Once again, after weeks of waiting for your evidence, I'll ask....can you name ONE?! So far, every person identified is a hard core Trumpist, every armed terrorist identified, everyone hunting Pence, everyone carrying cuffs and zip tie cuffs, everyone beating police, everyone breaking Windows, everyone giving tours to insurgents for recon on secret offices, everyone live tweeting Pelosi's location....ALL Trumpsters, not one identified as Antifa. Nice fantasy you think somehow absolves the violent terrorist Trump mob that tried to violently overthrow the government, but as usual you have zero evidence besides self serving lies. Even if it's true (and there's no evidence it is) there were a few non Trumpsters egging on the crowd of thousands, do you think that absolves your ilk of responsibility, or do you see that it means they were so primed and itching for insurrection that a few scruffy anarchists convinced them to attack their own country.

Also, you must ignore the mountains of evidence these morons left of their plans, plans to attack congress, kidnap elected officials, and somehow install Trump as president. Those plans weren't from Antifa, they were proud boys, boogaloos, militias, white power groups, and bat shit crazy Karens and Kens....all Trumpists.

So....Antifa destroying democratic headquarters and waving banners saying "we don't want Biden, we want revenge" pretty much blows up your "Antifa=Democrats, Democrats=Antifa" claims. What now?

Enjoy the patriot party, don't think about the fact that splitting the Republican party means never winning any elections. You just go on with Donny, who likely won't be able to hold office. Clearly he hasn't thought it through or he would have waited until after his impeachment trial to announce his new party, because now Republicans understand the only way to save their party and jobs is to ban Trump from politics.
Also, how is he going to start a political party in prison. Hard to set up a press conference from solitary.
Sorry sunshine, like everything he touches, Trump is destroying the right on his way out the door.



bobknight33 said: Didn't help that ANTIFA was there as Trump supporters inciting action.

walk in his shoes for a bit.

maybe he's realized he has backed a cheap knock-off of Mussolini (if he watched the video). hopefully, now he (& BK33) are seeing their folly. perhaps even felt shame that Beau tricked him into seeing the light (as a Fox mushroom, that has to burn). in anger/pain the defensive, limp 'get the dem' troll zinger (include bob's failing flailing examples of 'factual data').

lashing out, while trying to excuse the inexcusable.

he [they] got duped. not a pleasant feeling. cognizance dissonance, on a ten-scale, of an 8+.

no expert, but perhaps Beau's example of a trojan horse approach, is a better way of communicating with w/the obstinate. get the defense down, and the message can get through. have hope for 33, but the rigidity of thorns seems too set.

rather change them than charge at them [withhold the capitol fanaticals]. ours is not a caravan of despair.

+ + + + +

but the video was a great presentation! nice execution.

just the fact the present German Chancellor said the Capitol insurgency was comparable to the burning of the Reichstag should make the case also!

no wonder donnie fears the ANTI-FACISTS. they are the Allies to his Axis power.

You sir, are a moron and traitor to the US.

Patriots don’t violently attack their own government and representatives because they lost an election. That is the opposite of patriotism. It’s called insurgence.

Democratic tyranny? Is that what you ass hats are calling elections now? Only when you lose them. Interesting you had no problem when the minority, the party that received fewer votes and was representing far less than 1/2 the population was tyrannical. Clearly you support being treasonous, anti constitutional and despotic if it’s your guy.

Redcoats? So real American patriots, you know, the kind that stands WITH the US and election results even when they lose, not against it, are now considered invading British monarchists and those that wish to dispose of elections to install an unelected monarch for life by force are the defenders of democracy? You need a history lesson, buddy. You would fail a 6th grade civics quiz. You’re arguing at or below Bob level.

Edit : Perhaps I misunderstand you....by patriots do you mean those who stood against the Trump insurrection, and by democratic tyranny are you referencing the treasonous Trumpsters and the Republicans who legislated as if on a vendetta against over 1/2 the country? In that case you’re right....and many were wearing their red MAGA coats and hats to prove the point.

In reality, there's no other choice since there's zero chance the current president will concede or cooperate with a smooth transition.

Once there's no chance remaining votes uncounted or contested could sway the election, a point we are well past, any challenges are academic and couldn't change results, so there's no reason to refuse to acknowledge that fact, especially when it's spurring right wing terrorists to act and dividing the nation, another point we past days ago. The obstinance is harmful to the nation and our institutions, like Trump is trying to burn the government down on his way out the door. No democrat has ever done this in similar circumstances. There's a theory that he's only doing it to bilk his followers out of more money towards his "legal defense fund" that really goes to pay off campaign debt and directly into his pockets with a small portion paying lawyers like Giuliani to lose cases. He's millions in debt there too, and it becomes his personal debt when he's out of office....with near a billion due next year, he needs every penny he can con them out of.

Normally the clear winner would be being brought up to speed on things like covid response and international relationships even if they weren't declared the official winner yet. (Edit: They would also have access to top secret intelligence all previous presidents (except Trump) use to vet their cabinet, being denied that information severely hampers Biden's ability to properly vet them, holding up his nominations. Thanks to Trump's disastrous covid response, Biden needs to be fully ready to change policies day one, it's life or death for 1000+ Americans every day he's delayed.) This time, with a petulant toddler throwing a tantrum for the next 2+ months, that might not help, because there's no telling what damage he might do before then. Biden is just making his own plans instead, preparing to start work day one no matter what dumpster fires Trump sets. That said, this obstinate denial of the results and sewing division, making up and repeating baseless charges to discredit the election (looking at you) have real world disastrous consequences and weakens the state of the union. It's clear the plan was to rely on the Trump appointed judges to rubber stamp the baseless claims and hand him a win. So far it hasn't worked, but it could. That's why we should care about the dozens of frivolous lawsuits, if his judges decide to be the lackeys he expects them to be, they could actually steal the election in court....but it would spark nationwide unrest if not insurgency.

Bwaaahahahaha...

Your trusted sources are OAN who hires active kgb agents to write propaganda for them, Glen Beck and Alex Jones who both argued in court that they are insane and no reasonable person would believe a word of their psychotic ramblings, random right wing extremist websites who support armed insurgents taking over government buildings, and until they allowed a few "reporters" to call Trump out on some minor lies and frauds, Faux, who successfully argued in court that they are so consistently full of shit that no reasonable person would believe a word they broadcast.

You would be here insisting this story is real if only he had implicated a Democrat in the plot, even after he admitted and proved it was a just ridiculous scam.

Wouldn't be the first time....which reminds me, where are the "known instances" of democrats committing massive vote fraud you promised months ago but never produced...liar.

Of course you don't trust verifiable sources, they're constantly telling the truth about Trump, something you just can't stand.

Yes, people like you discounting reputable and verifiable sources for information in favor of Russian propaganda (OAN), self admitted crazy people (Beck/Jones), and fake "news" organizations that label themselves as unreliable liars in court (Fox). Are America's biggest problem...largely because their ignorant trust in blatant lies from admitted propagandists and liars gave us Trump.

Red tsunami 2020, just like 2018. Gonna wash away the red stain.

Serious question:
If that's true--then what happens with those of the ex-military (note: not all ex-military) who become police and are perceived as "occupying" minority neighborhoods?
Is that a sort of "they are all insurgents" kind of thing?

Do I have to watch it? This vid, I mean?

Star Wars is about rebels fighting a powerful empire that governs the galaxy. It glorifies taking down the establishment by a group of (well funded) gun-toting terrorists.

I suppose you could draw a parallel to the American war of independence against the British...

But in a modern context this would be like a group of domestic insurgents blowing up an aircraft carrier ("Death Star") while staging an armed rebellion against the US government (now a subsidiarity of "Gov-co," a joint venture of the Disney, Viacom, Lockheed Martin, JP Morgan Chase, and Koch Bros. companies).

Simply put, that's just not going to happen.

--------------------------

edit: Okay I just watched the above clip. That guy made even less sense than the BS that I just made up.

Then you end up with people taping mags together and reloading within a second or so.
Even faster if they count shots and stop firing at capacity-1 before reloading.
There are work-arounds...




Realistically, the end game of the political left is a gun ban + confiscation. The end game of the political right is total gun deregulation.
Each side needs something to argue to excuse their existence, so they will argue in their direction so long as there is anything left to argue, and those are the natural consequences.
Gridlock is literally the best thing that can happen for folks in the middle.




Syria isn't the best example. The people were not armed, and they turned to foreign auxiliaries to fight for them. They invited and gave shelter to all sorts of foreign militants to fight against their government, and made a mess of things. They would have been better off with a home-grown insurgency.

Not like a home grown insurgency would have done much good either way. The Syrian Arab spring was a democratic call for ... Islamic law. It originated in Hama, where an earlier Islamic insurgency was put down (the muslim brotherhood) by Assad's father. Half the country didn't support the insurgency against Assad, and anyone who is non-muslim or secular, or even moderate, is sitting on Assad's side of the country hoping he holds out.

But generally speaking, insurgency with small arms is what defeats occupiers over time. Not in pitched battles, but by making occupation so expensive and tedious that the occupier loses interest over time.


-schehearazde

Here's a breakdown that shows my train of thought :



The 2nd amendment limits the authority of 'specifically the government'.

It is not an affirmative right to individuals, it is a denial of rights to the government.
It in theory prevents the government from taking any actions that would infringe on bearing arms.




So, let's look at scope.


If bearing arms is for government regulated militias :

Let's assume that 'well regulated' means 'well government regulated'. (i.e. Merely government regulated in practice.)

- A militia that uses arms as per the government's regulation, would be operating as the government wishes - it would *be* an extension of the government, and the government would not need to seize its arms. The 2nd amendment is moot.

- A militia that doesn't use arms as per the government's regulation, is not government regulated, and has no protection from government arms seizure. The government is free to deny this militia arms at the government's discretion. The 2nd amendment is moot.


In order for the 2nd amendment to not be moot, you would need to protect an entity that the government would *not* wish to be armed.

Since we're still talking militias, that leaves only "non-government-regulated militias" as a protected class of entities.
Hence, this would preclude "government regulated" as a possible definition of "well regulated", in regards to "well regulated militia".

So, we've established that for the 2nd to not be moot, only "non-government-regulated militias" can be in the set of 'well regulated militia'.




So, following on the idea of the 2nd amendment scope being for "well [non-government] regulated militias".

The government can then circumvent 2nd amendment protection by making illegal any 'non-government-regulated militias'. This would eliminate the entire category of arms protected entities. The 2nd amendment is moot.

Hence, for the 2nd amendment to not be moot via this path, that means that "well [non-government] regulated militias" must also be protected under the 2nd amendment.




So, without government regulation, a well regulated militia is subject to the regulation of its members.

As there is no government regulation on militia, there is also no government regulation regarding the quantity of militia members. You are then left with the ability of a single individual to incorporate a militia, and decide on his own regulations.

Which decomposes into de-facto individual rights





This is why the only consequential meaning of the 2nd amendment is one which includes these aspects :
A) Does not define 'well regulated" as "government regulated".
B) Does not restrict the individual.
C) Protects militias.

Any other meaning for the 2nd amendment would result in an emergent status quo that would produce the same circumstances as if there was no 2nd amendment in the first place. This would erase any purpose in having a 2nd amendment.





But sure, maybe the 2nd amendment is moot.
Maybe it was written out of sheer boredom, just to have something inconsequential to do with one's time.
Maybe it was a farce designed to fool people into thinking that it means something, while it is actually pointless and ineffectual - like saying the sky is up.




In any case, I think we can agree that, if the 2nd means anything, it is intended for facilitating the defense of the state against invading armies.

The fallout of that is that if the 2nd particularly protects any given category of arms, it protects specifically those that are meant for use in military combat. Not hunting, not self defense, etc.

A pistol ban would be of little military detriment for open combat, but would be the greatest harm to people's capacity for insurgency (because pistols can be hidden on a person).

A hunting rifle ban would also be of modest military detriment for open combat (can serve DMR role), but probably the least meaningful.

Arms with particular military applicability would be large capacity+select fire (prototypical infantry arms), or accurized of any capacity (dmr/sniper).
Basically, the arms of greatest consequence to the 2nd amendment are precisely the ones most targeted for regulation.

-scheherazade

I play Insurgency and the WWII mod they just released for it and I always have to hit the headphone mute button at the end of each round. Because like clockwork you have squeaky-voiced 10 year olds screaming allah akbar and heil hitler directly into their mics. Idiots.

HA!! These 'patriots' really just want to get drunk on donations.

http://usuncut.com/news/oregon-standoff-member-caught-drinking-donation-money/

According to a Facebook video that he has since removed from his profile, Cai Irvin, one of the gunmen holding down the federal bird sanctuary, claimed that one of the “patriots” walked off the camp to stay in a hotel and drink away the donations he raked in to be part of the insurgency.

I think Ratigan's summary is quite accurate for describing pre-9/11 motivation. Saudi promoted Wahhabi-ism can certainly be blamed for drawing stark divisions between Shia and Sunni Islam and fueling inter-Islamic conflicts in the region. Funds from Saudi benefactors (who have profited handsomely from the US/West's collaboration with Saudi Arabia due to its oil reserves) have certainly fueled terrorist groups.

Today, I would suggest that terrorist attacks are basically publicity, recruitment and funding campaigns for a militia based land battle by ISIS in the Middle East. Take for example the beheading of Americans that arguably escalated the US involvement in the conflict. it would seem that in terms of their survival this would have been counterproductive. I can only assume that a successful terrorist/militia organisation like ISIS is acting quote-unquote rationally in its own interests if it is as successful as it is. That forces me to conclude that the recruitment and funding that it gets from these publicized actions actually outweighs the cost of being attacked militarily by global powers like the US/EU.

While religion is certainly used to motivate the foot soldiers of these insurgents, I would not at all be surprised if the likes of the al-Baghdadi's of the conflict are purely in it for money and power. Kind of reminds me of how insurgents in Africa post-colonialism had to reinvent themselves to remain relevant and became either religiously or otherwise racially sectarian militias / factions.

We're really going to have a hard time explaining this one away. We knew full well this was a hospital, and inexplicably we bombed it anyway. Even if the claim that someone was shooting from the hospital were true (and it seems it's not) there's absolutely no excuse for bombing it. None.
30 minutes of bombing?!? While being begged to stop bombing a hospital?!? In self defense (I note there's been absolutely zero evidence that there was a single insurgent there, no bodies, no guns)?!? And it went through the 'vetting' process and they still said, 'yep, go ahead and bomb a hospital into dust'?!?
Sweet Zombie Jesus! I actually DO hope everyone involved, from the guy on the ground (if they actually exist) to the general that gave the go ahead, is indicted for war crimes and convicted. If that doesn't happen, we can definitely expect this to happen again, and we can expect repercussions....we won't be so lax and relaxed about things if a major hospital in America blows up, will we?

EDIT: Also consider, this hospital was in what's now Taliban held territory, so we WON'T be rebuilding this, the only hospital in the area.