What do Nazi and Confederate Flags have to do with ending the lockdown?

WitoldPilecki said:
Yeah, it clearly was terrorism.
Click to expand...

Nope. Not terrorism. Terrorism is techniques (which may or may not including bombings) designed to terrify the public at large, such as shooting up a shopping mall.
The Oklahoma bombing was against a specific target for a specific purpose. The target was the federal government. The purpose was revenge.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Federal law defines brandished as, “with reference to a dangerous weapon (including a firearm) means that all or part of the weapon was displayed, or the presence of the weapon was otherwise made known to another person, in order to intimidate that person, regardless of whether the weapon was directly visible to that person. Accordingly, although the dangerous weapon does not have to be directly visible, the weapon must be present.” (18 USCS Appx § 1B1.1)

Now someone would have to PROVE that the intent was to INTIMIDATE.
Click to expand...

Carrying a weapon is not brandishing a weapon.
 
Into the Night said:
Nope. Not terrorism. Terrorism is techniques (which may or may not including bombings) designed to terrify the public at large, such as shooting up a shopping mall.
The Oklahoma bombing was against a specific target for a specific purpose. The target was the federal government. The purpose was revenge.
Click to expand...

The target of the 9/11 terrorists, weren't a heck of a lot different.
 
StoneByStone said:
All of that just shows that muh constitution does nothing to secure our rights. It's a piece of paper. If politicians want to ignore it, they will, and they have.
Click to expand...
Ahh, I see the problem. You are under the typical LW misperception that the Constitution gives us our rights and that it is failing to do the job. It doesn't. All it does is lay out the purpose of the Federal government and specifically names some Federal "No-Go" area without any limitations on citizen's unalienable rights.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Ahh, I see the problem. You are under the typical LW misperception that the Constitution gives us our rights and that it is failing to do the job. It doesn't. All it does is lay out the purpose of the Federal government and specifically names some Federal "No-Go" area without any limitations on citizen's unalienable rights.
Click to expand...

I certainly never assumed that muh constitution gives us our rights. I'm well-aware that it's just a symbol, like the statue of liberty. I like the statue of liberty, it's very pretty, but it in no way insures that we keep our rights.
The purpose of the federal government can change. "No-Go" areas can be ignored. And these things have already happened. If the point of muh constitution is just to let us know what the government will or won't do, then it's still kinda pointless.
 
WitoldPilecki said:
Some of the best & brightest Germans had Slavic or Jewish roots.

Leibniz was at least half Slavic Sorb one of the biggest German intellects, an inventor of Calculus & Binary Code, he also was a Philosopher, others include the physicist Theodor Kaluza had Polish ancestry, Paul Nipkow the first inventor of Television had Polish-Kashubian ancestry, Max Skladanowsky had Polish ancestry, and was the founder of German cinema, and movie projectors, Gregor Mendel had some Slavic Moravian ancestry, and was the founder of Genetic Inheritance, Schubert the German Classical composer had Slavic Czech ancestry too.
Werhner Von Braun who put a Man on the Moon was related to Polish king Mieszko, and his maternal Grandmother's name Von Gostkowski is of Polish origins.

Even Friedrich Nietzsche considered himself Polish, and thought Germans entered the talented nations from a strong mixture of Polish blood.


As for Jews, physicists like Einstein, Max Born, Otto Stern and Oppenheimer were Jews.

Jewish Siegfried Marcus invented the Gasoline Car.

Jewish Fritz Haber behind the Haber process.

Jewish psychologist Sigmund Freud.

The Jewish classical composer Mendelsohn.
Click to expand...
None of which has anything to do with how the Nazis viewed the Slavic races.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
Flash said:
We have no Confederate or Nazi enemies. Those wars are over. Also, the specifics of laws against treason require the U. S. to be at war to officially have an enemy. If I carry a Confederate flag what enemy am I giving comfort to?
Click to expand...

The Constitution sets no such standard. Nazis and the CSA are both declared enemies of the U.S.. If you carry a Confederate flag, you are trying to resurrect the CSA. If you carry a Nazi flag, you are trying to resurrect the Nazis.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
Walt said:
So you claim there is no evidence that it reduces infection rates, AND it absolutely reduces infection rates preventing herd immunity? You are all over the map here.

Reducing infection rates does not prevent herd (or heard as you write it) immunity. It slows the forming of herd immunity.
Click to expand...

Nope, you have no evidence that it reduces infection rates and it is a proven scientific fact that partial lockdowns prevent everyone from getting the antibodies necessary for denying the virus a host. You people guaranteed a relapse and killed millions because orange man bad. Good job.
 
rjhenn said:
IOW you've got no evidence that the 14 day quarantine was ever actually implemented. And it's only your paranoia that sees NPR as "a far left MSM source".

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You're literally retarded, you and your entire generic line needs to be sterilized, and I mean that:

"The action means that U.S. citizens who have been in China's Hubei Province in the past 14 days will be subject to 14 days of mandatory quarantine if they travel back to the United States."

https://www.npr.org/sections/health...-health-emergency-and-restricts-travel-from-c


42 U.S. Code § 271.Penalties for violation of quarantine laws
U.S. Code
Notes
prev | next
(a)Penalties for persons violating quarantine laws
Any person who violates any regulation prescribed under sections 264 to 266 of this title, or any provision of section 269 of this title or any regulation prescribed thereunder, or who enters or departs from the limits of any quarantine station, ground, or anchorage in disregard of quarantine rules and regulations or without permission of the quarantine officer in charge, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000 or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/271


Now do the gene pool a favor and fucking kill yourself.
 
rjhenn said:
Waving guns around is an explicit threat. Simply having a gun in a holster or slung over your shoulder is not a threat.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Hence the difference between brandishing and open carry try following the thread before you flap your gums, never go full retard.
 
rjhenn said:
The Constitution sets no such standard. Nazis and the CSA are both declared enemies of the U.S.. If you carry a Confederate flag, you are trying to resurrect the CSA. If you carry a Nazi flag, you are trying to resurrect the Nazis.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The Confederacy thing was resolved in the 19th century and all citizens thereof were welcomed back into the union.
 
Last edited:
Into the Night said:
The 14th amendment made no changes to the 1st amendment in any way.

The Supreme Court does not have authority to change the Constitution of the United States.

The 1st amendment is not superfluous. It limits the federal government on what kind of laws it can pass. It applies only to the federal government, as specified in the 1st amendment itself.

Not correct. Argument of ignorance fallacy. State constitutions designate what speech cannot be prevented by the State government. State government still have authority to pass laws concerning speech causing panic. They also have authority to designate State religions (no State currently has this in their constitution today, but if they did, they could exercise that power again). NOTHING has changed.

Irrelevant.

Nothing has changed.

The Supreme Court does not have authority to change the Constitution of the United States.
Click to expand...

You didn't even read it did you?

Incorporation Doctrine
Primary tabs
Overview
The incorporation doctrine is a constitutional doctrine through which the first ten amendments of the United States Constitution (known as the Bill of Rights) are made applicable to the states through the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine

The 14th amendment granted the Federal Judiciary to enforce the Federal Constitution upon the states, you can deny it all you want and claim that it's not legitimate but the fact remains that is the legal system under which we live, you can thank incorporation for giving us things like the Heller decision preventing blue States from infringing on the inalienable right of self defense.

Furthermore; state statutes can't violate state Constitutions and show me the state which doesn't have some variation of the 1st amendment. The same legal reasoning used in Brandenburg would apply to state law as well.
 
Last edited:
Into the Night said:
Actually, you can. For example: you can kill a mass murderer because of his belief that he is doing it as an "act of God" and that he will not stop killing until every (pick your favorite race or religion) are dead.
Click to expand...

No he would be executed for murder not for his belief that murder is justified.
 
rjhenn said:
I know how the Constitution defines treason, which you appear to be ignorant of.
Article 3, Section 3
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Demonstrations displaying Nazi or Confederate flags and regalia have the sole purpose of giving aid and comfort to our enemies.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Not even Jefferson Davis was executed for treason you fucking retard.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Federal law defines brandished as, “with reference to a dangerous weapon (including a firearm) means that all or part of the weapon was displayed, or the presence of the weapon was otherwise made known to another person, in order to intimidate that person, regardless of whether the weapon was directly visible to that person. Accordingly, although the dangerous weapon does not have to be directly visible, the weapon must be present.” (18 USCS Appx § 1B1.1)

Now someone would have to PROVE that the intent was to INTIMIDATE.
Click to expand...

Peaceably assembling is not an attempt to intimidate and you didn't site a federal statute you cited federal guidelines:

https://guidelines.ussc.gov/gl/§1B1.1
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top