Good luck with the voting thing tho. I’m pretty confident that our votes don’t natter anymore and if they did, they won’t going forward.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Protesters at ICE facility in Aurora pull down American flag and raise Mexican flag
- Thread starter memyselfi
- Start date
Good luck with the voting thing tho. I’m pretty confident that our votes don’t natter anymore and if they did, they won’t going forward.
I was born in California currently living behind enemy lines... Surrender isn't in my families DNA. Every election in California has been rigged by the democrat majority since Pete Wilson was governor. Arnold was nothing but a liberal in drag aka RINO.
The answer of when it is appropriate to push back would be "when people have had enough". There are as many different thresholds for pushing back as there are for restraint. Everyone here has their own threshold, and I doubt that any thresholds will be changed in internet chat rooms like this one.
Any reservations I have are mine alone, everyone else has to decide for themselves. It is quite easy for people to urge others to "push back" while others remain insulated from risk.
To more directly answer your question: I am no where near willing to shoot people over a flag burning that the Supreme Court has deemed a protected exercise of their first amendment rights. Commonly accepted court cases, rules and laws about use of force says that it is inappropriate to shoot people over a theft when that theft poses no risk to my safety. Everyone else is, of course, free to choose their own course of action. I'm not going to shoot people over what the law says is a property crime (stealing a flag). If someone else wants to "push back" and start shooting people over the theft of a flag, and a flag burning, that is their choice.
Just because I find desecration of the flag offensive, does not give me the right to shoot people over it.
I would be interested to learn just what kind of "push back" others feel is appropriate AND ARE WILLING TO UNDERTAKE over desecration of the flag. Telling other people they need to "push back" is vastly different than personally taking action. I am really interested in just what other people have actually done as talk is cheap, and saying they would do X, Y, or Z, is vastly different than actually going into a crowd of Antifa's and taking direct action.
Any reservations I have are mine alone, everyone else has to decide for themselves. It is quite easy for people to urge others to "push back" while others remain insulated from risk.
To more directly answer your question: I am no where near willing to shoot people over a flag burning that the Supreme Court has deemed a protected exercise of their first amendment rights. Commonly accepted court cases, rules and laws about use of force says that it is inappropriate to shoot people over a theft when that theft poses no risk to my safety. Everyone else is, of course, free to choose their own course of action. I'm not going to shoot people over what the law says is a property crime (stealing a flag). If someone else wants to "push back" and start shooting people over the theft of a flag, and a flag burning, that is their choice.
Just because I find desecration of the flag offensive, does not give me the right to shoot people over it.
I would be interested to learn just what kind of "push back" others feel is appropriate AND ARE WILLING TO UNDERTAKE over desecration of the flag. Telling other people they need to "push back" is vastly different than personally taking action. I am really interested in just what other people have actually done as talk is cheap, and saying they would do X, Y, or Z, is vastly different than actually going into a crowd of Antifa's and taking direct action.
Again, this is about much more than the flag...but I’m sure we can all agree that at some point pushback will happen. And anyone that does it alone is an idiot because you will simply he labeled a terrorist and taken out, just like that Antifa idiot. You don’t want to be that guy. You need numbers, lots of them. Only when we start reacting in kind will our voice be heard. That’s what I’m saying, but I’m not naive enough to think gun owners across the US will ever assemble either as most of them are too busy bickering over other stupid things that do nothing to secure our rights. Again, playing the grey man or whatever the hell they want to call it now is a losing strategy as well. We keep on waiting patiently for the right time to do something and someone will always talk about doing something yet nothing will ever be done and all of the freedoms we have in the US will he swept away quietly in the night. Gun owners specifically need to unite and assemble and yell loudly.
Last edited:
Im not saying to give up but taking part in a rigged system hoping for a different outcome is a losing strategy. I do admire you standing your ground tho when so many others just up and run!
I think Unknown is a govt agent provocateur.
Standing by for "rational" denials in 4...3...2...1....
And no I'm neither telling you what my tripwire is nor what happens when it's breached.
Standing by for "rational" denials in 4...3...2...1....
And no I'm neither telling you what my tripwire is nor what happens when it's breached.
You may be right. It would be interesting if he/she was considering there is lots of real crime going on as we speak. And I’m sure somewhere a conservative is getting pummeled right now which is exactly my point. If he was he is wasting resources on this while the real crime is going on elsewhere. What do you do when LE stands down and watches a real crime being committed? And the crazy thing is, it seems like the conservatives that do respond in kind seem to go to jail and be prosecuted while the perps walk free. In what universe is that correct? If stuff is continued to be allowed, the pendulum will swing back the other way, hard.
I've come to find there are some keyboard constitutionalists who only want to circle jerk each other on who's more hardcore. They have no interest in a rational discussion. If you question anything they resort to namecalling. I'm sure if we're all sitting around drinking a beer these conversations will go a lot differently.
308 Pirate,
I have always presumed that ANYONE on this, and any other web board could be a government agent. You, me, SilentStalkr included. For all we know, any web site could be set up by the government just to entrap people and/or gain intelligence. I guess it all depends on one's level of paranoia as to whether it is even worth posting on any internet sites. Nothing posted is ever really deleted, and once posted, it can never be "taken back".
Something posted today, could bite someone in the ass ten years from now when they are applying for a job, running for some political office, or (depending on the level of paranoia again) could result in having one's private commerce restricted. Banks and internet sites are already refusing to do business with some gun companies. So it never hurts to be "reserved" in what is posted.
I have always presumed that ANYONE on this, and any other web board could be a government agent. You, me, SilentStalkr included. For all we know, any web site could be set up by the government just to entrap people and/or gain intelligence. I guess it all depends on one's level of paranoia as to whether it is even worth posting on any internet sites. Nothing posted is ever really deleted, and once posted, it can never be "taken back".
Something posted today, could bite someone in the ass ten years from now when they are applying for a job, running for some political office, or (depending on the level of paranoia again) could result in having one's private commerce restricted. Banks and internet sites are already refusing to do business with some gun companies. So it never hurts to be "reserved" in what is posted.
I’m intrigued, you just pointed out one of the major issues we have with the current state of affairs! Why should banks be allowed to not do business with gun companies simply because they don’t like them or they dont want to, yet a cake Baker was forced to do biz with a gay couple, against his religious liberties and drained financially to boot? One is protected and one is not. It would seem that things are flip flopped from their proper order, yes? It’s real simple, if people followed the concepts handed down by the founders of this great nation and adhered to them, we would not have many of the issues we have today.
Last edited:
Majority of agent provacatuers diatribe pushes violence against certain minority groups, people who are different, or perceived as "enemy". Call names, stir the pot, push against anybody who calls them out.
Rarely do you ever see an agent provacatuer prescribe restraint or reasoned response within the law.
Bit dog barks loudest.
Some things can be seen with great clarity.
ymmv
vr
Rarely do you ever see an agent provacatuer prescribe restraint or reasoned response within the law.
Bit dog barks loudest.
Some things can be seen with great clarity.
ymmv
vr
Or, they prescribe just that, knowing how certain people will respond. Sometimes calling for the rule of law, stirs the pot more than the pot stirrer. Just saying.
Ruh Roh. Somebody is in trouble.
https://www.9news.com/article/news/...ility/73-edb65c4b-7a5a-4db7-841d-5e38bccf6fe5
https://www.9news.com/article/news/...ility/73-edb65c4b-7a5a-4db7-841d-5e38bccf6fe5
They do, but, generally a rare animal. The majority are as previously described above. I have met both types. Met numerous Klan lynch mob types and they were always the loudest bullshit mouth, never met a reserved one, then, theres Farrakan, Jackson, Green, and that crew, funny (not), they sound like Klan types when they get going. Irony perhaps.
Many things are clearly seen.
ymmv
vr
I have one please. Why?
Because he's not Democrat or because of all the fabulous stuff he has accomplished during his tenure? Or because he's less shit than the alternative?
Sorry. Not trying to be rude or combative but why would you vote for Trump, beyond the fact that he's less a turd than the other possibility?
VooDoo
Yes you are. You're full of shit for even making that statement.
230+ conservative judges. 3 of them on the 9th circuit.
AND... He makes bitches like you have bad dreams.
Ummmm, "not trying to be rude or combative". Bwaahaha... RIIIIIIGHT.
Way to out yourself.
Now go ahead with the but but but but. You fucking POS.
Similar threads
