The Left's Willingness to Tolerate Violence Should Frighten All Americans

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Apply your feelings about the second amendment to the first amendment and you will have your explanation.

Violence is not free speech.

Now, apply your feelings about the first to the second.

LOL Arming up for some glorious politically motivated battle against other Americans is not responsible gun ownership.

Arming up for a battle against politically motivated people who have already armed up and proceeded to throw bricks and explosives at police in an attempt to achieve their political goals through the threat of force, on the other hand, is precisely what responsible gun ownership means in an American context.

You do the second amendment a great disservice by acting the part of a potentially violent terrorist.

You do the first amendment a great disservice by calling violence and rioting "free speech" and acting like we have no right to defend ourselves against it.

Who said I'm defending violence and rioting? I was not. I was making the point that you people accept wayyy more violence for the sake of gun ownership than is going on with the protests.

But, we are not trying to infringe on free speech. See the difference?

Nope. Your president attacking peaceful protesters just so he could walk across the park makes you a liar.

If your argument is that free speech is not bound by time/place/manner restraints then I expect that you will FULLY support a repeal of ALL FUCKING GUN LAWS!!!

 

[occupied]

Apply your feelings about the second amendment to the first amendment and you will have your explanation.

Sorry, burning and stealing are not "Free Speech".

People getting shot by mass shooters is not responsible gun ownership yet you do not think it rises to the importance to infringe on gun ownership by crazy people.

Stop deflecting, it won't work with me. Burning and stealing is not "free speech". Start a thread on gun control if you want to talk about it.

Just trying to make the point that you people accept a body count in the thousands for the sake of the second amendment. A few store windows get broke and you are willing to infringe the fuck out of the first amendment.

WHO IS TRYING TO INFRINGE ON THE FIRST AMENDMENT????

No why would I get that impression reading the comments of the posters here everyday wanting Trump to use whatever force it takes to make this go away.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

The response to the Minnesota police action drew worldwide protests, and racially diverse: Of no particular group. Then in Los Angeles--wherein federal agents have not been sent--the protests created a police protection easily noticed to the Southern California, multi-generational gangs subcultures. The pricey neighborhoods were far away from the protests. Looters capitalized on the diversion.

Seattle has a history, even of International Workers of the World, called "The Wobblies." That history is local, locally likely relatively usual. Federal Contractor, Boeing was not attacked. An urban homeless encampment was created: An urban visual often created in many neighborhoods.

That perpetration is Directly AG Barr, the Trump-ed Up administration inclusive, so Acting Secretary, Illiterate Chad Wolfe included. The Federal Agents sent in to "Occupy Portland:" Created yet another Homeless Camp. The campers were dressed up like Right Wing Militia, even speeding around town in rented cars. A riot was instigated.

Now the feds are reducing their presence. What is left in the neighborhoods of millions: Is maybe a half-dozen blocks nationwide: As some nature of revolution(?)!

Soon there will be Joe, who can show that widespread violence has not been process on every street corner, USA!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(So the Martians, when they land: Will be able to conclude from Deut 23: 19-20: That earth is not inhabitable!)

I'm getting the distinct impression that your desire to sound academic has outpaced your capacity for coherent grammar.

That said, I believe that I've worked out that part of this post is making the claim that the federal agents INSTIGATED the riot? Here's the thing: Those agents arrived on July 4th, at which point the rioting had already been happening for over 30 days. Unless the Trump administration has secretly mastered time travel, I'm not certain how it is that they've managed to instigate a thing with actions that didn't take place until over a month after that thing had already begun. Maybe you could shed some light on this seemingly ridiculous claim?

 

[JustAGuy1]

occupied

Don't be the first one up any street with a torch in your hand. There are people who won't accept your form of "Free Speech".

 

[occupied]

Apply your feelings about the second amendment to the first amendment and you will have your explanation.

Violence is not free speech.

Now, apply your feelings about the first to the second.

LOL Arming up for some glorious politically motivated battle against other Americans is not responsible gun ownership.

Arming up for a battle against politically motivated people who have already armed up and proceeded to throw bricks and explosives at police in an attempt to achieve their political goals through the threat of force, on the other hand, is precisely what responsible gun ownership means in an American context.

You do the second amendment a great disservice by acting the part of a potentially violent terrorist.

You do the first amendment a great disservice by calling violence and rioting "free speech" and acting like we have no right to defend ourselves against it.

Who said I'm defending violence and rioting? I was not. I was making the point that you people accept wayyy more violence for the sake of gun ownership than is going on with the protests.

But, we are not trying to infringe on free speech. See the difference?

Nope. Your president attacking peaceful protesters just so he could walk across the park makes you a liar.

If your argument is that free speech is not bound by time/place/manner restraints then I expect that you will FULLY support a repeal of ALL FUCKING GUN LAWS!!!

Nope, public safety should be the point of all gun laws as they are concerning protests. Too bad public safety may not be considered when guns are involved.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Apply your feelings about the second amendment to the first amendment and you will have your explanation.

Sorry, burning and stealing are not "Free Speech".

People getting shot by mass shooters is not responsible gun ownership yet you do not think it rises to the importance to infringe on gun ownership by crazy people.

Stop deflecting, it won't work with me. Burning and stealing is not "free speech". Start a thread on gun control if you want to talk about it.

Just trying to make the point that you people accept a body count in the thousands for the sake of the second amendment. A few store windows get broke and you are willing to infringe the fuck out of the first amendment.

WHO IS TRYING TO INFRINGE ON THE FIRST AMENDMENT????

No why would I get that impression reading the comments of the posters here everyday wanting Trump to use whatever force it takes to make this go away.

Most of us in support of the federal agents cleaning shit up want them to shut down the rioters, not the protesters. If you can get it through your head that rioting and protesting aren't synonymous, you'll find that wanting one and not the other is actually quite reasonable.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Apply your feelings about the second amendment to the first amendment and you will have your explanation.

Violence is not free speech.

Now, apply your feelings about the first to the second.

LOL Arming up for some glorious politically motivated battle against other Americans is not responsible gun ownership.

Arming up for a battle against politically motivated people who have already armed up and proceeded to throw bricks and explosives at police in an attempt to achieve their political goals through the threat of force, on the other hand, is precisely what responsible gun ownership means in an American context.

You do the second amendment a great disservice by acting the part of a potentially violent terrorist.

You do the first amendment a great disservice by calling violence and rioting "free speech" and acting like we have no right to defend ourselves against it.

Who said I'm defending violence and rioting? I was not. I was making the point that you people accept wayyy more violence for the sake of gun ownership than is going on with the protests.

But, we are not trying to infringe on free speech. See the difference?

Nope. Your president attacking peaceful protesters just so he could walk across the park makes you a liar.

If your argument is that free speech is not bound by time/place/manner restraints then I expect that you will FULLY support a repeal of ALL FUCKING GUN LAWS!!!

Nope, public safety should be the point of all gun laws as they are concerning protests. Too bad public safety may not be considered when guns are involved.

What public safety laws restrict protest?

 

[occupied]

Apply your feelings about the second amendment to the first amendment and you will have your explanation.

Sorry, burning and stealing are not "Free Speech".

People getting shot by mass shooters is not responsible gun ownership yet you do not think it rises to the importance to infringe on gun ownership by crazy people.

Stop deflecting, it won't work with me. Burning and stealing is not "free speech". Start a thread on gun control if you want to talk about it.

Just trying to make the point that you people accept a body count in the thousands for the sake of the second amendment. A few store windows get broke and you are willing to infringe the fuck out of the first amendment.

WHO IS TRYING TO INFRINGE ON THE FIRST AMENDMENT????

No why would I get that impression reading the comments of the posters here everyday wanting Trump to use whatever force it takes to make this go away.

Most of us in support of the federal agents cleaning shit up want them to shut down the rioters, not the protesters. If you can get it through your head that rioting and protesting aren't synonymous, you'll find that wanting one and not the other is actually quite reasonable.

You see a distinction between protesters and rioters? Well that makes one of you.

 

[JustAGuy1]

Apply your feelings about the second amendment to the first amendment and you will have your explanation.

Sorry, burning and stealing are not "Free Speech".

People getting shot by mass shooters is not responsible gun ownership yet you do not think it rises to the importance to infringe on gun ownership by crazy people.

Stop deflecting, it won't work with me. Burning and stealing is not "free speech". Start a thread on gun control if you want to talk about it.

Just trying to make the point that you people accept a body count in the thousands for the sake of the second amendment. A few store windows get broke and you are willing to infringe the fuck out of the first amendment.

WHO IS TRYING TO INFRINGE ON THE FIRST AMENDMENT????

No why would I get that impression reading the comments of the posters here everyday wanting Trump to use whatever force it takes to make this go away.

Most of us in support of the federal agents cleaning shit up want them to shut down the rioters, not the protesters. If you can get it through your head that rioting and protesting aren't synonymous, you'll find that wanting one and not the other is actually quite reasonable.

You see a distinction between protesters and rioters? Well that makes one of you.

Of course, anyone with a brain does.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Apply your feelings about the second amendment to the first amendment and you will have your explanation.

Violence is not free speech.

Now, apply your feelings about the first to the second.

LOL Arming up for some glorious politically motivated battle against other Americans is not responsible gun ownership.

Arming up for a battle against politically motivated people who have already armed up and proceeded to throw bricks and explosives at police in an attempt to achieve their political goals through the threat of force, on the other hand, is precisely what responsible gun ownership means in an American context.

You do the second amendment a great disservice by acting the part of a potentially violent terrorist.

You do the first amendment a great disservice by calling violence and rioting "free speech" and acting like we have no right to defend ourselves against it.

Who said I'm defending violence and rioting? I was not. I was making the point that you people accept wayyy more violence for the sake of gun ownership than is going on with the protests.

But, we are not trying to infringe on free speech. See the difference?

Nope. Your president attacking peaceful protesters just so he could walk across the park makes you a liar.

If your argument is that free speech is not bound by time/place/manner restraints then I expect that you will FULLY support a repeal of ALL FUCKING GUN LAWS!!!

Nope, public safety should be the point of all gun laws as they are concerning protests. Too bad public safety may not be considered when guns are involved.

So, public safety is NOT an issue when "peaceful protesters" refuse to leave....OR RIOT???

You're talking out of both sides of your commie ass.

If public safety were really your concern, there are MANY more important issues you would focus on. It's not public safety. It is having the power to install a tyrannical communist dictator without repercussions.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

It's time to start up the rotors!

 

[Theowl32]

You're right. it should. The Left laughs when we talk about being prepred, but millions of us are. In every way possible.

We aren't doing shit about it. Put it another way. They want the right to be violent. That way they can use that violence as their rallying cry. Look at Charlottesville, they attacked the actual peaceful protesters. They attacked the guy in his car and in his attempt to flee someone got killed.

A brownish colored woman killed by a WHITE SUPREMACIST. They got what they wanted.

Just like that scumbag cop that killed Floyd. THEY GOT EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANTED to turn up the heat, rally and grow their army, and behind mass propaganda on a scale rarely seen, mass destabilizing destruction.


What does all of that mean? It means a retaliation here or there won't do shit. It means any retaliation must be a well organized committed counter revolution movement or else all we will see is them using any TOKEN RETALIATION as their rallying cry.

The frightening part is that is what it is going to take. Talking and complaining and presenting truth DOESN’T WORK.

Does anyone here think they are capable of seeing the light? Let me clue you in. They are totally incapable. At least most of them.

That is the cold truth.

 

[occupied]

Apply your feelings about the second amendment to the first amendment and you will have your explanation.

Sorry, burning and stealing are not "Free Speech".

People getting shot by mass shooters is not responsible gun ownership yet you do not think it rises to the importance to infringe on gun ownership by crazy people.

Stop deflecting, it won't work with me. Burning and stealing is not "free speech". Start a thread on gun control if you want to talk about it.

Just trying to make the point that you people accept a body count in the thousands for the sake of the second amendment. A few store windows get broke and you are willing to infringe the fuck out of the first amendment.

WHO IS TRYING TO INFRINGE ON THE FIRST AMENDMENT????

No why would I get that impression reading the comments of the posters here everyday wanting Trump to use whatever force it takes to make this go away.

Most of us in support of the federal agents cleaning shit up want them to shut down the rioters, not the protesters. If you can get it through your head that rioting and protesting aren't synonymous, you'll find that wanting one and not the other is actually quite reasonable.

You see a distinction between protesters and rioters? Well that makes one of you.

Of course, anyone with a brain does.

The entire right wing scare tactic depends on none of you knowing the difference.

 

[JustAGuy1]

Apply your feelings about the second amendment to the first amendment and you will have your explanation.

Sorry, burning and stealing are not "Free Speech".

People getting shot by mass shooters is not responsible gun ownership yet you do not think it rises to the importance to infringe on gun ownership by crazy people.

Stop deflecting, it won't work with me. Burning and stealing is not "free speech". Start a thread on gun control if you want to talk about it.

Just trying to make the point that you people accept a body count in the thousands for the sake of the second amendment. A few store windows get broke and you are willing to infringe the fuck out of the first amendment.

WHO IS TRYING TO INFRINGE ON THE FIRST AMENDMENT????

No why would I get that impression reading the comments of the posters here everyday wanting Trump to use whatever force it takes to make this go away.

Most of us in support of the federal agents cleaning shit up want them to shut down the rioters, not the protesters. If you can get it through your head that rioting and protesting aren't synonymous, you'll find that wanting one and not the other is actually quite reasonable.

You see a distinction between protesters and rioters? Well that makes one of you.

Of course, anyone with a brain does.

The entire right wing scare tactic depends on none of you knowing the difference.

You on your best day aren't in my league. Does the 1st Amendment cover burning and stealing?

 

[occupied]

Apply your feelings about the second amendment to the first amendment and you will have your explanation.

Sorry, burning and stealing are not "Free Speech".

People getting shot by mass shooters is not responsible gun ownership yet you do not think it rises to the importance to infringe on gun ownership by crazy people.

Stop deflecting, it won't work with me. Burning and stealing is not "free speech". Start a thread on gun control if you want to talk about it.

Just trying to make the point that you people accept a body count in the thousands for the sake of the second amendment. A few store windows get broke and you are willing to infringe the fuck out of the first amendment.

WHO IS TRYING TO INFRINGE ON THE FIRST AMENDMENT????

No why would I get that impression reading the comments of the posters here everyday wanting Trump to use whatever force it takes to make this go away.

Most of us in support of the federal agents cleaning shit up want them to shut down the rioters, not the protesters. If you can get it through your head that rioting and protesting aren't synonymous, you'll find that wanting one and not the other is actually quite reasonable.

You see a distinction between protesters and rioters? Well that makes one of you.

Of course, anyone with a brain does.

The entire right wing scare tactic depends on none of you knowing the difference.

You on your best day aren't in my league. Does the 1st Amendment cover burning and stealing?

Of course not. Characterizing the protests as nothing but criminal activity makes it so much more acceptable when the authorities act like fascist assholes.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The Left's Willingness to Tolerate Violence Should Frighten All Americans

The Left's Willingness to Tolerate Violence Should Frighten All Americans

"Mostly peaceful."So goes the characterization of demonstrations that have routinely turned into looting and rioting for months on end, from Portland to Seattle to New York to Los Angeles. "Protesters

townhall.com

29 Jul 2020 ~~ By Ben Shapiro

"Mostly peaceful."
So goes the characterization of demonstrations that have routinely turned into looting and rioting for months on end, from Portland to Seattle to New York to Los Angeles. "Protesters in California set fire to a courthouse, damaged a police station and assaulted officers after a peaceful demonstration intensified," read one recent ABC News tweet. CNN called protests in Portland "mostly peaceful," adding that "they have at times devolved into violence, vandalism, and arson." During riots in Los Angeles in June, as the entire county locked down, the Los Angeles Times noted, "The third night of countywide curfews followed days of massive, mostly peaceful protests ... Nearly 1,200 people were arrested Sunday after police officers clashed with demonstrators and looters shattered windows and emptied stores in Santa Monica and Long Beach."
The phrase "mostly peaceful," then, is rather fungible. Consider that during the tea party protests of 2011, then-Vice President Joe Biden reportedly likened tea partiers to "terrorists" -- and those protests were notable mostly for people cleaning up their own litter. When anti-lockdown protesters descended on the Michigan state capitol, a columnist for The New York Times labeled them "armed rebels," despite a complete lack of violence. When three white supremacists were arrested for plotting violence at a pro-gun rally, GQ's Talia Lavin headlined, "That Pro-Gun Rally in Virginia Wasn't Exactly 'Peaceful'" -- even though the rally saw no violence.
In truth, the category of "mostly peaceful" is a brand-new invention meant to obscure the simple fact that many of our cultural elites are fine with violence so long as those who engage in such violence have the proper goals. Nikole Hannah-Jones, creator of the pseudo-historical 1619 Project, celebrated when critics labeled rioting and looting "the 1619 riots"; she added that destruction of property was "not violence." This week, Democrats grilling Attorney General Bill Barr could not be bothered to condemn violence, prompting Barr to rant, "What makes me concerned for the country is this is the first time in my memory the leaders of one of our great two political parties, the Democratic Party, are not coming out and condemning mob violence and the attack on federal courts." This should come as little surprise, given that those same cultural elites have cheered on massive protests in a time of a deadly pandemic, explaining that sometimes politics is just too important to stop a raging disease.
~~Snip~~
With Democrats and those in the media willing to run cover for violent leftists, the thin veneer of civilization disintegrates. When violence is excused as speech and speech by the opposition labeled violence, democracies die. With each passing day of silence by those who should know better -- or worse, those propagandizing on behalf of those who engage in criminal activity -- America draws closer to the brink.


Comment:
Progressive Marxist Socialist/DSA Democrat leftists are not "frightened" by the violence - they relish it and actively promote it.
Democrats both in the hall of congrss and on the street have now made it clear that they are no longer Democrats. Even in the bad old days of the '60's you didn't have Democrat elected officials cheering for the rioters. Now you do.
When a society reaches the point where a major political party (in this case the one that staffs most of government, controls the media, the education system, most of corporate America, and the courts) condones violence in order to get its way, you are left with a choice; let them have their way, or fight them.
It has always amazed me how violent these women can get to protect their right to kill an innocent child. But what is even more amazing is in Seattle and Portland, the Democrat mayors have lost control of their paid protesters. In Seattle, one council woman has given out the home addresses of the mayor and two other council members she doesn’t like to Antifa, and those private homes have been attacked and the families threatened. This is nothing different than what ISIS and the Taliban do. The press has just yawned and said “mostly peaceful”.

Take a look at the videos on Youtube on the violence by the left.

Even when they are burning cop cars, the headlines read, "Violent Protesters". Not rioters, not anarchists. They have to use the word, "protester". It is part of the indoctrination and excuse making.

One huge problem with all that. They just arrested Umbrella man. HE's an extreme RTwing White Nationalist from a Biker group that supports Rump.

 

[iceberg]

let's see how much they tolerate it when it comes back at them.

 

[beagle9]

We're not frightened by the violence either. We relish in it and await justifiable use of force, but they are all chicken shits who will not dare do this shit in a suburb or in rural parts of the country, only in Dem-controlled shit holes where people (men, women, and other) get menstrual cramps at the very sight of a firearm.

At least we've got someone here who's honest about the right's willingness to incite violence. They WANT a civil war are doing everything they can in hopes that it will happen. What they don't realize is that the military isn't going to back them up. They hate what they have to deal with on foreign battlefields and aren't going to tolerate those who deliberately put their families in danger by inflaming the situation.

Willingness to incite violence? When have we incited violence?

Doing everything we can in the hopes that it will happen? Like what? Getting ready? Buying ammo?

What do you mean?

What you don't realize is that military people are voters too. If you think you have the military, you will be sadly disappointed.

But even if you do, that's what, less than 500,000 boots on the ground compared to at least 10 million?

I just want these motherfuckers to come try their shit in my 'hood so I have a justified excuse to kill a commie for mommy. What's wrong with that?

You do with your every word. Who on the right has tried to bring the sides together? They don't; they throw gas on the fire and Trump is the chief arsonist.

Bring the sides together ?? Uhh and tell us exactly how you do that by defunding and leaving the police impotent in the face of those who want them dead, maimed, injured, shamed, and run out of town ???? Meanwhile the so called peaceful protestor's burn, destroy, beat the innocent, kill the innocent, and create total chaos just to drive home some point they are trying to make ???

No, no, no, it's law and order that will stop the violence and mayhem at this point, and not some unrealistic leftist feel good bullcrap dribble, otherwise that is disguising something far more sinister maybe ???..

Funny how you attempt to blame the right for creating violence, yet the leftist are actually the most violent to date. Yes, an individual police officer suffering from some sort of anger issues because of his (duty call) or maybe all due to his being stationed in high crime areas or even being a closet racist maybe, and yet (without a completed investigation, then who knows the complete reasoning behind it all ?). So did he take his anger out on a crime suspect in the extreme ??? Yes, but it in no way tainted the entire police forces serving across this nation. So what's up ??

Is this a reaction or something that has been stewing and brewing possibly for along time now, otherwise ever since Barack Obama decided to look America in it's eye, and declare a total transformation/fundemental transformation of America without the majorities blessings maybe ??? Why did Obama say those words to America ??

Otherwise did he declare change on America, but just used the soft term of "fundemental transformation" as his rehtoric or code talk used ?????

Then, did he use taxpayers money to give out free communication devices/cell phones/social media access/internet services to the poor or was it actually to his troops that he was trying to ready for this so called transformation to come ???

Then came Trump to ruin it all or so they thought, so it was time to destroy Trump at all cost ?? What happened really ??

 

[beagle9]

Apply your feelings about the second amendment to the first amendment and you will have your explanation.

Sorry, burning and stealing are not "Free Speech".

Never has been.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Apply your feelings about the second amendment to the first amendment and you will have your explanation.

Sorry, burning and stealing are not "Free Speech".

People getting shot by mass shooters is not responsible gun ownership yet you do not think it rises to the importance to infringe on gun ownership by crazy people.

Stop deflecting, it won't work with me. Burning and stealing is not "free speech". Start a thread on gun control if you want to talk about it.

Just trying to make the point that you people accept a body count in the thousands for the sake of the second amendment. A few store windows get broke and you are willing to infringe the fuck out of the first amendment.

WHO IS TRYING TO INFRINGE ON THE FIRST AMENDMENT????

No why would I get that impression reading the comments of the posters here everyday wanting Trump to use whatever force it takes to make this go away.

Most of us in support of the federal agents cleaning shit up want them to shut down the rioters, not the protesters. If you can get it through your head that rioting and protesting aren't synonymous, you'll find that wanting one and not the other is actually quite reasonable.

You see a distinction between protesters and rioters? Well that makes one of you.

Have you watched your own news channels, lately? MSNBC reporters standing in front of flaming police stations saying that they would hesitate to call this demonstration "unruly".

It's not the right that's having trouble differentiating violence from speech.