Antifa

[dennishoddy]

You sir are wrong. Libertarianism is the mindset that we leave each other alone to do as we each please. I’m fairly well a social libertarian myself. Fascism is the restrictions of the rights of others that you don’t agree with. When you want to take away the lefts rights to do the same thing you want for yourself to be able to do, you have transitioned to fascism.

As for the fed thing. well, again I’m going to point to the whitmore kidnapping, and then push forward to Ray Epps, followed up by the communications between the uvalde shooter and a “retired” fed. I would caution anyone on this site to not get too worked up by some newish **** poster that has radical ideologies.

You sir are wrong. Libertarianism is the mindset that we leave each other alone to do as we each please. I’m fairly well a social libertarian myself. Fascism is the restrictions of the rights of others that you don’t agree with. When you want to take away the lefts rights to do the same thing you want for yourself to be able to do, you have transitioned to fascism.

As for the fed thing. well, again I’m going to point to the whitmore kidnapping, and then push forward to Ray Epps, followed up by the communications between the uvalde shooter and a “retired” fed. I would caution anyone on this site to not get too worked up by some newish **** poster that has radical ideologies.

I'm not arguing with you, but you really need to look up the real definition of facism before throwing that word around. There are several different definitions in modern ideology. I would advise you to dig deep and look for the real definition, Antifa meets that definition to a tee.

 

[Glocktogo]

He would have been killed. You're skirting the facts and you know it which is typical when your called out for following the liberal disinformation.
You're a smart guy, would you venture into that war zone unarmed? Do you go anywhere unarmed?
Do you trust gun free zone signs and know your safe in doing so?
Real questions.

He went there to protect property, provide 1st aid (to both sides) and defend people, including himself. This was well documented before, during and after he defended himself.

He had every legal right to be there, was NOT inciting any violence or intimidating anyone and he got attacked because he was putting out a fire that was feloniously set.

So that is all EXACTLY the opposite of Antifa. That anyone can view it differently is proof they’re consuming codswallop in bulk quantity. They’re free to come in here and post ridiculous nonsense, but they’re not gonna get a free pass.

 

[dennishoddy]

He went there to protect property, provide 1st aid (to both sides) and defend people, including himself. This was well documented before, during and after he defended himself.

He had every legal right to be there, was NOT inciting any violence or intimidating anyone and he got attacked because he was putting out a fire that was feloniously set.

So that is all EXACTLY the opposite of Antifa. That anyone can view it differently is proof they’re consuming codswallop in bulk quantity. They’re free to come in here and post ridiculous nonsense, but they’re not gonna get a free pass.

That's exactly why I didn't give him one.

 

[Gideon]

You sir are wrong. Libertarianism is the mindset that we leave each other alone to do as we each please. I’m fairly well a social libertarian myself. Fascism is the restrictions of the rights of others that you don’t agree with. When you want to take away the lefts rights to do the same thing you want for yourself to be able to do, you have transitioned to fascism.

Every libertarian thinker recognizes that when someone is attacking you it is correct to defend yourself and others.
So when a group of people show up and say: "we want you to be killed for disagreeing with us." It is reasonable to say: "FAFO." It is furthermore reasonable to say that a libertarian social order can only exist so long as people who attempt to violently overthrow it are excluded.
Please provide more reasoning than "you're wrong."

Fascism is a very specific political theory, it isn't merely an insult you can hurl at people without doing the reading first. If you can find a quote in Mussolini's: "The Doctrine of Fascism" that says "we just want to restrict the rights of people we disagree with," I'll buy you a beer and we'll call it settled.

In this case, we aren't advocating the left be denied any rights we want for ourselves. I don't believe that I have the right to go gather in public and assault and batter people I disagree with. I don't believe that I have the right to plan, plot, and organize physical attacks on my philosophical opponents.
So neither should they.
And if they do those things, their other rights should be restricted, just as mine would be were the shoe on the other foot.

 

[Gideon]

He would have been killed. You're skirting the facts and you know it which is typical when your called out for following the liberal disinformation.

Well at least if he had been beaten to death for putting out a dumpster fire we wouldn't have had to sit through that whole trial and listen to people who didn't watch the live video (I watched the entire event in real time on twitter that very night) opine about it.

 

[Rez Exelon]

He would have been killed. You're skirting the facts and you know it which is typical when your called out for following the liberal disinformation.
You're a smart guy, would you venture into that war zone unarmed? Do you go anywhere unarmed?
Do you trust gun free zone signs and know your safe in doing so?
Real questions.

Slow your high horse roll there buddy --- unlike you I've evidenced I'll admit when I'm wrong. In fact you quoted me doing so earlier. I just don't think it changes my basic point.

I go virtually everywhere unarmed. I rarely carry to be honest. I'd say the most common reason I carry is if I'll be in areas with wildlife concerns --- I'm not as worried about people as it seems many others are. Now, I also have a general rule which is I'm going to avoid civil unrest and avoid putting myself in crap situations. The couple of times I've had to draw were problems that came to me.

So it's not skirting the facts --- if he had either stayed home we'd have never known his name. My opinion here is that it's real hard to be an innocent, untargeted, medic with an AR-15 slung over your med hit in an area of civil unrest. Yeah yeah, I know in the military medics are armed, but civil unrest doesn't really follow combat rules last I checked.

At the end of the day, what was he defending? Property? Oh no the property! Listen, I like my property and all the crap I have, but I started with nothing and was perfectly happy back then without all the things I have now. When I die, I get to take none of that property with me even. Heck, if a fire wiped out everything but my and my family came out of it, that's fine, I have insurance and get even newer crap to go on my new property.

 

[streak]

I'm not arguing with you, but you really need to look up the real definition of facism before throwing that word around. There are several different definitions in modern ideology. I would advise you to dig deep and look for the real definition, Antifa meets that definition to a tee.

I do know the definition and agree that antifa fits it to a tee. But the definition is one who wishes to impose autocratic control over another. 100% antifa tries that.

The reason I use this is the argument that we as true 2A supporters have fought for and are not quick to relinquish our rights to wear what we want and be able to carry constitutionally, yet some here are being quick to advocate for their political opponents to not have the same rights. That would by definition be imposing autocratic control over the far left, aka fascism

 

[dennishoddy]

Slow your high horse roll there buddy --- unlike you I've evidenced I'll admit when I'm wrong. In fact you quoted me doing so earlier. I just don't think it changes my basic point.

I go virtually everywhere unarmed. I rarely carry to be honest. I'd say the most common reason I carry is if I'll be in areas with wildlife concerns --- I'm not as worried about people as it seems many others are. Now, I also have a general rule which is I'm going to avoid civil unrest and avoid putting myself in crap situations. The couple of times I've had to draw were problems that came to me.

So it's not skirting the facts --- if he had either stayed home we'd have never known his name. My opinion here is that it's real hard to be an innocent, untargeted, medic with an AR-15 slung over your med hit in an area of civil unrest. Yeah yeah, I know in the military medics are armed, but civil unrest doesn't really follow combat rules last I checked.

At the end of the day, what was he defending? Property? Oh no the property! Listen, I like my property and all the crap I have, but I started with nothing and was perfectly happy back then without all the things I have now. When I die, I get to take none of that property with me even. Heck, if a fire wiped out everything but my and my family came out of it, that's fine, I have insurance and get even newer crap to go on my new property.

You still don't get it. Some people want to help other people as a gift to humanity. People have willfully given their lives to protect others. Why should he be required to "stay home"?
If one is willing to help in a disastrous situation, should they not be allowed to? People all over the world volunteer to put their lives in danger to assist others.
Why would you say Kyle is not one of those for Gods sake?
He is a genuine bleeding heart that willfully wanted to help people while having the mindset to know he needed to protect himself in that war zone of burning buildings and riots by real fascists known as the antifa. That mindset and training is the only reason he is still alive.
He tried to run and escape. He didn't try to confront. It was only at the peril of losing his life with the trucks of a skateboard coming at his head that he opened fire and defended his life legally.
A jury of his peers in a legal court of law found him innocent. There is no further discussion of that incident to justify or not justify his actions.

 

[streak]

Every libertarian thinker recognizes that when someone is attacking you it is correct to defend yourself and others.
So when a group of people show up and say: "we want you to be killed for disagreeing with us." It is reasonable to say: "FAFO." It is furthermore reasonable to say that a libertarian social order can only exist so long as people who attempt to violently overthrow it are excluded.
Please provide more reasoning than "you're wrong."

Fascism is a very specific political theory, it isn't merely an insult you can hurl at people without doing the reading first. If you can find a quote in Mussolini's: "The Doctrine of Fascism" that says "we just want to restrict the rights of people we disagree with," I'll buy you a beer and we'll call it settled.

In this case, we aren't advocating the left be denied any rights we want for ourselves. I don't believe that I have the right to go gather in public and assault and batter people I disagree with. I don't believe that I have the right to plan, plot, and organize physical attacks on my philosophical opponents.
So neither should they.
And if they do those things, their other rights should be restricted, just as mine would be were the shoe on the other foot.

Now we agree once it turns to battery and the ability to defend one’s self. My issue is and always has been with the original OP statement and several others follow up that we deny others rights to gather and protest dressed and armed as they see fit. As I wish for myself to be allowed to do so as well.

If it proceeds further than a peaceful protest then by all means, let the law remove them and their rights from society, and if given no other option-ventilate.

And for the record I did say more than, you are wrong. I said it and then proceeded to lay out why

 

[dennishoddy]

I do know the definition and agree that antifa fits it to a tee. But the definition is one who wishes to impose autocratic control over another. 100% antifa tries that.

The reason I use this is the argument that we as true 2A supporters have fought for and are not quick to relinquish our rights to wear what we want and be able to carry constitutionally, yet some here are being quick to advocate for their political opponents to not have the same rights. That would by definition be imposing autocratic control over the far left, aka fascism

In a rough sense of the definition, but this country has always had a history of denying some their rights. Felons cannot possess firearms as an example no matter their political party and so on.
I for one advocate non-violent felons get their 2A rights back after serving their time. Felons that committed violent felonies, NO.

I don't care what your politics are, you have the 2A to back you and I believe in Constitutional carry.
There are groups in the US that are dedicated to bring down the US and its Constitution in favor of anarchy which is a political belief.
It's a slippery slope calling one against the other because each political party could call the other terrorists and take away those rights. AKA the red flag laws for a start.