Well, that belief and two bucks will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. :mrgreen:
That's why they wore the masks. Besides, ain't nothing wrong with some protest and civil disobedience. **** the establishment, **** the authority.
That's a neat little theory with zero evidence to back it up. 0/10, see me after class.
In the process you destroy and hurt innocent people and their property that have absolutely noting to do with your grievance...
You have a problem with a president so you smash a deli window???
If you want to get anarchistic and have a problem with the government - attack the government not small business owners that just happen to be in your wake.
Anarchists and radical progressives claim they're for the "little man" but yet turn around and destroy their places of business.
You can protest - that is your First Amendment right but destroying an innocent individuals property is WRONG!
Yeah but you're missing something. Changing government through revolution has never been a protected activity. Not in our government or any really. We recognise that it is sometimes a necessity historically, but to do it you must by design fly without government support and face a whole lot of possible negative consequences if you fail (heck, even if you succeed). It's just part of it.
What happened when we revolted against England?
Nope, I do not promote random rioting as proper avenue of aggression and anger against the government. Want to stop using guesses and hyperbole and engage in an intellectually honest manner?
I agree, riots against local business is not the proper way to demonstrate and are not legitimate target for anti-government aggression. Never said it was. Doesn't mean some protest and civil disobedience isn't a good thing. It sometimes is and is sometimes necessary.
It is protected in some regard. Through speech, assembly, protest, and arms the ability to revolt is upheld to the People.
lol, how are you confused. I won't stop people from running their mouths. Do I need to go slower for ya?
Who said I was confused? I was laughing at you, dude.
No, not even remotely. Those are protected activities only to speak to representative power. When used to revolt they have always been illegal here. From the very beginning onward.
I'm all for "civil disobedience" - just as long as it is directed where it belongs - against the perpetrators and tyrants...
IMO, I don't give a rats ass what happens to the tyrants.. They abuse (take away and degrade) our civil liberties, judicial system, legislative branch and executive branch...... They believe they know what's best for free individuals in a free country - a country where individuals are free to make their own decisions and live life how they see fit for themselves...
Few understand that concept and the rest are aristocrats.
No, not even remotely. Those are protected activities only to speak to representative power. When used to revolt they have always been illegal here. From the very beginning onward.
our second amendment exists - not to hunt for food - but to predominately protect ourselves from tyrants.
Our Second Amendment exists - not to hunt for food - but to predominately protect ourselves from tyrants.
The government will resist, of course, but it doesn't mean that it isn't the right and duty of the people. For it is. And things such as speech, assembly, redress, protest, firearms, etc. were made specifically to allow the People limiters on government action and the ability to reassert control should it be necessary. Of course the government itself wouldn't like it. The English government took none too lightly when we revolted against them. But it remains a necessary and protected power of the People.
Again, nope. You were almost there until you got to the "ability to reassert control", that is done exclusively through impeachment processes and election. We're not talking about some utopian universal right here but what the government and Constitution actually grant. You do not have a constitutional right to threaten the lives of others, even if they are politicians and you hate them. Revolution is not protected by the Constitution, in fact, to revolt you have to sideline the Constitution in the first place.
Our Second Amendment exists - not to hunt for food - but to predominately protect ourselves from tyrants.
So go ahead. You first.
No, it's not. We did not impeach King George, we overthrew him through violent rebellion. The very birth of our Republic betrays your opinion.
No and yes. It maintains the ability of the People to revolt, but once they begin said revolt the Constitution that guarantees that right is gone.
That's nice, but when we revolted against King George there was no Constitution granting your those rights.
Years after the assassination of President George W. Bush in Chicago, an investigative documentary examines that as-yet-unsolved crime.
John "Jack" Quincy Adams grew up in Midland, Texas with a crush on Laura Welch. But Jack went into the Secret Service and Laura married a wealthy Texas playboy. Jack soared in the Service, becoming "One", the agent assigned to protect the president. First George H. W. Bush, then Bill Clinton, and now his former sweetheart's husband, George W. Bush. Jack has twins: a single-parent daughter and a gay son with a family. Soon Jack is tortured by what he observes in The White House: Laura trapped in a life she hates; gay people like his son Quincy and his family scapegoated to distract from the war in Iraq; the country on an economic downward spiral. As a true conservative patriot, a man in love and sworn to protect the Constitution and the people of the United States, Jack realizes the fate of everyone he loves is in his hands. There is only one course possible-assassinate the president.
Christian militia calls for Obama
The Christian American Patriots Militia is openly calling for the assassination of President Barack Obama on their Facebook page. The Christian militia calls Obama a “dictator,” and claims the “authority to kill Obama comes from the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution.”
Arrest them all
Indeed, that is true. But the Constitution didn't create the right, it merely states it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?