SATURDAY: Antifa Cells Announce Day Of Retribution Across US

a reply to: Hefficide

You have a right to lawfully assemble, yes. This requires permitting, limited to location, time of day etc.

Riots in the middle of the night are *not* protests. Every attendee then becomes a rioter/unlawful assembler (a criminal)

originally posted by: Hefficide

It's honestly amazing, at least on an intellectual level, to watch a group of folks who recently spent eight years screaming that their biggest fear was stormtroopers taking to the streets via executive, Presidential decree... Now BEGGING for it to happen and cheering it on as enthusiastically as possible.

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

So cheer if you wish, but do so knowing that in 5 years, or 1 or next week... Those vans might come to grab you or those you love.

Yea the fires keep me warm and help thaw the frozen water bottle softer they bounce off the police

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Hefficide

You have a right to lawfully assemble, yes. This requires permitting, limited to location, time of day etc.

Riots in the middle of the night are *not* protests. Every attendee then becomes a rioter/unlawful assembler (a criminal)

***Citation needed.

Specifically can you please show me in the Constitution where your, my or anyone else's First Amendment rights have some sort of Cinderalla clause and are not applicable "in the middle of the night" - and - where it says that if one person commits a crime, everyone around them is complicit. I mean if this is the case then every attendee at the Unite The Right rally a couple of years back is, by your logic, culpable for the death of Heather Hyer.

a reply to: network dude

So I take it, then, that your position that laws and our foundational documents stop applying if somebody throws a water bottle?

If so you might want to think those notions through to their logical conclusions.

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: xuenchen

I'd say something about that straw man you've got there, but why bother? I'll just point out that I said nothing about riots. However if I did I'd have probably added that Governors can mobilize the National Guard, legally and Constitutionally as a remedy to such problems.

People have a right to protest. If people in those protests cross legal lines we have laws and courts to sort that out and to punish the guilty parties - without infringing of the rights of those legally protesting.

And that there is the catch. I'll speak to Washington State since I live here. Seattle's mayor and the State Governor are refusing to do anything to stop the rioters. There has been a recent push back by the Seattle Police Chief to protect people, but that is getting met with politicalizing her choices by the Mayors office. Seattle City Council doesn't help either since "Socialist Alternative" controls them, and I'm not being figurative there either Kshama Sawant is a high ranking member of the Trotskyist group and she's head of the City Council. many of the other members have started to fall in line with her ideals too.

It's so bad that just last week Seattle PD had over 3 dozen officers trying to get transfers to other other cities, because the City Council has so many restrictions on officers doing their jobs that it's become a crap town in most places.

Governor Inslee doesn't care either because he's going to be using the homeless in Seattle to get re-elected. See in Washington State if King County (the place where Seattle is) votes 62% for something, then even if the rest of the state votes against it, it will still pass or that person will get elected. Inslee is going to use the Homeless population to get that 62%. Sawant has already shown that using the homeless works since that's how she got elected last time. So we might as well write Inslee off as another "Socialist Alternative" follower.

No to the issue at hand, people do have a right to peaceably protest to make their voices heard, but they also do not have to right to use those protest to restrict the rights of others, nor do they have the right to use those protests to commit acts of violence or malice against others.

So if local officials and state officials are not willing to back up the police in protecting the members of society, then we can go one of three ways:
We can allow the rioters to take control of everyday citizens and allow anarchy to be the rule
We can allow for the average citizen to take back their streets and turn towards a form of vigilantism justice
We can allow Federal law enforcement officers to come in and help protect life and property of the average citizen

Ideally the local police should have put all this down on day one, but since Trotskyists control the city's political system, that didn't happen. Now all the people are left with is unsavory choices, so which do you choose?

Oh something you should be aware of, you can't sue the State of Washington for wrong doing. It's being tried time and time again under Inslee, and the State courts refuse to hear the cases.


Back to the OP;
antifa/BLM might try and act on this threat, but in by doing so it will be asking for open season on them as a terrorist organization. antifa is already toeing that line anyways, but this would just push them over the edge. Same goes for BLM, while not as recognized as such getting caught using an IED on law enforcement will definitively put them in that list.

So the real question is this: "Will they act on this, or are they just putting this out there in hopes of making law enforcement jumpy and get them to act out?"

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: network dude

So I take it, then, that your position that laws and our foundational documents stop applying if somebody throws a water bottle?

If so you might want to think those notions through to their logical conclusions.

Only if they are frozen just like trowing malts made with quick rite which contain lye, would you like lye thrown into your face or being hit with a frozen bottle of water?

originally posted by: Hefficide

It's honestly amazing, at least on an intellectual level, to watch a group of folks who recently spent eight years screaming that their biggest fear was stormtroopers taking to the streets via executive, Presidential decree... Now BEGGING for it to happen and cheering it on as enthusiastically as possible.

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

So cheer if you wish, but do so knowing that in 5 years, or 1 or next week... Those vans might come to grab you or those you love.

Don't you find it ironic that the same people who riot, decry the "storm-troopers" are rioting for bigger, more oppresive government?

a reply to: DBCowboy

Not really because they're not. They're protesting a lopsided justice system.

FTR if any of the right wing's claims that they're being downtrodden ever hold validity I'll be here ( or elsewhere ) standing up for their rights as well.

Enumerated rights are not a partisan issue. They're universal and failing to protect the rights of those you disagree with enabled the dimineshment of freedom for all.

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: DBCowboy

Not really because they're not. They're protesting a lopsided justice system.

FTR if any of the right wing's claims that they're being downtrodden ever hold validity I'll be here ( or elsewhere ) standing up for their rights as well.

Enumerated rights are not a partisan issue. They're universal and failing to protect the rights of those you disagree with enabled the dimineshment of freedom for all.

Protesting the justice system by burning buildings, harming people?

There is NO RIGHT to infringe upon the rights of anyone else.

a reply to: Guyfriday

I'll have to research some of the specifics you've cited as time permits, but in a general sense I tend to disagree with your statement that only three options, all negative, exist.

If Washington's State and Seattle's local governments are in a state of dysfunction, that seems like a matter for the ballot box and grass roots solutions. Leadership is elected and I am hesitant to trust that homeless people are the swing vote in any state.

As previously stated, the National Guard exists and is the Constitutional remedy for riots.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I never said that violence or the destruction of property was a right. What I did say is that we have extant laws that spell out how such acts should be addressed. Deviation from those Constitutionally mandated procedures only serves to weaken liberty for everyone.

a reply to: Hefficide

Specifically can you please show me in the Constitution where your, my or anyone else's First Amendment rights have some sort of Cinderalla clause and are not applicable "in the middle of the night"

I can't. Just as you can't show me in the Constitution where the Second Amendment has any sort of "anti-assault weapon" "anti-automatic weapon" or "anti-explosive" clause. I agree with this point whole heartedly, however our basta## courts have legislated away so many of our rights that the right to own firearms has indeed been infringed by meaningless characteristics and the right to free speech has been infringed and limited to certain areas, at certain times under certain circumstances with government permission OR small crowds demonstrating on side-walks without obstructing the normal pedestrian flow.

The way things are now, when an assembly is deemed an unlawful assembly the participants become unlawful assemblers (or rioters, when it is declared a riot)

Lets face it, what's going on in major cities and especially the PNW is *not* protests these are black-clad antifa types creating chaos, burning down buildings, stabbing people, maliciously assaulting people with bricks/bats/concrete/urine/feces, detonating explosive devices, detonating incendiary devices, etc.

where it says that if one person commits a crime, everyone around them is complicit.

I didn't say that. I said when the assembly is declared an unlawful assembly those who remain are by definition unlawfully assembling. The streets aren't the place to have that fight, that is for a court of law.

I mean if this is the case then every attendee at the Unite The Right rally a couple of years back is, by your logic, culpable for the death of Heather Hyer.

Why? That wasn't an unlawful assembly. Nobody asked antifa to show up and provoke violence. And last I checked, the perpetrator is still sitting in prison is he not? I can't stand this fake narrative that antifa is somehow better than nazis and killers - they are ONE IN THE SAME! Equally terrible, morally.

The point is I guess the left should've been there to defend our gun rights, our free speech rights, our rights to remain free from arbitary government investigations (russia hoax, among many others) instead of towing the party line. No serious person should expect the RW to come to their defense after they've spent DECADES attacking us, attacking our rights and waging an all out culture war.

You expect me to throw on a plate carrier, grab my rifle and go to protect antifa goons? Why should I? So they can turn around and stab me in the back after its all said and done? I don't think so. Make the case that defending antifa will NOT weaken my rights and the the rest of America's rights and you'll convince me to do that. Until then, I say let these lawless animals get what they deserve.

a reply to: JBurns

I am honestly impressed with the number of non-sequiturs and false equivalencies you managed to squeeze in there. Truly.

Obviously I never suggested that you, or anyone else, show up to protect anyone else. Full stop.

The real irony here is that you appear to be of a mind to disregard the rights of others - which is exactly what the protests are about in the first place. Top marks.

originally posted by: Hefficide

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Hefficide

You have a right to lawfully assemble, yes. This requires permitting, limited to location, time of day etc.

Riots in the middle of the night are *not* protests. Every attendee then becomes a rioter/unlawful assembler (a criminal)

***Citation needed.

Specifically can you please show me in the Constitution where your, my or anyone else's First Amendment rights have some sort of Cinderalla clause and are not applicable "in the middle of the night" - and - where it says that if one person commits a crime, everyone around them is complicit. I mean if this is the case then every attendee at the Unite The Right rally a couple of years back is, by your logic, culpable for the death of Heather Hyer.

Ever heard of curfew? If you don’t have a good reason to be out you’re in violation and you can and should be detained. Pretty simple.

Peaceful protesters don’t usually dress in all black with helmets, body pads, goggles or carry weapons, projectiles, gas and shields. Just saying.

a reply to: mtnshredder

Curfew...

Aside from that, then can I put you down as agreeing that the III% militias are equally as culpable and problematic for showing up to protests wearing body pads, goggles, carrying weapons, projectiles, gas and shields?

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: mtnshredder

Curfew...

Aside from that, then can I put you down as agreeing that the III% militias are equally as culpable and problematic for showing up to protests wearing body pads, goggles, carrying weapons, projectiles, gas and shields?

Yes, I think anyone showing up at a protest armed with much more than a sign is a problem.

....or possible problem I should say.

originally posted by: Hefficide

It's honestly amazing, at least on an intellectual level, to watch a group of folks who recently spent eight years screaming that their biggest fear was stormtroopers taking to the streets via executive, Presidential decree... Now BEGGING for it to happen and cheering it on as enthusiastically as possible.

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

So cheer if you wish, but do so knowing that in 5 years, or 1 or next week... Those vans might come to grab you or those you love.

Any attempt to undermine the foundation of what the nation is built upon, including the Constitution, deserves massive (violent even, if need be) pushback against any enemy trying to undermine it. As it currently stands, the groups currently protesting are absolutely the ones attempting to do that undermining. They are not interested in "democracy" they're looking to bully and threaten society into changing in areas the majority don't support and the Constitution doesn't permit.

The 8 years of Obama, that president was looking to be the one driving that undermining, so, again... the crosshairs belong between the eyes of whoever is trying to change away from what we already have.

At the end of the day, "Conservative" vs "Progressive" is always going to come down to whether what we already have is worth killing to preserve, or will We the People willfully surrender it to the unwashed savage horde and give them the changes they demand to obtain a temporary "peace" until they make their next demands?

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: mtnshredder

Curfew...

Aside from that, then can I put you down as agreeing that the III% militias are equally as culpable and problematic for showing up to protests wearing body pads, goggles, carrying weapons, projectiles, gas and shields?

You already know my answer to this one.

a reply to: Hefficide

3% don't show up with gas grenades, you can't even buy those thanks to the repressive anti-gun establishment.

Shields? That's easy. See: throwing urine, throwing feces, throwing rocks, throwing concrete slabs, throwing frozen water bottles, attacks by club wielding nut jobs, etc.

Way to gloss over every single valid argument presented. The point was why would you expect us to defend the very people who are actively working to infringe on our rights under totally invented BS circumstances?

a reply to: burdman30ott6

These protests were over a police officer killing an unarmed black man. Exactly what about that is "bullying" people or seeking to undermine the Constitution.

The "unwashed savage horde" is a large part of "We The People" and have the same rights as everyone else.