Security Propaganda

Trump was POTUS ask him.

 

Talks like a dem. Quacks like a dem. Are you really claiming that the democrats have protested as much about the riots as they should?

 

In what way is that passage understood to mean a non threatening use of arms to protect against the suppression of political opponents? Do you think Scalia intended them to be a means by which a vote is cast? Are people intended to give them as gifts of good faith?

 

Democrat party sponsored fake dossier and complicit media to investigate Trump from the moment he was elected: result, never an apology to the people of the USA for the charade

Impeachment over something that Trump didn't even do, all the while Covid was starting to appear

The Democrat politicians, DC insiders and Democrat voters have much reason to hang their heads in shame for their tantrums after the 2016 election; please spare us your lecture

 

for trespassing and destroying public property???? That is the crime they committed. It was not an insurrection. An insurrection would need to be launched across every state and have the backing of the military.

Insurrection is the term pushed by the DNC to the media and if you say a lie enough times, people will believe it

 

hear hear

I fear that you waste your breath. Too many Democrat voters have no clue that the narrative that that they are fed on their chosen national news is carefully crafted and orchestrated by the Democrat party. But, given the history of the Democrat party (internment camps, anti-civil liberties, abortion, deny women vote, slavery) it seems that hate is in the DNA

 

They were threatening the lives of our elected representatives. Democrat or republican, that can not be tolerated.

 

how was it a coup? Do you even know how this country is governed? (there is a hint in that word by the way)

 

really? How? Please cite one example of a politician who was grabbed, or tossed to the ground, or physically battered

Facts are what you need to accept and stop believing everything that you hear on NPR/ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN because it's the same exact message, and even the same words aka script

Have you even heard who/what/where/when or did you lock into the "why" as narrated by the DNC?

 

and where and when has there been an insurrection? I'm not talking about the BS pushed by the DNC right now, I'm asking about an actual insurrection. Now, before you have a knee-jerk answer, keep in mind how this country and 50 states are actually governed

 

I said threatened. I Have little doubt that some would have been killed or injured by that mob. . That invasion of our nation's capitol should not have taken place, I don't care who is responsible.

The citizens elect our representatives and president. It should not be up to a democratic congress to say Trump cannot be elected. It is not up to congress to kick out Greene or Cheyney. That is up to the people who elect them. They represent the people and that should not be taken away from the people whether by a mob of a vote by the political opposition.

 

thank you for the clarity. When a "karen" feels threatened for any reason then should we arrest those who she points to?

What you are stating is pure speculation and cannot even be supported by past actions as the grounds to your "conclusion"

Now, if I had a business in a city where leftists were rioting, then yes, I would have cause to be fearful that my business would be looted and possibly burnt to the ground. There are many examples to cite of that happening

I suggest that you read "the minority report" as you are calling for a "pre-crime unit" where folks are arrested because they might commit a crime

Do you realize that this is the United States of America and not Venezuela?

I encourage you to turn off the news that you watch and get the actual facts of all stories; the who/what/where/when, and stop being told "why"

 

There is sufficient evidence that they went in the intention of killing. And they did kill a policeman who was doing his job protecting the representatives. I have absolutely no use for that mob. Your attitude of downplaying their activities only contributes to the damage which they did.

Did you know that they convict someone of murder even though they are not the ones who pulled the trigger? Sometimes just being there and participating in the illegal activities is sufficient.

Absolutely and that is why that attempt at mob rule should not be tolerated.

 

As far as I am concerned there were four distinct groups at the capitol.

There was a group of elected representatives challenging the election results. All legal and Constitutional.

There was a huge group of protesters who stayed out of the Capitol building who were generally peaceful. All legal and Constitutional.

There was a group of people who entered the capitol building illegally. In general terms there were two different groups that entered the Capitol building.. There were those who were swept up by the crowd who entered and did no damage or hurt anyone. It was more out of stupidity than anything else. Illegal, but somewhat excusable. That was the third group.

Then we have the fourth group. They entered that Capitol building with the intent of killing and doing damage. They did end up killing a Capitol policeman who was doing his job trying to protect our elected representatives. That group should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law including the death penalty depending on their actions.

It is important to keep those groups separate in our judgement.

 

I didn't claim there was an armed insurrection, or referred to 1/6/21 in any way. I pointed out that the poster I was quoting was incorrect, and that armed insurrection is strictly prohibited by US law, in all 50 states.

 

The Trump consorted with Russians and then went out of its way to obstruct knowledge of such consorting. It then tried to extort the president of the Ukraine into supporting a false narrative on Joe Biden. Ironically, a Russian intelligence agency hatched plan. An act for which it was impeached, the first time. Then the pandemic hit. Frozen in the throughs of ineptitude and ignorance, the Trump did little more than complain, as the infection rate in the US outpaced the world. You, and people like you, may not want to accept this, but they played heavily in the minds of voters. Had a lot to do with why Biden won the election. I’m quite certain that history books of tomorrow will tell a tale, that is closer to my version of events, than yours.

The Trump lost the popular vote in 2016, and by even more in 2020. It was impeached twice. Thus, by losing the popular vote, twice, and having been impeached, twice, the Trump has accomplished more in four years than that of any two presidents combined had done in eights years. Make that four other presidents combined had done in eight years. I am so happy that the Trump is gone and old McConnell no longer controls the Senate.

 

Why not? Some of the insurrectionists were carrying guns and bombs. Besides they were beating the police with sticks and poles, which are arms. Was not the fire extinguisher that was used to kill the officer an arm? I’m sure it was.

 

I don't know if that rises to the level of armed insurrection. The type of insurrection the person I quoted was speaking about, and thinks the 2nd amendment protects, which it of course does not.

 

Since I didn't tag you in my response, I'm asking again in case you missed it:

In what way is Scalia's opinion understood to mean a non threatening use of arms to protect against the suppression of political opponents?

The poster I was responding to said that the fence must exist because there exists a threat.

I said that the threat always exists and is protected constitutionally.

Your mischaracterization does not refute the argument that the threat of armed insurrection is a fundamental constitutional protection.

 

and I pointed out this is false. There is no constitutional right to armed insurrection. It is expressly forbidden by US law.

I didn't mischaracterize anything. Armed insurrection, or the threat of armed insurrection, is not a protected right. it is expressly forbidden by US law.

 

Let me analogize with another constitutionally protected use of firearms:

My claim: A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.

Your response: Murder is illegal.

 

You claimed I didn't understand Scalia's opinion. In what way can you use a firearm in a non threatening manner to prevent the suppression of political opponents?

 

You can't use a firearm at all to suppress a political opponent. It's expressly forbidden. You can use a firearm only in self defense, defense of another, or in some states defense of property. But armed insurrection against the government is expressly forbidden by US law.

 

Seems like you're having lots of trouble answering this question. Do you see the difference between your answer and my question?

In what way can you use a firearm in a non threatening manner to prevent the suppression of political opponents? You changed something important in your answer by saying it's illegal to use a firearm to suppress a political opponent. Again, it's the difference between using a firearm to murder someone vs using a firearm to prevent the murder of someone. In the former use, the threat of physical harm is illegal, in the latter it's not. Unless of course you can explain how preventing the suppression of political opponents can be accomplished with a firearm in some non threating way.

Again from DC v Heller:

What is the non threatening way the citizen's militia uses a firearm to prevent a politicized standing army from ruling?

 

Build it around California.