I wonder what the tweets said. He sorta came out and told his supporters to go home.Officially official
I wonder what the tweets said. He sorta came out and told his supporters to go home.Officially official
Attacking government property makes much more sense then setting fire to business. This was them literally trying to stage a coup by stopping the process of handing over power between executives.So attacking government property is permissible or not based on what, exactly? Based on who it is that does the attacking? Do you have a line drawn, or are you just making this up as you go?
BLM did both of those. Trump supporters did one of those.Attacking government property makes much more sense then setting fire to business.
We can debate on the flimsiness of it, and that might be worth while, but law is law. Attacking a state government building is different than a federal government building.But it seems the distinction between "attacking state government buildings" and "attacking federal government buildings" seems to be flimsy and lacking any real substance. Dissatisfaction with government is dissatisfaction with government. The only difference is how big the government is.
BLM attacked federal government buildings, as I showed you.We can debate on the flimsiness of it, and that might be worth while, but law is law. Attacking a state government building is different than a federal government building.
Its the difference between storming the Governor of Missouri's residence, and storming the White House. One is considered many magnitudes more serious and has way more armed guards who are more willing to shoot.
So fair is fair. We should have underage American boys take up arms and begin gunning down Trump supporters in DC. You'd be in favor of that I assume, because you just Oh so do hate protesting and riots.BLM attacked federal government buildings, as I showed you.
Sure, if they were acting in self-defense.So fair is fair. We should have underage American boys take up arms and begin gunning down Trump supporters in DC. You'd be in favor of that I assume, because you just Oh so do hate protesting and riots.
Good. So you're admittedly in favor of children illegally possessing firearms and illegally traveling across state lines. We can add that to your growing list of recommendations.Sure, if they were acting in self-defense.
Yeah they did and I only see the point of them going after government buildings. No, while trumps rioters did do damage to government property, they tried to impeded a constitutional duty of our congress because they didn't agree with the democratic outcome of an election. This was a coup they attempted, this isn't trying to hold government accountable, this is them trying to tear down the whole of the democratic process.BLM did both of those. Trump supporters did one of those.
I believe that everybody should be able to act in self-defense, regardless of the circumstances that brought them to the situation.Good. So you're admittedly in favor of children illegally possessing firearms and illegally traveling across state lines. We can add that to your growing list of recommendations.
Again, you're making assertions as to the motivations of people, which isn't constructive.they tried to impeded a constitutional duty of our congress because they didn't agree with the democratic outcome of an election.
We'll just toss this into the bag of your wrong beliefs. You don't get to claim self-defense if you're responsible for the attack. Unless in some rare cases that are more theoretical in nature, like if you kick someone in the foot and they retaliate by pulling a gun on you. In that case you could claim self defense because their response to your "attack" was obviously unreasonable. But as a general rule, circumstances matter and they matter a lot. And I am not the least bit surprised that you don't know this. You've demonstrated nothing but pure, unadulterated ignorance on every subject that you were engaged in. Read a fuckin' book every once in a while instead of 8chan and the like.I believe that everybody should be able to act in self-defense, regardless of the circumstances that brought them to the situation.
I mean, in that thread, we went over the relevant law word by word, and yes, you do, provided to attempt to disengage.You don't get to claim self-defense if you're responsible for the attack.
Oh don't be too mean. He's is admittedly, proudly and confidently un-educated on American Law. He doesn't know that under-age children can't claim self-defense if they brandish a gun on a random person and then shoot when that person when they try to disarm them.We'll just toss this into the bag of your wrong beliefs. You don't get to claim self-defense if you're responsible for the attack. Unless in some rare cases that are more theoretical in nature, like if you kick someone in the foot and they retaliate by pulling a gun on you. In that case you could claim self defense because their response to your "attack" was obviously unreasonable. But as a general rule, circumstances matter and they matter a lot. And I am not the least bit surprised that you don't know this. You've demonstrated nothing but pure, unadulterated ignorance on every subject that you were engaged in. Read a fuckin' book every once in a while instead of 8chan and the like.
The law we went over, word by word, says nothing about any of that being an exception, which I know, because we went over it word by word.under-age children can't claim self-defense if they brandish a gun on a random person and then shoot when that person when they try to disarm them.
Ew, that better be for accelerationism.Honestly I the sicko almost wishes this would impede Biden inaugeration just so Nancy Pelosi can become the president.
It would just be the perfect irony. Like they did this to Biden and "Democratic hostile fraud takeover" bullshit they believe and in doing so install someone they hate even more. Man the aftermath is whatever but my response would start with an O and end in rgasmic.Ew, that better be for accelerationism.