Lol @ Minneapolis

[Dirty_habiT]

1 minute ago, Hua Guofang said:

Yep, well, aside from my ignorance of who Jeff Foxworthy is, you have your position and it's clear. I can respect that.

He's a redneck comedian.  I don't think he's that funny for the most part.  He's had his short moments but that's all I'd call it.

[Dirty_habiT]

I am listening to an Austin police scanner stream online.  It's kind of entertaining.  I am not hearing a lot of stuff about protests on here though.

[Hua Guofang]

1 minute ago, Dirty_habiT said:

I agree that this sucks for the media from those countries that were just trying to get a good shot for their story, but what I don't agree with is the fact that if you stick your dick in  the hornets nest that you won't get stung on the pp.

Ask yourself after being shot with anything you could be shot with during a protest..... if it's worth it?  What if you got hit in the eye w/ a rubber bullet and lost your ability to see?  Would "spreading awareness" and "getting the message out there" be "worth it" then?  My answer is hell no.  I don't even want to get sweaty for these nerds.

 

I'm kickin it inside the a/c.... doing work, getting money.  Retaining my dignity.

NAh, can't agree with that. A free and open media is important to a functioning democracy.

 

I know that the media and our governance have problems but I'd rather not see them get worse by having a media that can only report news that favourable to the govt on the day.

[Hua Guofang]

Esper going rogue on the Prez?

 

 

[mr.yuck]

57 minutes ago, abrasivesaint said:

Posted these a few pages back ,did they not work? Some of the videos you guys are posting arent working for me..

I thought a lot of these videos were taken down because they wouldnt play for me either. Im having to open the embedded video directly in twitter or what have you to get them to play.

 

@Dirty_habiT

[Dirty_habiT]

10 minutes ago, Hua Guofang said:

NAh, can't agree with that. A free and open media is important to a functioning democracy.

 

I know that the media and our governance have problems but I'd rather not see them get worse by having a media that can only report news that favourable to the govt on the day.

Ok, I think we may be having a little misunderstanding.  I think the media should cover these events.  I think it should be done at a safe distance.  There are telephoto lenses.

[Dirty_habiT]

1 minute ago, mr.yuck said:

I thought a lot of these videos were taken down because they wouldnt play for me either. Im having to open the embedded video directly in twitter or what have you to get them to play.

 

@Dirty_habiT

I'm a bad person to ask because I block all social media domains.  The posts with twitter links in them look very broken on my screen as a result.  I can, however click through to them and open them on twitter to see what the post is about.

 

If there is a technical issue, please add a thread about it specifically so that we can address it..... or add it to another thread we have about issues on the site.

[Kults]

4 minutes ago, Dirty_habiT said:

Ok, I think we may be having a little misunderstanding.  I think the media should cover these events.  I think it should be done at a safe distance.  There are telephoto lenses.

*Stands in the middle of a riot

 

"Why am I getting pelted with rubber pullets? Is this Tyranny?"

[Hua Guofang]

 

11 minutes ago, Dirty_habiT said:

Ok, I think we may be having a little misunderstanding.  I think the media should cover these events.  I think it should be done at a safe distance.  There are telephoto lenses.

 

5 minutes ago, Kults said:

*Stands in the middle of a riot

 

"Why am I getting pelted with rubber pullets? Is this Tyranny?"

Think you blokes need to watch a few of the vids.

 

The DW journo was nowhere near rioters when he was shot by a rubber bullet.

 

The Australian journalists were bashed when they were filming a legal protest, during the day in a public park. There was no violence from the crowd, the cops used violence to clear the park so the Prez could get his photo took in front of a church.

 

Another journo was in a petrol station nowhere near the action, he was thrown to the ground and then maced while he was laying still with his hands above his head.

 

I could go on for half a page - there's clear video to show all of this.

[misteraven]

8 hours ago, Hua Guofang said:

I'll have to go back and read your thoughts on how the constitution regards militias in terms of 2a before I go any further as I know three fifths of fuck all about it.

 

The armed society is a polite society doesn't stand the test in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Serbia/Kosovo, Brazil, Caucuses, Colombia, Libya, etc. etc. They are heavily armed but violent and dangerous societies with large gangs that the police can't control that fuck over people around them. It goes back to my point that an armed society can easily be a society at war against itself. It's likely not the case that everyone will be good citizens and keep to themselves. The bad folk will organise and mobilise just as much as anyone else and then you have war on the streets. That's the way I see it playing out in many parts of the world.

 

Lastly, I think you're focusing too much on the looting/vandalism bit. What about all the peaceful protesters and media that are being bashed, shot at and arrested when they are simply exercising 1A?

 

Polite society also includes the state, right? How does an armed populace and a well organised militia organise coherently and effectively against a well armed and tyrannical state?

@Hua Guofang

 

You seem genuinely interested so I'll do my best to fill you in or better yet, help point you to resources so you can get facts from the source. As mentioned in another comment, I'm beyond slammed for this month. Literally have to start running the print shop 24 hours. That said, I enjoy the topic and spent a lot of time learning it and happy to discuss as best I can.

 

First thing I'll note is that the word's meaning has evolved, especially in recent times. According to the founding fathers, every able bodied male between certain years, born on USA soil are militia by birth. In fact there was a time when the government would fine you for not following through with your responsibility as militia (ironic considering today). More than anything, militia is a term that describes a state of readiness. It means you're required to maintain a functional firearm, as well as proficiency with it. You're expected to be prepared to serve as needed. This is a main statement by George Mason, a founding father, describing it:

 

Quote

Mr. Chairman, a worthy member has asked who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country, and if we are not to be protected from the fate of the Germans, Prussians, &c., by our representation?  I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor… [Emphasis added]

This was later formalized legally under the Militia Act of 1792 and is a strong argument that supports pro rights advocates in regards to Americans owning military style weapons. Though times have changed and it was initially called most often on the American frontier in skirmishes with native Americans. you also have to respect the mindset of the founding fathers and the people fo the day. They'd obviously had only recently won their war for independence from England, a fact that most people don't quite understand in its context (it seems to me at least). These people were actually proud of their English heritage and didn't want to give that up. It was a contentious decision to do so, which was an extra heavy burden in addition to the logistics of actually fighting a war against the British. As such, they were very weary of any government as they sacrificed dearly to earn the freedom they'd only recently acquired. You can dig through the multitude of quotes and discussions on that side of things and this is especially important as it lays the foundation for how Americans still inherently think and how the world sees us. Our nation was formed by fighting a government that encroached on our individual freedoms and we went to war with them to eventually earn it. This is where the "cowboy" attitude or in other words, the American sense of aggression to just go at it. This is why there's that rebellious streak that runs counter to the idea that we should allow government to fix our problems or authority to take responsibility for things like personal safety. The founding fathers went into this knowing that government was a necessary evil in order to evolve into a nation (United States) and there was a lot of debate early on and how to do this without forfeiting that freedom we just achieved. So a specific framework was developed to that end where legislation was created with the intent to curtail the ability of government to effectively function beyond a certain predetermined point (US Constitution). They recognized that we'd evolve and new challenges would arise, so they included a set of "rules" or instruments so that this framework could be amended, but likewise, they also instituted a protection over a fundamental segment of that framework that would always guarantee the individual freedoms of that they saw as human rights and necessary in order to maintain a free society. That's the Bill of Rights, which are composed of the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution. Those first 10 Amendments are intended to be untouchable and the method to accomplish that was to designated that as rights granted by a power higher than man, so that no man could ever take them away. That fact was what differentiated the United States from any country before it and why we're a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy in terms of system of government. We are able to vote on many things, but the first 10 Amendments are not up for revision. In order to do so, you literally need to nullify the US Constitution itself, thereby dissolving the United States and start over again. This is a particularly important fact to note as it's literally the soul of the nation and also very much describes the attitude of the way the country was founded. Likewise the US Constitution isn't a legal document for the people, but rather a set of rules intended to curtail government, another very important distinction to recognize. This is echoed out in the first 10 Amendments, as well as how they're structured and prioritized, as they go from most broad, yet most important to more granular and focused and they stack on each other. So the second directly supports the first, the third directly supports the second, etc.

 

The Second Amendment as you probably know is in regards to the right to bear arms, which is at the heart of a lot of this stuff. Likewise, the oath sworn by all politicians, military, LEO, etc to this very day includes a statement to defend the constitution from enemies foreign AND domestic. That is intended as a warning to government to essentially walk a fine line as its the duty of the people to ensure that government operates as it was intended, with a framework built in to amend many aspects of how it operates, to protest, replace it or ultimately wage war against it.

 

Anyhow, thats a primer for you to sort of add context before you get into the specifics of militia.

 

You can read more at places like https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/

 

If you truly want to deep dive on the subject, the absolute best source on this subject are the following two books... The first is literally every reference cited back to the development and ratification debates by our founding fathers, as well as all subsequent legal challenge and discussion in regards to the second amendment. (The second amendment is often cited as being most important as the first is what describes a free society and the second amendment is what starts to describe how you ensure one). The second book is legal interpretation of the references contained in the first one, largely in the context of the latest Supreme Court decision by Justice Scalia.

 

The Origin of the Second Amendment: A Documentary History of the Bill of Rights in Commentaries on Liberty, Free Government & an Armed Populace 1787-1792 2nd Edition

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0962366439/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1

 

The Founders' View of the Right To Bear Arms: A Definitive History of the Second Amendment

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0962366471/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1

 

 

*sorry for some of the bad grammar and structure. no time to finesse right now.

 

[Kults]

8 minutes ago, Hua Guofang said:

 

 

Think you blokes need to watch a few of the vids.

 

The DW journo was nowhere near rioters when he was shot by a rubber bullet.

 

The Australian journalists were bashed when they were filming a legal protest, during the day in a public park. There was no violence from the crowd, the cops used violence to clear the park so the Prez could get his photo took in front of a church.

Once the protest has degenerated into a riot that point is moot. They're just trying to clear the streets

[abrasivesaint]

[where]

17 minutes ago, abrasivesaint said:

Oh yea let’s walk right on up to police in riot gear, surely he can change their minds, fucking dumbass 

[where]

 

[Hua Guofang]

31 minutes ago, Kults said:

Once the protest has degenerated into a riot that point is moot. They're just trying to clear the streets

Again, there was no riot or laws being broken when the Aussies were bashed. The German wasn't on a street where the cops were under assault or being attacked (he also had his back to them and was clearly marked as press) and the American journo with Vice was on private property laying face down.

 

I mean, you're actually defending blatant police brutality here.

 

First 15 seconds:

 

 

 

Public area, not curfew, no rioting,no law breaking, media standing well to the side and easily identifiable  (but the prez wants a photo in front of the church)

 

https://7news.com.au/politics/australian-news-crew-assaulted-by-us-cops-c-1073307

 

 

On private property, complying with he cops, identifying himself as a journo whilst lying face down, still gets maced.

 

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/y3zd7g/i-told-riot-cops-im-a-journalist-they-forced-me-to-the-ground-and-pepper-sprayed-me-in-the-face

 

 

Edited June 3, 2020 by Hua Guofang

[Kults]

Cool if thats your take. Im honestly not interested in arguing it with you. 

[Hua Guofang]

11 minutes ago, where said:

Oh yea let’s walk right on up to police in riot gear, surely he can change their minds, fucking dumbass 

Still an unarmed civilian being shot in the face at point blank. Pretty obvious excessive force here.

 

 

 

[Hua Guofang]

1 minute ago, Kults said:

Cool if thats your take. Im honestly not interested in arguing it with you. 

You clearly didn't watch the vids, you responded way to quickly for that. You aren't actually aware of what happened, you don't want your position to be challenged.

 

And I'm the one that gets accused of loving government power and whatever other bullshit MErcer posted up the page.

 

This situation is really bringing out the bootlickers - post shit in the ACAB thread, lick boots in the Minneapolis thread!

 

Y'all surprise fuck out of me.

[Kults]

5 minutes ago, Hua Guofang said:

You clearly didn't watch the vids, you responded way to quickly for that. You aren't actually aware of what happened, you don't want your position to be challenged.

 

And I'm the one that gets accused of loving government power and whatever other bullshit MErcer posted up the page.

 

This situation is really bringing out the bootlickers - post shit in the ACAB thread, lick boots in the Minneapolis thread!

 

Y'all surprise fuck out of me.

We all know how you debate. I'm just not interested in reading your walls of text or arguing semantics with you for the 36th time. Yu WIN @Hua Guofangsavor it

[Hua Guofang]

6 minutes ago, Kults said:

We all know how you debate. I'm just not interested in reading your walls of text or arguing semantics with you for the 36th time. Yu WIN @Hua Guofangsavor it

lol, nice cop out, pussy.

 

When some one provides clear evidence (in video form, not even text!) that doesn't suit your argument, act like you're above it all and run away!

 

Alright bootlickers, it's 2am and you're all a great disappointment to me. Try and do better tomorrow, please.

 

G'night.

 

.

Edited June 3, 2020 by Hua Guofang

[Kults]

Bedtime for you loser. 

[where]

17 minutes ago, Hua Guofang said:

Still an unarmed civilian being shot in the face at point blank. Pretty obvious excessive force here.

 

 

 

How were they to tell he was unarmed?

[Kults]

2 minutes ago, where said:

How were they to tell he was unarmed?

Too late, he's gone to bed. He's snuggled up to his baby trump doll and dreaming of American tYrAnNy

[where]

4 minutes ago, Kults said:

Too late, he's gone to bed. He's snuggled up to his baby trump doll and dreaming of American tYrAnNy

Baby trump, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo

[abrasivesaint]

28 minutes ago, where said:

How were they to tell he was unarmed?

 

 

Oh knock it off. The dude was pepper sprayed moments before this and turned his back. The tear gas canister to the face is a clear case of “i’m a cop and can do what i want to you measly protestors.” Fuck outta here. 

[mr.yuck]

43 minutes ago, abrasivesaint said:

 

Oh knock it off. The dude was pepper sprayed moments before this and turned his back. The tear gas canister to the face is a clear case of “i’m a cop and can do what i want to you measly protestors.” Fuck outta here. 

This is true. If these motherfuckers thought they were in any kind of danger of being attacked with any weapon, they would have the green light to use leathal force. In the imortal words of one of my pig aquaintances "they (cops) are just out there having fun and fucking people up."

[misteraven]

Some of you guys need to simmer down. Was actually pleasantly surprised at how civil and interesting the conversation was this morning and come back to see shit going off the rails.

 

Devolving down to bickering is usually evidence of a real shortcoming in ones ability to articulate a point effectively. We aren't hear to convince each other of anything and its not always a black or white scenario, let alone a competition. Fact is the country is ripping itself apart as is, so lets not fall into that same bullshit. Try and frame up your comments respectfully and try and keep the emotion out of it. There's already plenty of that, too much of that, flowing right now and hate to see it here amongst core members. You guys are better than that. We're better that that. 

 

[where]

1 hour ago, abrasivesaint said:

 

Oh knock it off. The dude was pepper sprayed moments before this and turned his back. The tear gas canister to the face is a clear case of “i’m a cop and can do what i want to you measly protestors.” Fuck outta here. 

I’m not saying it was a chill move, but only an irrational person would say that guy didn’t bear any responsibility for being a fucktard. These same “protesters” were going around punching people with Maga hats and spreading that rhetoric but now they can’t take a tear gas canister to the face, idk sounds kinda pussy.

[abrasivesaint]

1 hour ago, where said:

I’m not saying it was a chill move, but only an irrational person would say that guy didn’t bear any responsibility for being a fucktard. These same “protesters” were going around punching people with Maga hats and spreading that rhetoric but now they can’t take a tear gas canister to the face, idk sounds kinda pussy.

I’m not saying the dude bears no responsibility. He clearly “provoked” the situation. The pepper spraying is a dick move but i wouldn't really care about that. The tear gas canister to the face is wildly uncalled for. 
 

There’s a lot of generalizations going on the past couple pages. The vast majority of “these protestors” aren’t and weren’t punching anyone in a MAGA hat. 
 

The protestors aren’t responsible for their fellow citizens actions. The police standing by while their fellow officers break laws with “impunity” are responsible for their lack of action. Plenty of cops are choosing to walk off, take a knee, whatever. Then there’s those that stand by while their fellow officers launch a gas canister into someones face, how much “better” are they? I would say not much if at all. 
 

They are supposed to de-escalate these situations. That dude not only did not do that, he blatantly escalated it.

 

No excuse.

[abrasivesaint]

PS: getting a punch to the face and a taking a tear gas canister point blank to the face from a riot gun are 2 completely different things.