Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Stormdash]

Very peaceful protest that took over federal land and threatened to shoot cops if they approached. Then, when cops tried to stop one leaving, he tries to ram the cops and gets shot for it.

Cut the shifting goalposts shit. You - you - were talking about lockdown protests.

Oh... people showed up... a lot of people are still showing up... they are helping them selfs...

Mostly the same people performing different roles on that night's bill, but as you like. I just mean, if antifa/BLM are the real "chads" the way you think the MOLON LABE boys aren't, why didn't they solve the situation the way you expected the MOLON LABE boys to do it for them?

I mean, don't tell me because it's not for a willingness to be violent - beating people, setting fire to things, murdering men guarding pawn shops, kidnapping people on the street by detaining them in traffic are all bog standard Antifa-BLM tactics this summer.

Edit: What is it with these activists and ramming people with cars? You sure you need a gun?

There isn't a state in the union where those activities don't constitute unlawful imprisonment at the low end or felony kidnapping at the high end. That latter is important to note because it's an almost universally accepted basis for justifiable deadly force.

You don't get to illegally close down roads and then refuse to let vehicles pass or withdraw, especially while trying to pull the doors open and slamming on them. There is a perfectly legal worst-case scenario that could lead to that I don't think any of these lemmings on the street have actually thought about.

[Felya]

Cut the shifting goalposts shit. You - you - were talking about lockdown protests.

Uhm... I also listed Timothy McVeigh, WACO, Ruby Ridge and both Bundy stand offs... do you want me to list lesser known pro-2A terrorists and cop killers? You sure I’m not going to find any pro-2A militias using pictures of cops as target practice?

Mostly the same people performing different roles on that night's bill, but as you like. I just mean, if antifa/BLM are the real "chads" the way you think the MOLON LABE boys aren't, why didn't they solve the situation the way you expected the MOLON LABE boys to do it for them?

There is no such thing as chads... it’s something teenage boys creates as an excuse for not getting laid. Fucking measuring sculls? Idiots...

I mean, don't tell me because it's not for a willingness to be violent - beating people, setting fire to things, murdering men guarding pawn shops, kidnapping people on the street by detaining them in traffic are all bog standard Antifa-BLM tactics this summer?

Yeah, that’s what mothers marching on Portland did... you bet... it’s why they got tear gassed... yep yep...

There isn't a state in the union where those activities don't constitute unlawful imprisonment at the low end or felony kidnapping at the high end. That latter is important to note because it's an almost universally accepted basis for justifiable deadly force.

Are we talking about cops grabbing people off the street, in unmarked cars? What if a good guy with a gun sees that? What if a good guy with a gun, sees a woman being pulled into an unmarked van?

You don't get to illegally close down roads and then refuse to let vehicles pass or withdraw, especially while trying to pull the doors open and slamming on them. There is a perfectly legal worst-case scenario that could lead to that I don't think any of these lemmings on the street have actually thought about.

Yes, perfectly legal... like outside the White House, when Trump goons attacked? Mothers of a Portland getting beaten by tear gas? What a joke...

https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2020...-protests.html

If only they had guns...

- - - Updated - - -

You probably should be damn glad the pro-2A crowd wasn't there, because you would be very disappointed which direction they'd have raised their arms.

Still waiting on an explanation on why I would be very disappointed? Were they going to play Ace of Base none stop? Shaba Ranks? That would be disappointing... is that what you meant? Pro-2A crowd has a disappointing taste in music? Please elaborate... my dude...

[PickleballAce]

What gotcha? The memes you posted? You think those fat fucks demanding to get their hair cuts, are chads? You sure? You do know guns don’t make you a chad?

Nah, but if Chad and his boys come around looking for a fight, it does help even the odds.

[Stormdash]

Are we talking about cops grabbing people off the street, in unmarked cars? What if a good guy with a gun sees that? What if a good guy with a gun, sees a woman being pulled into an unmarked van?

There has been as yet not one story that confirms there was no arrest warrant or due process for any of those. So many pathetic morons seem to think an arrest isn't legit if Miranda isn't read aloud, in public, concurrent to the detention (basically, like on TV, which is their sole basis of knowledge), but that's not now nor has ever been the law. It's not what Miranda or any subsequent 4A case on those lines says.

Now there is a problem, yes, that a well-intentioned bystander might try to intervene in the exceptionally uncommon case like that - and I think the correct answer would be leniency, but it would also be a situation where nobody is "wrong".

No, what I was talking about was angry mobs swarming vehicles that have blundered into the illegal street closure and then instead of being allowed to safely advance or withdraw, have their hoods and windows beaten on by said mob, and often time are subject to attempts to pull them from the vehicle. In 100% of instances, that's at a bare minimum false imprisonment and in a lot of states is in fact kidnapping (states where kidnapping doesn't require moving the victim, basically).

Yes, perfectly legal... like outside the White House, when Trump goons attacked? Mothers of a Portland getting beaten by tear gas? What a joke...

The scenario I'm worried about is a more severe version of what we already say last week - where one of these mobs swarms a vehicle and an occupant reasonable afraid for their safety ends up killing one of their assailants. Except in the worst case it would end up being a whole lot of their assailants. The right crowd finds the wrong driver who has their kid in the car or something, and you're going to have a stack of people in the street, and then what?

Still waiting on an explanation on why I would be very disappointed? Were they going to play Ace of Base none stop? Shaba Ranks? That would be disappointing... is that what you meant? Pro-2A crowd has a disappointing taste in music? Please elaborate... my dude...

When communist goons start trying to burn down courthouses, if the American people take up arms and head that direction, it won't be to point their guns at the people trying to stop them.

[Saucexorzski]

There has been as yet not one story that confirms there was no arrest warrant or due process for any of those. So many pathetic morons seem to think an arrest isn't legit if Miranda isn't read aloud, in public, concurrent to the detention (basically, like on TV, which is their sole basis of knowledge), but that's not now nor has ever been the law. It's not what Miranda or any subsequent 4A case on those lines says.

Now there is a problem, yes, that a well-intentioned bystander might try to intervene in the exceptionally uncommon case like that - and I think the correct answer would be leniency, but it would also be a situation where nobody is "wrong".

No, what I was talking about was angry mobs swarming vehicles that have blundered into the illegal street closure and then instead of being allowed to safely advance or withdraw, have their hoods and windows beaten on by said mob, and often time are subject to attempts to pull them from the vehicle. In 100% of instances, that's at a bare minimum false imprisonment and in a lot of states is in fact kidnapping (states where kidnapping doesn't require moving the victim, basically).



The scenario I'm worried about is a more severe version of what we already say last week - where one of these mobs swarms a vehicle and an occupant reasonable afraid for their safety ends up killing one of their assailants. Except in the worst case it would end up being a whole lot of their assailants. The right crowd finds the wrong driver who has their kid in the car or something, and you're going to have a stack of people in the street, and then what?



When communist goons start trying to burn down courthouses, if the American people take up arms and head that direction, it won't be to point their guns at the people trying to stop them.

These mobs don't care, they are looking for blood.

[Mayhem]

There has been as yet not one story that confirms there was no arrest warrant or due process for any of those. So many pathetic morons seem to think an arrest isn't legit if Miranda isn't read aloud, in public, concurrent to the detention (basically, like on TV, which is their sole basis of knowledge), but that's not now nor has ever been the law. It's not what Miranda or any subsequent 4A case on those lines says.

Quick question: If you were grabbed by a group of armed but unidentifiable people in combat gear that lead you to an unmarked van, what would your reaction be?

A) let's see and wait if they have an arrest warrant and wait for what's happening next
B) do everything that's in your power to not be dragged into an unmarked van by unidentifiable people

Now there is a problem, yes, that a well-intentioned bystander might try to intervene in the exceptionally uncommon case like that - and I think the correct answer would be leniency, but it would also be a situation where nobody is "wrong".

Interesting

No, what I was talking about was angry mobs swarming vehicles that have blundered into the illegal street closure and then instead of being allowed to safely advance or withdraw, have their hoods and windows beaten on by said mob, and often time are subject to attempts to pull them from the vehicle. In 100% of instances, that's at a bare minimum false imprisonment and in a lot of states is in fact kidnapping (states where kidnapping doesn't require moving the victim, basically).

I've asked this someone else already, how in the flying fuck do you blunder into a crowd of people? I mean, apart from actually seeing them, they usually aren't the quiet folks so you should be able to see and hear them from afar.

The scenario I'm worried about is a more severe version of what we already say last week - where one of these mobs swarms a vehicle and an occupant reasonable afraid for their safety ends up killing one of their assailants. Except in the worst case it would end up being a whole lot of their assailants. The right crowd finds the wrong driver who has their kid in the car or something, and you're going to have a stack of people in the street, and then what?

Then you have a prime example of a very bad parent that ends up a mass-murderer in jail for a very long time.

When communist goons start trying to burn down courthouses, if the American people take up arms and head that direction, it won't be to point their guns at the people trying to stop them.

So the anti-government overreach crowds first action would be to protect the overreaching government? Yeah, with all the other bullshit they're using to defend their "right" this checks out.

[Felya]

Nah, but if Chad and his boys come around looking for a fight, it does help even the odds.

Why does a chad need to even the odds? Chad is supposed to be superior as it is... and his “boys”? Uhm... okay... you do you...

- - - Updated - - -

When communist goons start trying to burn down courthouses, if the American people take up arms and head that direction, it won't be to point their guns at the people trying to stop them.

You are literally threatening to shoot people? Are you fucking serious? You are literally threatening to shoot unarmed civilians, in front of cops and think that’s cool? You think the cops will thank you or put you in jail?

Dude going on a diatribe about evil communists, thinks it’s totes cool to shoot unarmed Americans, in front of cops. Is “communist” the new “it’s coming right for us”?

[Stormdash]

Quick question: If you were grabbed by a group of armed but unidentifiable people in combat gear that lead you to an unmarked van, what would your reaction be?

A) let's see and wait if they have an arrest warrant and wait for what's happening next
B) do everything that's in your power to not be dragged into an unmarked van by unidentifiable people

I haven't said those being arrested aren't reasonable to be surprised and resistant, that's good instinct, in fact. Just pointing out that the idea that these arrests are inherently unlawful is a myth being passed around by and among ignorant people. You don't need to Mirandize someone at the time you arrest them; you need to Mirandize before the point at which you want to start benefiting from whatever they say or do while in custody, i.e. before interrogating them, if you want it to be evidence at trial. You don't need to answer questions from bystanders about what your probable cause is while the arrest is taking place; you need to answer for it in obtaining an arrest warrant prior or in making a probable cause showing to a judge after the fact.

I've asked this someone else already, how in the flying fuck do you blunder into a crowd of people? I mean, apart from actually seeing them, they usually aren't the quiet folks so you should be able to see and hear them from afar.

It's not ordinary citizens responsibilty to check the news to see if the route they take to their night job or home from their day job or over to their sister's house has been illegally shut down; that's how they end up just showing up, like the black man in a pickup who loudly rebuked his false imprisoners that he had kids, had to get to work, and they better get tf out the way as Ludacris would advise.

Then you have a prime example of a very bad parent that ends up a mass-murderer in jail for a very long time.

The circumstances I described would be a justified use of deadly force. Trying to pull people out of their vehicle amidst a mob is 100/100 a reasonable threat of death or imminent bodily harm, and it's shared by everyone posing it in the immediate vicinity. If he started walking up and down the street like he was trying to full clear a level in The Last of Us he would cross the line, but firing until the rest of the crowd got the idea to get the hell out of there? Yep, he's golden Ponyboy.

So the anti-government overreach crowds first action would be to protect the overreaching government? Yeah, with all the other bullshit they're using to defend their "right" this checks out.

The crux here is that government agents using reasonable force to prevent arson, looting, and vandalism of both civic institutions and private property is NOT overreach.

That is a tough idea to get people who actually are dumb enough to think the 1st Amendment covers those activities to understand, but it's the truth. Stopping that kind of crap is in fact one of the very few legitimate things for which the government even exists in the first place.

BTW, they Mostly Peacefully tried to set fire to a police precinct last night in Portland. Again. Still.

[Felya]

The circumstances I described would be a justified use of deadly force. Trying to pull people out of their vehicle amidst a mob is 100/100 a reasonable threat of death or imminent bodily harm, and it's shared by everyone posing it in the immediate vicinity. If he started walking up and down the street like he was trying to full clear a level in The Last of Us he would cross the line, but firing until the rest of the crowd got the idea to get the hell out of there? Yep, he's golden Ponyboy.

Yet, being pulled into cars, it’s totally cool, because it’s the government? How did he know it wasn’t cops pulling him out of the car?

[Stormdash]

Why does a chad need to even the odds? Chad is supposed to be superior as it is... and his “boys”? Uhm... okay... you do you...

- - - Updated - - -



You are literally threatening to shoot people? Are you fucking serious? You are literally threatening to shoot unarmed civilians, in front of cops and think that’s cool? You think the cops will thank you or put you in jail?

Dude going on a diatribe about evil communists, thinks it’s totes cool to shoot unarmed Americans, in front of cops. Is “communist” the new “it’s coming right for us”?

If you think that constitutes a threat, either at a conceptual level or a literal legal one, you go right ahead being that degree of stupid, I won't stop you.

- - - Updated - - -

Yet, being pulled into cars, it’s totally cool, because it’s the government? How did he know it wasn’t cops pulling him out of the car?

No, because it's a legal arrest. Duh.

[Felya]

If you think that constitutes a threat, either at a conceptual level or a literal legal one, you go right ahead being that degree of stupid, I won't stop you.

Are you sure you won’t just scream “communist” and then shoot me? Shooting people, because they are a threat on a “conceptual” level? I will ask again... will you be arrested or thanked?

- - - Updated - - -

No, because it's a legal arrest. Duh.

How do they know it’s the cops arresting and not chads and their boys? How did the guy being pulled out if the car, know it wasn’t cops?

The cop that killed Floyd, was also previously punished for pulling a woman out if her car, for speeding... to perform a “search”... he was promoted afterwards.

[Mayhem]

I haven't said those being arrested aren't reasonable to be surprised and resistant, that's good instinct, in fact. Just pointing out that the idea that these arrests are inherently unlawful is a myth being passed around by and among ignorant people. You don't need to Mirandize someone at the time you arrest them; you need to Mirandize before the point at which you want to start benefiting from whatever they say or do while in custody, i.e. before interrogating them, if you want it to be evidence at trial. You don't need to answer questions from bystanders about what your probable cause is while the arrest is taking place; you need to answer for it in obtaining an arrest warrant prior or in making a probable cause showing to a judge after the fact.

So that's B) then? And you don't see the inherent problem with that?

It's not ordinary citizens responsibilty to check the news to see if the route they take to their night job or home from their day job or over to their sister's house has been illegally shut down; that's how they end up just showing up, like the black man in a pickup who loudly rebuked his false imprisoners that he had kids, had to get to work, and they better get tf out the way as Ludacris would advise.

Looking through your windshield and hearing sounds is "checking the news"? The news part, however, you are correct, it is the Government's responsibility to alert people when roads are blocked, else you end up on a flooded street, in the midst of a shootout between cops and criminals, next to a burning and collapsing building.

The circumstances I described would be a justified use of deadly force. Trying to pull people out of their vehicle amidst a mob is 100/100 a reasonable threat of death or imminent bodily harm, and it's shared by everyone posing it in the immediate vicinity. If he started walking up and down the street like he was trying to full clear a level in The Last of Us he would cross the line, but firing until the rest of the crowd got the idea to get the hell out of there? Yep, he's golden Ponyboy.

The circumstances ignore everything prior. Cars usually don't magically spawn within crowds.

The crux here is that government agents using reasonable force to prevent arson, looting, and vandalism of both civic institutions and private property is NOT overreach.

And again, ignoring everything else to just these very specific circumstances. So the government keeps harming peaceful protesters, apparently, that's not government overreach. The protesters then starting to fight back and employing tactics to not get hurt by the government, targeting government institutions because well what else would you target gives government agents the excuse to use more force. That's a very convenient excuse for not standing up against government overreach, just ignore who started it and then be on the side of the ones that started it.

That is a tough idea to get people who actually are dumb enough to think the 1st Amendment covers those activities to understand, but it's the truth. Stopping that kind of crap is in fact one of the very few legitimate things for which the government even exists in the first place.

BTW, they Mostly Peacefully tried to set fire to a police precinct last night in Portland. Again. Still.

Are you surprised that after the government escalated things, things are escalating more?

[Stormdash]

Are you sure you won’t just scream “communist” and then shoot me? Shooting people, because they are a threat on a “conceptual” level? I will ask again... will you be arrested or thanked?

Pfft, there's no reason to shoot communists with so many functional helicopters in the world. Whole thing is just to point out the bass thrum of idiocy that is a bunch of communists who want to ban guns and abolish private property whining that gun-owning libertarians aren't going to show up to try to make sure that day's arson and attempted murder (i.e. arson of occupied buildings) goes to plan.

How do they know it’s the cops arresting and not chads and their boys? How did the guy being pulled out if the car, know it wasn’t cops?

How does the parent in that hypothetical not know that the dozens people beating on his head, screaming about how he's a racist, and trying to pull him or his kids from the vehicle know they aren't cops? This is your armor-piercing question, huh?

The cop that killed Floyd, was also previously punished for pulling a woman out if her car, for speeding... to perform a “search”... he was promoted afterwards.

Hey, I've said since this started we need to deunionize police and completely change the test for qualified immunity. Those are the only two reforms that could actually change anything. But nobody's interested in those, especially not that first one, and especially not the Marxist left, because they'd frankly probably trade 100 George Floyd's before they'd admit that there's something made worse by a public sector union.

[Felya]

Such an amazing logical seesaw we got here...

We have chads and their boys, threatening to go after protesters, needing guns as back up. While another person, is complaining that property damage, justifies shooting people, due to a “conceptual” threat. In both cases, being under the impression that they are helping police and will not be persecuted. Yet... we are supposed to be afraid of communists and antifa? We have to figure out if people pulling us into unmarked vans, are chads, pedos or cops? Yet, afraid of “communists”.

@Stormdash fix the quoting on your reply, it’s hard to respond to and makes it seem like you need to relax.

[Stormdash]

Looking through your windshield and hearing sounds is "checking the news"? The news part, however, you are correct, it is the Government's responsibility to alert people when roads are blocked, else you end up on a flooded street, in the midst of a shootout between cops and criminals, next to a burning and collapsing building.

This may come as a shock to you, but in cities there are cross streets and you don't really know what's going on around a corner or curve until you've made it, and you can't typically just rotate a vehicle 180 degrees in place and drive out. And in practice, as soon as vehicles are even in shouting distance they get swarmed and the crowd won't let drivers advance (which is still the law; the road is open) or perform their illegal turn to go the other way.

At that point, what's happening is detention.

And again, ignoring everything else to just these very specific circumstances. So the government keeps harming peaceful protesters, apparently, that's not government overreach. The protesters then starting to fight back and employing tactics to not get hurt by the government, targeting government institutions because well what else would you target gives government agents the excuse to use more force. That's a very convenient excuse for not standing up against government overreach, just ignore who started it and then be on the side of the ones that started it.

It's very simple - whoever wants to burn the courthouse with the human beings in it is always the party in the wrong.

Are you surprised that after the government escalated things, things are escalating more?

When the precinct in Minneapolis was burnt to the ground, it was after the police had already left and ceased confronting protestors entirely. That is called "deescalation" for those that don't have a fucking concussion. The worst of the persistent rioting has been in cities where standing orders have been to interfere with the crowds as little as possible, which has had the predictable effect not of them just peacefully holding a candlelight vigil but of them getting themselves more worked up into a frenzy.

- - - Updated - - -

Such an amazing logical seesaw we got here...

We have chads and their boys, threatening to go after protesters, needing guns as back up. While another person, is complaining that property damage, justifies shooting people, due to a “conceptual” threat. In both cases, being under the impression that they are helping police and will not be persecuted. Yet... we are supposed to be afraid of communists and antifa? We have to figure out if people pulling us into unmarked vans, are chads, pedos or cops? Yet, afraid of “communists”.

This post is barely coherent.

Firstly, in answer to the pathetic whining that libertarians haven't shown up to try to aid the political terrorism by those who oppose everything that the libertarians generally stand for, I pointed out that it's probably best that for the marxist revolution LARPers that they stayed away, and you somehow came up with addled interpretation of that as a threat.

Then, I said that it's not government overreach to use reasonable force to prevent the burning and ransacking of civic institutions like courthouses (wherein the process by which your individual liberties are upheld and vindicated takes place) or private business (which, by their existence, are expressions of your rights to life, liberty, and property) - you said these literal acts of violence were a "conceptual" threat, instead of being the very thing the government exist to do, protect individual liberty.

Either you aren't reading my posts or you aren't reading your own. I don't really care which, nothing you say has value.

[Felya]

Pfft, there's no reason to shoot communists with so many functional helicopters in the world. Whole thing is just to point out the bass thrum of idiocy that is a bunch of communists who want to ban guns and abolish private property whining that gun-owning libertarians aren't going to show up to try to make sure that day's arson and attempted murder (i.e. arson of occupied buildings) goes to plan.

No... it shows something else... you are talking about tossing people out of helicopters, after justifying shooting protestors for destroying property. It quite clearly shows that this is nothing more than screaming communist, to justify this blood lust. You are literally celebrating murdering people over their economic beliefs, while fear mongering protestors?

How does the parent in that hypothetical not know that the dozens people beating on his head, screaming about how he's a racist, and trying to pull him or his kids from the vehicle know they aren't cops? This is your armor-piercing question, huh?

How is anyone supposed to tell the difference between pedophiles, boogaloo boys and cops in unmarked vans? Do you teach your kids to just go with it, until you are sure the people pulling you into a van are not cops?

Hey, I've said since this started we need to deunionize police and completely change the test for qualified immunity. Those are the only two reforms that could actually change anything. But nobody's interested in those, especially not that first one, and especially not the Marxist left, because they'd frankly probably trade 100 George Floyd's before they'd admit that there's something made worse by a public sector union.

That’s great... protestors literally asking for exactly that. Yet, they are Marxist evil dudes... Who the fuck is telling you that these protests have anything to do with taking your property? Again, this is screaming “they are coming right for us” to justify bloodlust... you will celebrate tossing political rivals out of helicopters, just because you are convinced they are communist. Don’t let the fact that Siberia is the embodiment of Stalin’s communist rule and seems to align exactly with your authoritarian helicopters, get lost here. Communist or capitalism, authoritarians do love to kill their opposition.

- - - Updated - - -

This post is barely coherent.

What ever you say, helicopter man...

Firstly, in answer to the pathetic whining that libertarians haven't shown up to try to aid the political terrorism by those who oppose everything that the libertarians generally stand for, I pointed out that it's probably best that for the marxist revolution LARPers that they stayed away, and you somehow came up with addled interpretation of that as a threat.

Yeah, libertarians totally support federal policing. They absolutely love paying taxes to fund the police. There is nothing libertarians love more, than having the government’s boot on their throats. It wasn’t libertarians tossing “communists” out of airplanes... they were likely included in those being tossed. Libertarians prefer as little government as possible, not funding a police state and federal intervention.

Defending federal intervention, as a libertarian is abhorrent... I will repeat again... those tossing communists out of helicopters, were not libertarians. Like... the opposite side of the libertarian scale... there was no distinction between communists and libertarians being tossed out of helicopters. Because the underlying problem was the same...

Then, I said that it's not government overreach to use reasonable force to prevent the burning and ransacking of civic institutions like courthouses (wherein the process by which your individual liberties are upheld and vindicated takes place) or private business (which, by their existence, are expressions of your rights to life, liberty, and property) - you said these literal acts of violence were a "conceptual" threat, instead of being the very thing the government exist to do, protect individual liberty.

Then you are not a libertarian, nor do you understand what a libertarian is. You can’t be a libertarian and talk about tossing communists out if helicopters... it’s the complete opposite of the ideology. You can’t have federal intervention in states, as a libertarian... that’s a federalist... defunding the police, is a libertarian stance...

Either you aren't reading my posts or you aren't reading your own. I don't really care which, nothing you say has value.

Your problem, is that I actually understand the words you are using.

Milk is sour...

Edit: TLDR: “tossing communists out of helicopters” and libertarians, are on two opposite sides of the authoritarian scale. They are completely incongruous... my dude... Stalinist Communism is pretty much in the same spot as “tossing communists out of helicopters”.

[Mayhem]

This may come as a shock to you, but in cities there are cross streets and you don't really know what's going on around a corner or curve until you've made it, and you can't typically just rotate a vehicle 180 degrees in place and drive out. And in practice, as soon as vehicles are even in shouting distance they get swarmed and the crowd won't let drivers advance (which is still the law; the road is open) or perform their illegal turn to go the other way.

At that point, what's happening is detention.

The R on the gear selector stands for REVERSE. The bolded part is just a lie you make up on the spot.

It's very simple - whoever wants to burn the courthouse with the human beings in it is always the party in the wrong.

Got it, so the government overreaching, detaining peaceful protesters and using tear gas and other means to disperse peaceful protests is a-ok and not worthy of any 2nd advocate to show up and help because after all of that an escalated situation escalated even more. Civilians held to a higher standard than law-enforcement. You just keep excusing police brutality because some protesters won't take it anymore and fight back.

When the precinct in Minneapolis was burnt to the ground, it was after the police had already left and ceased confronting protestors entirely. That is called "deescalation" for those that don't have a fucking concussion. The worst of the persistent rioting has been in cities where standing orders have been to interfere with the crowds as little as possible, which has had the predictable effect not of them just peacefully holding a candlelight vigil but of them getting themselves more worked up into a frenzy.

That is not called de-escalation that is called fleeing after the damage is done. De-escalation is an active process, not a passive one, maybe get your head checked.

[Stormdash]

The R on the gear selector stands for REVERSE. The bolded part is just a lie you make up on the spot.

Of little use when your car is surrounded on all sides by a crowd that will not yield to you in any direction.

Got it, so the government overreaching, detaining peaceful protesters and using tear gas and other means to disperse peaceful protests...

Arsonists and vandals are not peaceful protestors. There is no rational way around that. One has to be a kinda awful human being to even make the attempt, as well. And honestly tear gas is pretty polite when dealing with people lobbing incendiaries at the building you are in, like the "grandma's vest" terrorist.

...is a-ok and not worthy of any 2nd advocate to show up and help because after all of that an escalated situation escalated even more. Civilians held to a higher standard than law-enforcement. You just keep excusing police brutality because some protesters won't take it anymore and fight back.

I'm really not sure how you aren't getting this. Helping people succeed in a political terror campaign when their end goal with political power is to void the 2nd Amendment, abolish capitalism, "expatriate" people from their property is not something libertarians are going to show up as your ally for. Honestly, in any context. Even if the government were treating them like an actual totalitarian government does and not just the one they are pretending is totalitarian - then it's just a heel v heel match and you cheer for a sinkhole.

That is not called de-escalation that is called fleeing after the damage is done. De-escalation is an active process, not a passive one, maybe get your head checked.

Abandoning a building to be unconfrontational and having it burnt down anyway is after what damage is done? Y'know what what? Don't answer. I don't care what your reasons are. Rationalizing burning down precincts and courthouses in acts of unjustified pseudo-revolution are the exclusive province of the scum of the goddamn earth.

If your core philosophy makes you sound like this guy, nobody's coming to save you. Not because they are afraid. Not because they are hypocrites. Because you don't deserve it.

[Mayhem]

Of little use when your car is surrounded on all sides by a crowd that will not yield to you in any direction.

You just make these up as you type without any resemblance in reality. Again, at one point you had to drive there, neither people nor cars spawn randomly around cars or within crowds.

Arsonists and vandals are not peaceful protestors. There is no rational way around that. One has to be a kinda awful human being to even make the attempt, as well. And honestly tear gas is pretty polite when dealing with people lobbing incendiaries at the building you are in, like the "grandma's vest" terrorist.

I never said they were.

I'm really not sure how you aren't getting this. Helping people succeed in a political terror campaign when their end goal with political power is to void the 2nd Amendment, abolish capitalism, "expatriate" people from their property is not something libertarians are going to show up as your ally for. Honestly, in any context. Even if the government were treating them like an actual totalitarian government does and not just the one they are pretending is totalitarian - then it's just a heel v heel match and you cheer for a sinkhole.

A political terror campaign. Ok, so you get your news from 8chan.

Abandoning a building to be unconfrontational and having it burnt down anyway is after what damage is done? Y'know what what? Don't answer. I don't care what your reasons are. Rationalizing burning down precincts and courthouses in acts of unjustified pseudo-revolution are the exclusive province of the scum of the goddamn earth.

If your core philosophy makes you sound like this guy, nobody's coming to save you. Not because they are afraid. Not because they are hypocrites. Because you don't deserve it.

Your reading comprehension is entertainingly bad.

Hu, I guess back in the days you wouldn't be on the side of the founding fathers. You are the most hilarious 2nd amendment advocate on this forum.

[Zython]

"I can totally take on the government. I just don't want to."

Sure man. Sure.

- - - Updated - - -

There is neither mouth nor money in the cause of siding with self-described Marxist radicals who want to basically destroy everything upon which libertarians base their political and moral philosophy. Even insofar as that crowd would say the government is being excessive in fighting, that's only grounds to hope they wipe each other out, not to pick a side.

Yes, yes. If the government weren't fighting (((Marxists))), you'd TOTALLY be blasting feds away with a rocket launcher. Totally. We all believe you.

- - - Updated - - -

I did. But if you want more of a response, you need to be more specific.

The only fantasy about glorifying killing anyone is in your head. And once again, be specific when I have ever did such. But be careful, race discussions are not allowed on here and I will avoid those by design.

Ah, yes. It's all in my head. Not like documented evidence exists or anything.

- - - Updated - - -

Watermelons: If you own a gun you're a racist, nazi, white trash, child-killing, conspiracy theorist nutter. And yes, we are gonna get the government to come and take your rights away, you ignorant fascist.

Also Watermelons: The government is taking away our rights! Why aren't the racist, nazi, white trash, child-killling, conspiracy theorist nutter gun owners coming to save us?

Just use the n-word. We know what you mean.

Leftists working themselves into an indignant, frothing rage over this just makes the situation infinitely more amusing. You realize this whole "gotcha" thing goes both ways, right?

It's not a "gotcha", I'm pointing out that your attempts at "gotcha" are nothing more than sour grapes for the fact that you wouldn't do shit if the state came after you because you don't know how to actually use a gun.

It'd actually be way less entertaining if you guys just admitted that the 2A people kind of had a point all along. You don't even have to be pro-gun, just mildly sympathetic. A simple "you guys were kinda right" would suffice.

Most leftists are pro-gun. You need to get out of your little bubble.

But, people in Portland asked for more government and they got more government.

Wanting a government that provides services to its constituents isn't the same thing as wanting a fascist police state.

They wanted a gun-free sanctuary absent of rednecks so there aren't enough rednecks around now to save them.

Why would there be rednecks in the Pacific Northwest? The term specifically refers to people living the deep south.

When you are treat people with nothing but boundless contempt, do not be surprised if they aren't going to have your back. This is basic common sense.

This should be a teaching moment, and thankfully a few people are actually coming around. But as for the rest, even if the 2A crowd came to their support, the rest of us know the watermelons would be back on their bullshit as soon as the protests were behind us.

Yes, we learned that you don't know how to use guns. which was my point at the beginning, and one you weren't intelligent enough to get.