DOJ Hammers DC Mayor: 'There Is No Pandemic Exception to the Constitution'

But the Declaration of Independence makes is VERY clear we don't just have the right to loot and burn when government has become corrupt, but a duty to.

If it is 'VERY CLEAR', then, by all means, again, POST THE LINK AND THE VERBIAGE.

Easily done:

{...

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

...}

What this is saying, is that we not only have a duty to destroy a corrupt government that infringes upon inherent rights, but a duty to do so.
 
That was an acknowledged repercussion from the founders when your government ignores your plea.
Democrat party government officials have just as much right to suppress rioting as they do Christian faith

or just as little right depending on your point of view
But thats not quite my point of view

Looting and burning are not constitutionally protected activities.

religious expression is

Which I said. Why do people (you) feel this incredible need to argument with me even when you agree with me?
Argument with you? Hell, I feel an incredible need to take up a collection to send you back to school so you'll stop giving us these inane posts, PK!
 
No, if government corruption has deliberately violated the rights of a single person, such as murdering them and not admitted it, then the whole government loses all authority and must be utterly destroyed as something evil.
If thats what you think, and if you are willing to murder civil authority, are you also willing to die for your beliefs?

Of course one should always be willing to die for your rights and the rights of others.
But killing is not always the best way.
What strategy one decides upon depends on what does the least harm to the rights of everyone.

If you can persuade civil authority to reform instead of having to kill anyone, so much the better.
 
Wrong.
I am not promoting the hippie ideas of the 60's, I am a hippie of the 60's. and I can tell you that NO ONE spat at returning vets.

Perhaps you don't remember, if you were a hippie in the 60s, because you were drugged out of your mind...or you simply did not personally see it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and consider it the latter.






 
That was an acknowledged repercussion from the founders when your government ignores your plea.
Democrat party government officials have just as much right to suppress rioting as they do Christian faith

or just as little right depending on your point of view
But thats not quite my point of view

Looting and burning are not constitutionally protected activities.

religious expression is

Which I said. Why do people (you) feel this incredible need to argument with me even when you agree with me?
Argument with you? Hell, I feel an incredible need to take up a collection to send you back to school so you'll stop giving us these inane posts, PK!

Rioting and looting ARE protected constitutional rights, under the 1st amendment.
Exactly how else could civilians moderate or change a corrupt government with well armed mercenaries?
It can only be done through acts of terrorism that intimidate those profiting from the corruption.
Criminal acts like terrorism certainly can be justified under the right conditions.
What you should be arguing instead is that there are other alternatives or these are not conditions that warrant it yet.
 
What this is saying, is that we not only have a duty to destroy a corrupt government that infringes upon inherent rights, but a duty to do so.

I still do not see where it states that looting, burning, and destroying innocent fellow Americans' businesses and property is a Constitutional Right, as you say it does, or an explanation of how 'my' burning down the local black-owned grocery store is going to take down a corrupt government.

You have simply chosen to twist the actual words and provide your own f*ed up translation to justify the domestic terrorism that has occurred.
 
Wrong.
I am not promoting the hippie ideas of the 60's, I am a hippie of the 60's. and I can tell you that NO ONE spat at returning vets.

Perhaps you don't remember, if you were a hippie in the 60s, because you were drugged out of your mind...or you simply did not personally see it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and consider it the latter.







Wrong.
Of course there not only would be some isolated incidents, but also if a returning vet were to show support for the war, then they would DESERVE being spat upon.
The reality is that MOST of the protestors WERE vets.
You simply were not there and do not know.
And those who would now talk about being treated badly then likely still support the war, even though it now has been proven to be illegal and immoral, in all ways.
Those who would support that war still deserve to be spat upon.
You are mixing those two different things together, as if all vet supported the war.
Most did not and do not.
 
What this is saying, is that we not only have a duty to destroy a corrupt government that infringes upon inherent rights, but a duty to do so.

I still do not see where it states that looting, burning, and destroying innocent fellow Americans' businesses and property is a Constitutional Right, as you say it does, or an explanation of how 'my' burning down the local black-owned grocery store is going to take down a corrupt government.

You have simply chosen to twist the actual words and provide your own f*ed up translation to justify the domestic terrorism that has occurred.

Wrong.
The Declaration of Independence is quite clear in saying that only source of any legal authority is from the inherent rights of individuals, so then when government infringes, it loses its only source of legal authority.
 
Rioting and looting ARE protected constitutional rights, under the 1st amendment.

Sorry, I just proved violent - especially foreign-funded - domestic terrorism, as what is going on right now, is NOT protected by the Constitution.

What you are calling 'a Constitutional Right' is closer to 'Sedition'.

Sedition' is 'conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch'.

The same people who are looting, burning, etc...now are the same people who are promising to affect even more violence, to start a civil war if Biden loses, not because of a corrupt government but rather because they did not / do not get their way.
 
Wrong.
I am not promoting the hippie ideas of the 60's, I am a hippie of the 60's. and I can tell you that NO ONE spat at returning vets.

Perhaps you don't remember, if you were a hippie in the 60s, because you were drugged out of your mind...or you simply did not personally see it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and consider it the latter.







Wrong.
Of course there not only would be some isolated incidents, but also if a returning vet were to show support for the war, then they would DESERVE being spat upon.
The reality is that MOST of the protestors WERE vets.
You simply were not there and do not know.
And those who would now talk about being treated badly then likely still support the war, even though it now has been proven to be illegal and immoral, in all ways.
Those who would support that war still deserve to be spat upon.
You are mixing those two different things together, as if all vet supported the war.
Most did not and do not.
You can keep repeating 'WRONG' until you are blue in the face, but no where does it say burning down fellow Americans' businesses and property is Constitutionally protected. Period, dot!

But you keep throwing your little fit.....
 
Wrong. The Declaration of Independence is quite clear in saying that only source of any legal authority is from the inherent rights of individuals, so then when government infringes, it loses its only source of legal authority.
Again, how is 'my' burning down my neighbor's store Constitutionally protected and / or doing anything to take down a 'corrupt' federal government?
 
That was an acknowledged repercussion from the founders when your government ignores your plea.
Democrat party government officials have just as much right to suppress rioting as they do Christian faith

or just as little right depending on your point of view
But thats not quite my point of view

Looting and burning are not constitutionally protected activities.

religious expression is

Which I said. Why do people (you) feel this incredible need to argument with me even when you agree with me?
Argument with you? Hell, I feel an incredible need to take up a collection to send you back to school so you'll stop giving us these inane posts, PK!

Rioting and looting ARE protected constitutional rights, under the 1st amendment.
Exactly how else could civilians moderate or change a corrupt government with well armed mercenaries?
It can only be done through acts of terrorism that intimidate those profiting from the corruption.
Criminal acts like terrorism certainly can be justified under the right conditions.
What you should be arguing instead is that there are other alternatives or these are not conditions that warrant it yet.

They can be justified but they are not Constitutionally protected.
 
That was an acknowledged repercussion from the founders when your government ignores your plea.
Democrat party government officials have just as much right to suppress rioting as they do Christian faith

or just as little right depending on your point of view
But thats not quite my point of view

Looting and burning are not constitutionally protected activities.

religious expression is

Which I said. Why do people (you) feel this incredible need to argument with me even when you agree with me?
Argument with you? Hell, I feel an incredible need to take up a collection to send you back to school so you'll stop giving us these inane posts, PK!

Rioting and looting ARE protected constitutional rights, under the 1st amendment.
Exactly how else could civilians moderate or change a corrupt government with well armed mercenaries?
It can only be done through acts of terrorism that intimidate those profiting from the corruption.
Criminal acts like terrorism certainly can be justified under the right conditions.
What you should be arguing instead is that there are other alternatives or these are not conditions that warrant it yet.

Defending ones property from rioting and looting is also a right under the constitution. So, if you want to riot and loot my property, I have a right to blow you away?
 
That was an acknowledged repercussion from the founders when your government ignores your plea.
Democrat party government officials have just as much right to suppress rioting as they do Christian faith

or just as little right depending on your point of view
But thats not quite my point of view

Looting and burning are not constitutionally protected activities.

religious expression is

Which I said. Why do people (you) feel this incredible need to argument with me even when you agree with me?
Argument with you? Hell, I feel an incredible need to take up a collection to send you back to school so you'll stop giving us these inane posts, PK!

Rioting and looting ARE protected constitutional rights, under the 1st amendment.
Exactly how else could civilians moderate or change a corrupt government with well armed mercenaries?
It can only be done through acts of terrorism that intimidate those profiting from the corruption.
Criminal acts like terrorism certainly can be justified under the right conditions.
What you should be arguing instead is that there are other alternatives or these are not conditions that warrant it yet.

Defending ones property from rioting and looting is also a right under the constitution. So, if you want to riot and loot my property, I have a right to blow you away?

You have a right to protect your property.
 
That was an acknowledged repercussion from the founders when your government ignores your plea.
Democrat party government officials have just as much right to suppress rioting as they do Christian faith

or just as little right depending on your point of view
But thats not quite my point of view

Looting and burning are not constitutionally protected activities.

religious expression is

Which I said. Why do people (you) feel this incredible need to argument with me even when you agree with me?
Argument with you? Hell, I feel an incredible need to take up a collection to send you back to school so you'll stop giving us these inane posts, PK!

Rioting and looting ARE protected constitutional rights, under the 1st amendment.
Exactly how else could civilians moderate or change a corrupt government with well armed mercenaries?
It can only be done through acts of terrorism that intimidate those profiting from the corruption.
Criminal acts like terrorism certainly can be justified under the right conditions.
What you should be arguing instead is that there are other alternatives or these are not conditions that warrant it yet.

Defending ones property from rioting and looting is also a right under the constitution. So, if you want to riot and loot my property, I have a right to blow you away?

You have a right to protect your property.

According to Rigby, you have the right to destroy other peoples property, how does he reconcile the two?
 
That was an acknowledged repercussion from the founders when your government ignores your plea.
Democrat party government officials have just as much right to suppress rioting as they do Christian faith

or just as little right depending on your point of view
But thats not quite my point of view

Looting and burning are not constitutionally protected activities.

religious expression is

Which I said. Why do people (you) feel this incredible need to argument with me even when you agree with me?
Argument with you? Hell, I feel an incredible need to take up a collection to send you back to school so you'll stop giving us these inane posts, PK!

Rioting and looting ARE protected constitutional rights, under the 1st amendment.
Exactly how else could civilians moderate or change a corrupt government with well armed mercenaries?
It can only be done through acts of terrorism that intimidate those profiting from the corruption.
Criminal acts like terrorism certainly can be justified under the right conditions.
What you should be arguing instead is that there are other alternatives or these are not conditions that warrant it yet.

Defending ones property from rioting and looting is also a right under the constitution. So, if you want to riot and loot my property, I have a right to blow you away?

You have a right to protect your property.

According to Rigby, you have the right to destroy other peoples property, how does he reconcile the two?

Why ask me?
 
That was an acknowledged repercussion from the founders when your government ignores your plea.
Democrat party government officials have just as much right to suppress rioting as they do Christian faith

or just as little right depending on your point of view
But thats not quite my point of view

Looting and burning are not constitutionally protected activities.

religious expression is

Which I said. Why do people (you) feel this incredible need to argument with me even when you agree with me?
Argument with you? Hell, I feel an incredible need to take up a collection to send you back to school so you'll stop giving us these inane posts, PK!

Rioting and looting ARE protected constitutional rights, under the 1st amendment.
Exactly how else could civilians moderate or change a corrupt government with well armed mercenaries?
It can only be done through acts of terrorism that intimidate those profiting from the corruption.
Criminal acts like terrorism certainly can be justified under the right conditions.
What you should be arguing instead is that there are other alternatives or these are not conditions that warrant it yet.

Defending ones property from rioting and looting is also a right under the constitution. So, if you want to riot and loot my property, I have a right to blow you away?

You have a right to protect your property.

According to Rigby, you have the right to destroy other peoples property, how does he reconcile the two?

Why ask me?

I didn't I had asked Rigby and you replied to me.
 
Basically she stood in the square with rioters and looters and outlawed church people from standing in the same square
 

Forum List

Back
Top