Yep, if you own it, do what you want with it. That's what freedom of speech was meant to protect at least. There's not much freedom of speech or expression left in the USA though. There are too many raging nationalists hell bent on punching people in the face that "disrespect" their religious symbols.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
The only people I've seen getting hit in the face lately are people who voted for the sitting president.
Not sure which freedom of expression has been stifled in the US.
Do you have any examples?
Using violence simply because someone offended you is bad. Threatening violence for the same is also bad. Why should a Trump voter be punched? That's okay?
Did you read what I wrote? I don't make threats but I don't pretend I'm afraid of defending myself and loved ones. That's not a threat.
When did I say it was OK for Trump voters to be punched? Of course it isn't. I was challenging your assertion that "there are too many raging nationalists hell bent on punching people in the face that 'disrespect' their religious symbols."
Nationalists aren't doing that writ large, at least not in the USA.
"The only people I've seen getting hit in the face lately are people who voted for the sitting president."
You didn't state whether you were against that or not.
There are countless examples of violence being used when the victim was simply expressing an opinion.
(fascists being punched)
(communists being punched)
These are two easily found examples with countless others of violence being used when people simply have different opinions.
I do not agree with their opinions either, but they still should not have violence used against them for having said stupid or different opinions.
Spencer, who I don't agree with, was punched out of nowhere.
"Moldilocks" as she was referred to was in the middle of a riot and had been seen previously throwing bottles. Additionally, in her social media, she stated she was headed to Berkley to 'scalp nazis' --
What in my previous posts gives you the impression that I'm for any violence other than self-defense?
As far as the "Battle of Berkley" instances, that is a DIRECT result of officials telling law enforcement to back off and they did. You can see the result. I blame the officials more than any of the participants.
Look at the many other instances where there were "fascists" (as you put it), and actually fascists (Antifa) protesting within proximity of each other but a large police presence keeping the peace.
I don't see President Trump or his administration engaging in the former of that definition, nor do I see many supporters (aside from the Richard Spencer types) advocating for that behavior.
I DO see a lot of Antifa engaging in the latter -- "forcible suppression of opposition"
They're all collectivists to me. I see very little difference between them when it comes to individual liberty. They just have different motivations for their use of power over others.
Yes, we are in agreement then if you are only for the use of violence in self-defense. There is a lot of violence going on recently by lots of different people for lots of different reasons though. It isn't in self-defense either.
A friend of mine explains this situation pretty well. He's not an anarchist and still believes the government should provide certain "services." He said he's okay with flag destruction by people, but he still thinks they are assholes for doing it. He won't threaten or use violence against them either.
I'm fine with that from him also. That's two people expressing their beliefs and opinions without using violence.
We're on the same page then... I think. Though I firmly believe the Antifa crowd is modern day brownshirts attempting to silence opposing ideas through threats of violence or intimidation.
I'm not sure that they realize they're being 'handled' into kicking a beehive. This same pattern has played out many times in history.
There are more people who believe in individual liberties and self defense (who own firearms) than there are Antifa-types who believe that words can be violent unto themselves, which makes their 'preemptive self-defense' justifiable... and many of them are neither armed or experienced in violent conflict.
In short, the types of people leading those movements are walking them into a very bad situation. I would prefer anyone wearing masks in all black carrying an Antifa flag to be considered an open domestic terrorist arm, particularly given their recent 'demonstrations' which generally end up being riots.
This is one option. The other is what Hamburg looked like this past weekend... or worse.
Antifa can't do crap in places where everyone has guns. They start throwing punches at me and there is a crowd of them they are getting some sweet sweet M1911 .45 acp hollow point justice(only in self defense with multiple attackers).
I can handle 1 or 2 at the same time in hand to hand combat, would be funny to see what they try to open up with. I would probably just kick them in the face as my opening move.
The folks who are financing and 'handling' Antifa (I mean this in an unconventional warfare/subversive tactics sense) are knowingly seeking bloodshed to provoke more bloodshed and/or an over-reaction from law enforcement in order to justify calls for more counter violence.
"THEY" want a Civil War in this country.
My specific reply was about the Emily Crane video too. She posted a video of her peeing on her property, and she has death threats against her. That's completely unacceptable.