Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Where the founders dealing with the constitutional republic of the USA with well defined rights andDid the founders get what they wanted through peaceful measures?
He appears to be part of the handout generation and thinks he is owed everything he thinks he should get. He cant figure out that he is owed nothing except opportunity to make his own way. His socialist pipe dream has failed everywhere it has been tried in history and he just cant figure it out..There is no constitutional right to riot and seize public property. Idiot!You can't prosecute a constitutional right to protest.
Considering you, you mean.Are my statements simplified and dumbed down? Yeah, considering the audience.
The percent doesn't matter but it's more and more everyday.What percentage of the American populace, by the way, do you think agree with BLM and what they've
done in places like Seattle?
Interesting argument. The founders wanted the people to be able to protect themselves and even overthrow the government if need be. One might argue that a government so large that they are far superior in arms that violates the desires of the Founders.
And for the record, you fully support the 2nd, correct?
Absolutely.
All I can really do is laugh at this.
I'm right there with you. The city should counter sue. LOL
Sue for what? This would be a good example of something I've long said. Those with something to lose really can't win over those with nothing to lose in situations like this.
LMAO How bout all the damage they did in the city. That's a good start.
I mean what can you win from those with very little?
Most of these rioters probably come from middle class or better backgrounds. The vanguard of the revolution has always had a bourgeois background, their goal is to mobilize the masses, not be part of them.
OK, so the city is going to go through the expense of filing 1500 lawsuits?
No, what they should do is criminally prosecute and seek restitution.
You can't prosecute a constitutional right to protest.
The right is to peacefully assemble to voice grievances against the government.
what is happening is not peaceful, it hides among the peaceful.
Stopping other citizens from their own freedom of movement is not peaceful. Destroying or damaging federal property is not peaceful. Assaulting officers with fireworks and laser pointers is not peaceful.
Did the founders get what they wanted through peaceful measures?
There is no constitutional right to riot and seize public property. Idiot!You can't prosecute a constitutional right to protest.
And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson.
It's the very reason they included the 2nd Amendment.
Where the founders dealing with the constitutional republic of the USA with well defined rights andDid the founders get what they wanted through peaceful measures?
processes for redress of grievances? Or the British monarchy with absolutely none of that?
I actually get weary of insulting your so called intelligence but your posts keep getting dumber.
He appears to be part of the handout generation and thinks he is owed everything he thinks he should get. He cant figure out that he is owed nothing except opportunity to make his own way. His socialist pipe dream has failed everywhere it has been tried in history and he just cant figure it out..There is no constitutional right to riot and seize public property. Idiot!You can't prosecute a constitutional right to protest.
Interesting argument. The founders wanted the people to be able to protect themselves and even overthrow the government if need be. One might argue that a government so large that they are far superior in arms that violates the desires of the Founders.
And for the record, you fully support the 2nd, correct?
Absolutely.
And you do not consider confederate soldiers to be “traitors”.....correct?
All I can really do is laugh at this.
I'm right there with you. The city should counter sue. LOL
Sue for what? This would be a good example of something I've long said. Those with something to lose really can't win over those with nothing to lose in situations like this.
LMAO How bout all the damage they did in the city. That's a good start.
I mean what can you win from those with very little?
Most of these rioters probably come from middle class or better backgrounds. The vanguard of the revolution has always had a bourgeois background, their goal is to mobilize the masses, not be part of them.
OK, so the city is going to go through the expense of filing 1500 lawsuits?
No, what they should do is criminally prosecute and seek restitution.
You can't prosecute a constitutional right to protest.
The right is to peacefully assemble to voice grievances against the government.
what is happening is not peaceful, it hides among the peaceful.
Stopping other citizens from their own freedom of movement is not peaceful. Destroying or damaging federal property is not peaceful. Assaulting officers with fireworks and laser pointers is not peaceful.
Did the founders get what they wanted through peaceful measures?
No, they revolted, in a declared revolution.
In Anti-fa/BLM wants to do the same, they have to declare their intent to revolt, fight to a conclusion, and more importantly, WIN.
If you are so sure the government you operate under cannot be saved, you REVOLT.
IE: Second Amendment... That's why it is so important.Interesting argument. The founders wanted the people to be able to protect themselves and even overthrow the government if need be. One might argue that a government so large that they are far superior in arms that violates the desires of the Founders.
They have one problem, thier redress of grievances is NEVER peacful and that steps on the rights of others. This one is going to end real quick with a sever slap down.
People were peacefully protesting. The president called them SOB's and called for them to be fired. When that happens the founders understood we would have to take the next option. And yes, the 2nd Amendment was one of those options.
IE: Second Amendment... That's why it is so important.Interesting argument. The founders wanted the people to be able to protect themselves and even overthrow the government if need be. One might argue that a government so large that they are far superior in arms that violates the desires of the Founders.
They have one problem, thier redress of grievances is NEVER peacful and that steps on the rights of others. This one is going to end real quick with a sever slap down.
People were peacefully protesting. The president called them SOB's and called for them to be fired. When that happens the founders understood we would have to take the next option. And yes, the 2nd Amendment was one of those options.
Peacefully protesting?? Guess you missed the looted and burned stores.
How the hell do you fire rioters??
You are one messed up whiny little shit.
All I can really do is laugh at this.
I'm right there with you. The city should counter sue. LOL
Sue for what? This would be a good example of something I've long said. Those with something to lose really can't win over those with nothing to lose in situations like this.
LMAO How bout all the damage they did in the city. That's a good start.
I mean what can you win from those with very little?
Most of these rioters probably come from middle class or better backgrounds. The vanguard of the revolution has always had a bourgeois background, their goal is to mobilize the masses, not be part of them.
OK, so the city is going to go through the expense of filing 1500 lawsuits?
No, what they should do is criminally prosecute and seek restitution.
You can't prosecute a constitutional right to protest.
The right is to peacefully assemble to voice grievances against the government.
what is happening is not peaceful, it hides among the peaceful.
Stopping other citizens from their own freedom of movement is not peaceful. Destroying or damaging federal property is not peaceful. Assaulting officers with fireworks and laser pointers is not peaceful.
Did the founders get what they wanted through peaceful measures?
No, they revolted, in a declared revolution.
In Anti-fa/BLM wants to do the same, they have to declare their intent to revolt, fight to a conclusion, and more importantly, WIN.
If you are so sure the government you operate under cannot be saved, you REVOLT.
They don't have to do anything.
IE: Second Amendment... That's why it is so important.Interesting argument. The founders wanted the people to be able to protect themselves and even overthrow the government if need be. One might argue that a government so large that they are far superior in arms that violates the desires of the Founders.
They have one problem, thier redress of grievances is NEVER peacful and that steps on the rights of others. This one is going to end real quick with a sever slap down.
People were peacefully protesting. The president called them SOB's and called for them to be fired. When that happens the founders understood we would have to take the next option. And yes, the 2nd Amendment was one of those options.
Peacefully protesting?? Guess you missed the looted and burned stores.
How the hell do you fire rioters??
You are one messed up whiny little shit.
You can discuss things honestly or not. The violence came after the dismissal of the peaceful protests.
IE: Second Amendment... That's why it is so important.Interesting argument. The founders wanted the people to be able to protect themselves and even overthrow the government if need be. One might argue that a government so large that they are far superior in arms that violates the desires of the Founders.
They have one problem, thier redress of grievances is NEVER peacful and that steps on the rights of others. This one is going to end real quick with a sever slap down.
People were peacefully protesting. The president called them SOB's and called for them to be fired. When that happens the founders understood we would have to take the next option. And yes, the 2nd Amendment was one of those options.
Peacefully protesting?? Guess you missed the looted and burned stores.
How the hell do you fire rioters??
You are one messed up whiny little shit.
You can discuss things honestly or not. The violence came after the dismissal of the peaceful protests.
Bullshit, Peeknob! Please cite the exact date and time peaceful protests ended and firebombing andYou can discuss things honestly or not. The violence came after the dismissal of the peaceful protests.
Bullshit, Peeknob! Please cite the exact date and time peaceful protests ended and firebombing andYou can discuss things honestly or not. The violence came after the dismissal of the peaceful protests.
smashing of windows and looting began, you ignorant little shit.
This is the definition of extortion, by the way.Even those who do not support it are going to go along because they have too much to lose otherwise.
nypost.com
Taking the high road? Or simply taking the coward's way out? Anyone can look and see a coward inBullshit, Peeknob! Please cite the exact date and time peaceful protests ended and firebombing andYou can discuss things honestly or not. The violence came after the dismissal of the peaceful protests.
smashing of windows and looting began, you ignorant little shit.
I'm not really interested in a discussion with someone that believes silly name calling is a proper reply.
