Security Propaganda

which I answered. You can't use a firearm in any manner against a political opponent.

you seem to think you not liking the answer means I didn't answer it.

firearms can't be used against a political opponent. only in self defense or defense of others, as I pointed out. Your problem is you aren't comprehending what you are reading, and you are mistaking dicta for the ruling.

 

Aside from all the chatter being followed regarding plans for future violence by wingnuts, the remaining national guard is also there to assist the Capitol police who have been working very long shifts and are exhausted. They sustained serious trauma on the 6th and the back up is also there for them.

 

This is not true according to the Heller decision.

I clearly showed that you answered a different question.

I am not. I quoted the ruling in my previous post.

What is the non threatening way the citizen's militia uses firearms to prevent the rule of a politicized standing army?

 

I made no claim.
You did.
I asked you who and for the quotes. You dodged to an anonymous poster on this forum that is not a dem.

I can only surmise, you made the whole claim up.
Else you'd provide the proof to your claim.
Thanks.

 

Here is a refresher of your claim.

What democrats has been downplaying BLM riots?
Name and the quote. If true, you should have plenty. Afterall, you did pluralize the word indicating there are more than 1.

I have seen no one, downplaying riots.

 

Do you agree or disagree with the statement: "Democrats downplayed the BLM riots".

 

"The results break down in part along party lines, with 68 percent of Republicans calling the unrest riots, compared to 30 percent of Democrats."
More voters classify BLM unrest as riots rather than protests: poll (nypost.com)

 

yes it is. heller had nothing to do with using a firearm against a political opponent.

no, you don't like the answer I gave.

you quoted the dicta, not the ruling. The case had nothing to do with, nor was any ruling made addressing using a firearm in any manner against a political opponent.

can't use a firearm in any manner in this way.

 

Boniday v USPS

Do you have some later statements by the Supreme court that the constitution does not deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved? Do you have some later statements by the Supreme court that the purpose of the citizen's militia is not to prevent the rule of a politicized standing army? Do you have later statements by the supreme court that taking away civilian arms does not enabl[e] a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents or a select militia's suppression of political opponents? I don't think you do.

You should take up your argument with the supreme court, because they have the last word on the matter. Their last word decidedly protects the use of firearms for this purpose. Since the singular use of a firearm that could affect this purpose is the threat of its use, the threat is protected.

 

it doesn't matter how many times you say it. armed insurrection is prohibited by US law. You can not use a firearm against a political opponent, for any reason other than self defense.

 

Murder is illegal too, but that does not refute the fact that a conditionally restrained lethal use of force is a constitutionally protected action.

 

Based on what you've provided so far, I disagree.
If they did, you would have shown who and how they did.

The 1st time I asked you, you referred to a poster on this forum. Hardly a dem and certainly not dems.

 

I see, now you're narrowing down to just 3 protests/riots.
When there were thousands all over the country.
And there is nothing in the poll suggesting BLM protests or riots. Just 3 specific protests/riots.
I have no clue about what happened in NY. But Kenosha certainly morphed into riots. There was killing happening there. And the one's killed were protesters. And not even members of BLM.
And Portland has been hot spot of violence for years now, have they not? And trying to claim they are all BLM organized in not being accurate.

So, the general statement of dems downplaying riots still is a false claim. Particularly when you narrow it down to BLM.
BLM didn't organize all the protests in the country.

Maybe Republicans are overplaying the protests as riots. Just as you have been attempting to portray.

 

I don't see how you could possibly call all the damage and death as being overplayed. It exceeded that in the nations Capitol by orders of magnitude.

 

As I stated. There were thousands of protests all across the country. With 10s of thousands if not near a hundred thousand protesting.

In terms of people protesting and the number of places where protests occurred, riots were limited to a few places.
And I have no doubt, there were instigators at those places trying to incite violence. And no doubt, just like at the Capitol, some went there with an intent to be violent.

But you just choose to focus on a few. That's what I say is over playing. Not to mention, these protests been going on for over 6 months. Since June of last year.
Having said that, I say violence in never an answer. It weakens the movement.

 

You are hilarious. You ask for proof that the democrats were underplaying the riots and then you proceed to underplay the riots.

If you are going to play the numbers game Only one riot occurred at the Capitol. It was mostly peaceful. The only violence was from the small number who made it into the Capitol building.

The hypocrisy of the democrats is overwhelming. They go ballistic over the Capitol riot and then underplay the BLM riots. They don't want the national guard to interfere in the BLM riots but couldn't get them there fast enough for the Capitol riots. Walls don't work on the southern border, but the the first thing they did around the Capitol for defense was to put up multiple walls.

 

I said there were riots. At 2 of the 3 you mentioned in a poll. And I stated I don't know anything about the NY protests so I could not comment.
So, my underplaying is admitting there were riots in Portland and Kenosha, your only links to such activity.

And your poll claimed it was X dems who went one way and X repubs who went one way. Hardly proof its dems underplaying the riots.
Do you have any actual people doing so?

All partisans are hypocritical. You are doing so in your posts.
You claim 3 of thousands of protests means dems, whoever they are you won't specify, is underplaying BLM riots. When your own poll never claimed BLM protests at all.

Right now, it is only you that is going ballistic over riots. I've not seen anyone else going ballistic. Nor have you shown anyone, but you in this thread, going ballistic.

 

Good grief. You are hopeless.

You asked for proof. I gave you a name. That was not enough, so I gave you a poll. Now a poll is not enough. You want actual people.

 

You gave no name.
Good grief, you are hopeless.

Not only did you not give a name, you deflected to some poll about 3 protests that occurred in the country over the last 8 months.
And never gave a name.

Do you need me to repost your claim about dems, plural, and going ballistic?
It still remains on this very page at post #105. If you need to remember your claim.

 

I don't need to look anywhere to know that you will never acknowledge that the democrats have downplayed the BLM riots.

 

You are correct. Because I am not aware of any doing so.
And you have not been able to show anything to the contrary.

And you know this, that's why your posts have focused on me, instead of your claim.

 

The same way Biden's winning was called a coup, or the first impeachment, or basically anything Dems did to oppose trump.

 

I think when you begin a thread using disingenuous terms to describe the Capital rioters as "unarmed men" and make absurd assertions about establishing a government inside a city, implying it constitutes a coup, it means your premise is a steaming pile.

 

I provided a poll. Somehow it was not good enough because it focused on the wrong riots. The poll was clear that two thirds of the democrats thought those three riots were of no great consequence. There is no reason to believe the democrats would think any differently about the rest of the riots.

Why don't do you provide some tangible evidence that it is not true other than your personal opinion?

 

Again, how was it a coup? If you honestly believe that a bunch of knuckleheads smashing some things for a few hours in the Capitol building is a coup, you've much to learn. I strongly encourage you to turn off ABC/NBC/CNN/CBS/NPR unless of course you simply need to reinforce your Democrat voting partisanship