liberal attack against conservatives

[SmarterthanYou]

In perhaps the most blatant political attack on conservatives in our countries history, the Department of Homeland Security issued an intelligence report that warns law enforcement of right wing extremists and radicals preparing for potential domestic terrorist attacks and violence due to racist fears, gun control paranoia, and displeasure at the economic and financial policies of the current political atmosphere. Having read through only 13 pages of this report, they used exactly 13 people and incidents to label the right wing as full of racistm, nazis, skinheads, white supremacists, and disgruntled republicans. They've even included former military veterans returning from combat and service groups as people subject to radicalism.

This is totally disgusting and the President, as well as Janet Napolitano, should be ashamed to lower themselves to such political debasement.

 

[ib1yysguy]

Considering you have said multiple times you plan to kill federal agents (starting a thread called "kill all they send"), it's amazing to me you can post this as though the government's fears of domestic terrorism from you guys are unfounded.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Considering you have said multiple times you plan to kill federal agents (starting a thread called "kill all they send"), it's amazing to me you can post this as though the government's fears of domestic terrorism from you guys are unfounded.

if defending the constitution is considered extreme and radical, just what the fuck DO you want for this country?

 

[Cancel3]

Considering you have said multiple times you plan to kill federal agents, it's amazing to me you can post this as though the government's fears of domestic terrorism from you guys are unfounded.

While STY has indeed talked of killing federal agents, it has always been dependent on their violating his Constitutional rights first.

Calling him a terrorist for his "threats" would be like calling me a murderer for shooting someone in self-defense. Not quite accurate.

 

[ib1yysguy]

While STY has indeed talked of killing federal agents, it has always been dependent on their violating his Constitutional rights first.

Calling him a terrorist for his "threats" would be like calling me a murderer for shooting someone in self-defense. Not quite accurate.

Killing people you disagree with politically is terrorism. If it's a political battle you want to fight, that's done nonviolently in America.

 

[ib1yysguy]

I'd like a link to this report. I'm pleased as punch the government is preparing for you idiots to do something stupid. I hope you get put down quickly and harshly and teach you a lesson.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Killing people you disagree with politically is terrorism. If it's a political battle you want to fight, that's done nonviolently in America.

i never threatened anyone because of political disagreements. I threatened lethal force in violating or attempting to deny me constitutional rights. Let's not blur the issue so you can feel you're on the moral high ground.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I'd like a link to this report. I'm pleased as punch the government is preparing for you idiots to do something stupid. I hope you get put down quickly and harshly and teach you a lesson.

just remember that if the war does start, civilian collaberators also become targets.

leftist attack papers

 

[Cancel3]

Killing people you disagree with politically is terrorism. If it's a political battle you want to fight, that's done nonviolently in America.

He warned against taking away his rights and confiscating his property. That is a little more than a political disagreement.

 

[ib1yysguy]

i never threatened anyone because of political disagreements. I threatened lethal force in violating or attempting to deny me constitutional rights. Let's not blur the issue so you can feel you're on the moral high ground.

And your interpretation of the constitution is different then that of the supreme court's, congress, and the executive branch. That makes it a political disagreement not matter how much you try to spin it. Believe me, the second you try to kill someone you're going to be a terrorist and you'll be treated like one.

I'm actually hoping you guys do something as stupid as you're saying you will. That'll allow us to have a REAL debate about gun control in this country once your side shows themselves for the terrorists they are.

 

[Cancel3]

And your interpretation of the constitution is different then that of the supreme court's, congress, and the executive branch. That makes it a political disagreement not matter how much you try to spin it. Believe me, the second you try to kill someone you're going to be a terrorist and you'll be treated like one.

I'm actually hoping you guys do something as stupid as you're saying you will. That'll allow us to have a REAL debate about gun control in this country once your side shows themselves for the terrorists they are.

The supreme court has already ruled that the 2nd amendment is indeed an individual right.

Now that this has been established, any complete removal of guns from citizens who have done nothing wrong is unconstitutional.

You make it sound as though STY is going out to attack feds. When he is, in fact, defending his home against an invasion.

But what I actually think (and hope) the feds would do is more of a long term standoff and wait him out. Given the responses they got from their debacles in Waco and Ruby Ridge, I hope they would try different tactics.

 

[ib1yysguy]

He warned against taking away his rights and confiscating his property. That is a little more than a political disagreement.

If I pull up to a DUI checkpoint where they're inspecting every driver on a road to see if they're drunk, I believe that's a violation of my constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure. There are legal professionals who would agree with me and probably take it to court on my behalf if I wanted to push it.

Now if I pulled out a gun and shot the police trying to catch DUI criminals, is that an acceptable course of action? No. It would be murder and it's no different then what you guys are proposing for a different constitutional amendment. It's not the right way to settle these things and it never will be.

Really, I'm not going to convince anyone who's this far gone that they think it'd be okay to kill someone because they believe they have a lock on constitutional interpretation. Seriously, go make good on your threats and see who ends up defending you.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

And your interpretation of the constitution is different then that of the supreme court's, congress, and the executive branch. That makes it a political disagreement not matter how much you try to spin it. Believe me, the second you try to kill someone you're going to be a terrorist and you'll be treated like one.

I'm actually hoping you guys do something as stupid as you're saying you will. That'll allow us to have a REAL debate about gun control in this country once your side shows themselves for the terrorists they are.

come on...you know for a fact it is not just the right who believes in gun rights...as if there aren't those on the left who destroy property, eco terrorists etc...

do you really want to go down this road of labeling the other party as terrorists

 

[ib1yysguy]

just remember that if the war does start, civilian collaberators also become targets.

leftist attack papers

Thanks

 

[ib1yysguy]

come on...you know for a fact it is not just the right who believes in gun rights...as if there aren't those on the left who destroy property, eco terrorists etc...

do you really want to go down this road of labeling the other party as terrorists

Do you understand the difference between arson and murder?

 

[Cancel3]

If I pull up to a DUI checkpoint where they're inspecting every driver on a road to see if they're drunk, I believe that's a violation of my constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure. There are legal professionals who would agree with me and probably take it to court on my behalf if I wanted to push it.

Now if I pulled out a gun and shot the police trying to catch DUI criminals, is that an acceptable course of action? No. It would be murder and it's no different then what you guys are proposing for a different constitutional amendment. It's not the right way to settle these things and it never will be.

Really, I'm not going to convince anyone who's this far gone that they think it'd be okay to kill someone because they believe they have a lock on constitutional interpretation. Seriously, go make good on your threats and see who ends up defending you.

There are differences. For one thing, the SCOTUS has not ruled that it is a violation of your rights against unreasonable search & seizure.

And the DUI checkpoint would not be opening fire on you, as the feds have been known to do in cases similar to what STY has discussed.




I had rather not see anyone killed. Its odd that you want guns banned to stop the killing, and yet you hope to see killing in circumstances that involve pro-gun people.

 

[ib1yysguy]

There are differences. For one thing, the SCOTUS has not ruled that it is a violation of your rights against unreasonable search & seizure.

And the DUI checkpoint would not be opening fire on you, as the feds have been known to do in cases similar to what STY has discussed.




I had rather not see anyone killed. Its odd that you want guns banned to stop the killing, and yet you hope to see killing in circumstances that involve pro-gun people.

Okay, so if SCOTUS decides that it's unreasonable it's okay to shoot the police since it would be defending my constitutional rights.

And don't dare mischaracterize my stance on guns you putz. I will never be in favor of an outright ban on guns. STY has said he would kill agents for enforcing regulations on guns, like registration. You are a lying sack of monkey fuck.

 

[Cancel3]

Okay, so if SCOTUS decides that it's unreasonable it's okay to shoot the police since it would be defending my constitutional rights.

And don't dare mischaracterize my stance on guns you putz. I will never be in favor of an outright ban on guns. STY has said he would kill agents for enforcing regulations on guns, like registration. You are a lying sack of monkey fuck.

Hey, if we are going to have a rational discussion, would you care to lighten the fuck up?

When I have seen him threaten to shoot federal agents it has been in response to discussions of the outright ban of guns in DNC's thread.

If I missed some post where he threatened to shoot someone for asking for his ID when he wanted to buy a gun, excuse the hell outta me. But how about clarifying it first and going into the "You are a lying sack of monkey fuck" bullshit after I ignore it. M'kay?

Or is being a dickhead just your idea of having fun?

 

[ib1yysguy]

Hey, if we are going to have a rational discussion, would you care to lighten the fuck up?

When I have seen him threaten to shoot federal agents it has been in response to discussions of the outright ban of guns in DNC's thread.

If I missed some post where he threatened to shoot someone for asking for his ID when he wanted to buy a gun, excuse the hell outta me. But how about clarifying it first and going into the "You are a lying sack of monkey fuck" bullshit after I ignore it. M'kay?

Or is being a dickhead just your idea of having fun?

A rational discussion involves addressing the other party's position, not fabricating it, monkey cunt.

STY made it very clear if the government enacted some form of registration (a reasonable regulation to many) he would refuse and kill whoever showed up to enforce it. THAT's what we're talking about here. If the government tried to enforce an outright ban, it would be in clear violation of the SOCUTS ruling and it will never, ever happen. REGULATIONS can and will happen. That's what the government laid out as a likelihood in that paper. Violence and domestic terrorism from these nuts seems an almost certain response to anything this government does - it has already happened in PN, and the government hasn't done anything to make a rational person believe they'll actually go and take guns away. Yet this guy believed it and took life for it.

If this becomes wide spread, you can bet the government is going to do what they need to to stop it.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

And your interpretation of the constitution is different then that of the supreme court's, congress, and the executive branch.

and since THEY didn't write the constitution, but American citizens did through selected delegates, the supreme court, congress, and the executive branch have twisted the constitution nearly beyond it's original meaning so as to be almost useless.

That makes it a political disagreement not matter how much you try to spin it. Believe me, the second you try to kill someone you're going to be a terrorist and you'll be treated like one.

Sic Semper Tyrannis

I'm actually hoping you guys do something as stupid as you're saying you will. That'll allow us to have a REAL debate about gun control in this country once your side shows themselves for the terrorists they are.

I'm sure you do, though I don't think you're prepared for the number of deaths will actually occur, of course you might not be worried at all about 4 million dead Americans.