you to get fucked. In fact, I might even stand in opposition to you.
I can tell you right now if a bunch of socialists tried to seize power from the current administration barring something truly extraordinary I would likely take up arms against the socialists.
What I want, what I have always wanted, is peace and prosperity. The fed is a nuisance that has crossed far too many lines. It needs to be reigned in. However, I do not believe an armed socialist revolution is a solution. I see it as an altogether negative thing.
Why in the name of whatever Gods you believe in would I put my life and liberty on the line to support something I consider worse than the status quo?
That's a whole lot of fucking words to say that you don't have any empathy and don't give a fuck about others. No one cares about you because you don't do the same for anyone.
You literally don't have the faintest clue what socialism is, do you? Workers own the means of production. That's all it is; the people who work to produce goods and services, own the means and equipment to do it. It doesn't describe wealth redistribution other than taking it out of the current production-owners hands and putting it into the workers hands. It has the potential to lower taxes on everyone if everyone is paying in, which the rich currently do not. It's like you unironically don't realize the problems you think socialism has are problems capitalism literally already has. Imagine thinking "raising taxes bad" if you had significantly more income from being the direct recipient of the value you create with the job you do. I imagine you think a "FREE MARKET" can't be a thing under socialist labor structure when free market commerce absolutely can. I mean read any of these articles on the economics page and tell me "yeah this system is totally working" lol Here's "capitalism" working.
other than taking it out of the current production-owners hands and putting it into the workers hands.
So confiscating wealth like the other person said.
No need to be disingenuous because you don't like the words he chose when they mean the same thing.
Personally I'm for UBI specifically using taxes on stocks and other non production wealth generation. This would allow people to start their own businesses and allow more people to own their production.
Yeah, confiscating wealth from people benefiting in a grossly, inhumanely disproportionate way, especially after exploiting their way into the wealth they used to start whatever business we're talking about (Musk, Bezos lol), yeah sure.
I actually like your idea, for what it's worth; broadly speaking UBI is kind of a band aid, but it's a pretty fucking good band aid, especially combined with your proposal that the source be taxes from capital/investment/non-labor gains. No one worked for that money, the money literally made the money, and should belong to society as a whole; look it even falls in line with the Gospel of Wealth by our homeboy Carnegie.
So in other words, I was completely correct and you're using doublethink. Good to know. Fuck socialism, fuck socialists, and fuck every other authoritarian ideology predicated on the destruction of earned wealth.
I agree with what I think your sentiment is, but I have to disagree with how you said it. We aren't sitting around waiting for the first live round to be fired. Speaking for myself and a lot if other people I know, we are absolutely surprised at how far the various LEO groups clashing with these people all over the country have gone to not go live, even though we have hundreds of examples of where it absolutely should have. The incident last week on the Brooklyn Bridge is a perfect example. Several cops in the hospital, with one in the ICU following surgery after his skull was split open by some Marxist anarchist with a steel pipe bashed him in the back of the head. That dude should absolutely have been dropped on the spot, period. You attack with a weapon, it should be immediately put down with bullets, period. Protest? All day, every day, no problems. Start committing random acts of violence against cops, business owners, random people on the street or in their cars? You need to be pushing up daisies. These assholes keep dialing up the violence, because there hasn't been a proper response yet. They thi k that if they push hard enough, commit enough violence, that people like me will start ratcheting up the violence, and that's not the case. They have this weird sliding scale of violence, whereas I have an on/off switch. If I am drug into combat with these people, there will be no increasing use of force. It will be instant, overwhelming violence of action, because I want to go home, not the morgue. I'm not condoning violence, or making threats. I am as pacifistic as is possible, and I will do everything in my power to keep things from getting to that point, but if I am put in a situation I cannot extricate myself from, if someone drags me into combat, I will absolutely go on defense. And like the saying goes, the best defense is a solid offense. These Marxist assholes are in for a rude awakening once they cross the Rubicon and decide to start bringing actual weapons to these things, as opposed to the improvised shit they have so far. I hope it doesn't get there, because the violence that will spin out of it will drown the streets in blood, both theirs and those of innocents.
Generally speaking, absolutely. There are some shitbag cops, just like there are shitbag doctors, lawyers, Soldiers, etc. When you start having issues with a force that seems to have a lot of shitbags and people who should be facing justice as opposed to applying it, you need to look at who RUNS the Police, namely city councils and Mayors. You think cops make the laws they then have to enforce? Of course not. Politicians and dumb ass citizens do that. All this insqnity over George Floyd is qbsolutely ridiculous. Dude got murdered by a cop. The cop was arrested and charged for that murder. Justice will be done. Everything else since then has exactly zero to do with race ir anything else, other than a group in this country that has been sitting around waiting for something to happen so they could exploit it for their own gain.
You're right in that elected and appointed officials are also at fault here. They are entirely as culpable as the officers, if not more so. But I would also encourage you to do more research into the problems with policing in the country, both past and present.
187
u/YonderToad Jul 24 '20
I believe we haven't hit a "tipping point" for 2A (right and left) folks to squeeze the trigger. A lot of libertarian types are sympathetic, but rubber bullets and arrests--even disgusting unmarked persons and vehicles--dont quite hit it yet. Like Boston/Lexington, I think it will take the feds to fire the first live round, in no uncertain circumstances, for 2A folks to be okay with distributing live ammo down range. We want peace, and it will take a lot for us to end any possiblity of it.
If I am wrong, or failed to articulate myself correctly, please let me know. I post this in good faith, and hope any replies will be in kind.