This is why ICE wears masks.

[g5000]

Standard rule, don't ignore a lawful order, obey the cop, complain about it later in front of a judge.

The thugs did not give a lawful order.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Okay, so ICE do something that they shouldn't do, and then the person "resisted" being pushed out by ICE. So, ICE can basically do whatever they like, either you bend down to ICE and accept they are above the law, or you tell them to get lost and then they have every right to push you wherever they like and if you "resist" being pushed around, they now have the right to kick the shit out of you?

I never suggested that ice should be able to do whatever they want to do. These are things that you lobby your members of Congress for, but trying to expose their names and addresses, So that unhinged people could go and physically harm them, or even kill them, is not the answer.

Sounds like the sort of thing a dictatorship would do.

Perhaps if ICE's families lives are at risk, perhaps a rethink of the strategy at hand?

So you support terrorism then?

 

[toobfreak]

Masks were all the rage not long ago

Demofascists used to pride themselves on wearing masks walking around with their ass held high showing off that day's designer mask to the crowd.

If ICE wants to wear them I don't blame them. Demoquacks dox

According to the demofascibots, wearing a mask is akin to a human right, right up there with a woman's right to murder her fetus (but not the right to shower, bath, dress, and compete in privacy).

 

[frigidweirdo]

Standard rule, don't ignore a lawful order, obey the cop, complain about it later in front of a judge.

A "lawful order". What is a "lawful order"?

Is a cop telling you to get out of an elevator "lawful"?

When asking someone to leave a car, it's considered about safety, because people could have weapons and many cops have been killed in such a manner.

Pennsylvania v. Mimms - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

""According to a study, approximately 21% of police shootings occurred prior to a police officer approaching a suspect seated in an automobile during a traffic stop.""

However asking someone to leave an elevator. Is there a security issue? The journalist is one of many who have been in the building for months. They haven't harmed any ICE agents. There's no risk for the ICE agents.

So, that's not lawful. The journalist had every right to be in that elevator.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I never suggested that ice should be able to do whatever they want to do. These are things that you lobby your members of Congress for, but trying to expose their names and addresses, So that unhinged people could go and physically harm them, or even kill them, is not the answer.


So you support terrorism then?

The topic at hand here is whether ICE should wear masks.

My view is that:

A) they are public servants. They should not be hiding their faces unless there is a real risk to their lives by not wearing that mask.

B) that they might be wearing masks to not be identified when breaking the law.

C) I feel that the threats against them wouldn't be any different with or without masks, based on the scenario you gave me. Which is that they're following people home. They can follow people home whether they're wearing masks or not.


Do I support "terrorism"? Depends what "terrorism" you are talking about.

Did I support the ANC and Nelson Mandela in South Africa? Yes.

In fact, the whole point of the 2nd Amendment is to allow people to commit "terrorist acts" against the US govt in the event that the government becomes bad.

Do you not support "terrorism"?

 

[ThisIsMe]

The topic at hand here is whether ICE should wear masks.

My view is that:

A) they are public servants. They should not be hiding their faces unless there is a real risk to their lives by not wearing that mask.

And there is a real threat, both domestically and internationally. If they are not wearing masks. Domestically, from those who would want to dox them to potentially put their families in danger, and also internationally from the cartels, who if they knew who these people were, would be trying to kill them.

B) that they might be wearing masks to not be identified when breaking the law.

If they are breaking the law, then you take and you make a video of it. And you send it to the people who are their supervisors, their bosses and the people in charge. Let them handle that kind of thing internally, but you don't need to be able to see who they are. So that way, you can get intimidate them and terrorize them, and they're families.

C) I feel that the threats against them wouldn't be any different with or without masks, based on the scenario you gave me

Sure, it would if you don't know who they are, who are you going to terrorize?

. Which is that they're following people home. They can follow people home whether they're wearing masks or not.

That's easily negated by simply going to a neutral site before going home. Have agents go back to their station? And once you see him, go inside the building, you've lost the contact needed to trace them back to their house.. unless you are going to literally follow everyone who comes out of that building back to their homes. In either case, that would probably run a foul of stalking laws And maybe some other laws too in which those people who are following them could be arrested.

Do I support "terrorism"? Depends what "terrorism" you are talking about.

Well, the kind of terrorism, where you use fear and intimidation to achieve a certain goal. Which is pretty much the classic textbook definition of terrorism.

Terrorism is the unlawful use or threat of violence, typically by individuals or groups, to instill fear and achieve political, social, ideological, religious, or ethnic goals.

In fact, the whole point of the 2nd Amendment is to allow people to commit "terrorist acts" against the US govt in the event that the government becomes bad.

no, the whole point of the second amendment was so that people could defend themselves and their property. But also two fight off a potentially tyrannical government

Do you not support "terrorism"?

No I do not support terrorism.

 

[frigidweirdo]

And there is a real threat, both domestically and internationally. If they are not wearing masks. Domestically, from those who would want to dox them to potentially put their families in danger, and also internationally from the cartels, who if they knew who these people were, would be trying to kill them.




If they are breaking the law, then you take and you make a video of it. And you send it to the people who are their supervisors, their bosses and the people in charge. Let them handle that kind of thing internally, but you don't need to be able to see who they are. So that way, you can get intimidate them and terrorize them, and they're families.




Sure, it would if you don't know who they are, who are you going to terrorize?



That's easily negated by simply going to a neutral site before going home. Have agents go back to their station? And once you see him, go inside the building, you've lost the contact needed to trace them back to their house.. unless you are going to literally follow everyone who comes out of that building back to their homes. In either case, that would probably run a foul of stalking laws And maybe some other laws too in which those people who are following them could be arrested.



Well, the kind of terrorism, where you use fear and intimidation to achieve a certain goal. Which is pretty much the classic textbook definition of terrorism.





no, the whole point of the second amendment was so that people could defend themselves and their property. But also two fight off a potentially tyrannical government



No I do not support terrorism.

What happens when the people in charge don't handle things internally? The violence from ICE is increasing and nothing is being done about it.

Do you think black people have any faith in the police and ICE to internally deal with such problems? I don't.

Do you not think that it's possible to sit outside the offices of ICE and watch who comes in and who goes out?

Nope, the 2nd Amendment has NOTHING to do with defending ones own property. The WHOLE POINT of the 2nd Amendment is to be the last check and balance on government.

Check it out:

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

This was the last line of the initial 2nd Amendment.

Mr Gerry (of gerrymandering fame) said "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

Then he said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

Do you see that they're using the term "bear arms" and "militia duty" synonymously?

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

So, Mr Jackson used "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service"

Literally they used "bear arms" only in terms of having individuals have a right to be in the militia.

We know this is what it means, because the Dick Act of 1903 was designed to stop individuals from demanding a place in the National Guard. So they made the "unorganized militia" and put all people in the "inorganized militia", so they were technically in the militia and therefore couldn't say they had a right to be in the National Guard.

So you wouldn't have supported Nelson Mandela's fight for freedom from Apartheid?

 

[ThisIsMe]

What happens when the people in charge don't handle things internally? The violence from ICE is increasing and nothing is being done about it.

Do you think black people have any faith in the police and ICE to internally deal with such problems? I don't.

Do you not think that it's possible to sit outside the offices of ICE and watch who comes in and who goes out?

Sure, you could sit outside the ice station and see who goes in and out. But you have no idea which one of those are agents and which and one of them are administrative people.Unless you're suggesting that you're just going to follow everybody home. So what you're suggesting is terrorism and stalking.

Still, how many people are actually gonna sit outside an ice station? And wait for agents to go home to follow them. Maybe a couple yes, but it would be a lot easier for those who wish to dox others to just sit there and watch on t v for anybody who has been demasked and take a screen, grab and then post it online for everybody to find out who they are. We don't need this to happen.

Nope, the 2nd Amendment has NOTHING to do with defending ones own property. The WHOLE POINT of the 2nd Amendment is to be the last check and balance on government.

Check it out:

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

This was the last line of the initial 2nd Amendment.

Mr Gerry (of gerrymandering fame) said "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

Then he said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

Do you see that they're using the term "bear arms" and "militia duty" synonymously?

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

So, Mr Jackson used "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service"

Literally they used "bear arms" only in terms of having individuals have a right to be in the militia.

We know this is what it means, because the Dick Act of 1903 was designed to stop individuals from demanding a place in the National Guard. So they made the "unorganized militia" and put all people in the "inorganized militia", so they were technically in the militia and therefore couldn't say they had a right to be in the National Guard.

From what I just read, it would appear.They were talking about religious people.Being forced into the militias. I don't think this had anything to do with people being able to keep guns. Maybe i'm wrong, but in the paragraphs that you just posted, that is what it looks like to me.

So you wouldn't have supported Nelson Mandela's fight for freedom from Apartheid?

do you consider what nelson mandela did terrorism? Was he going around killing innocent people? He led an armed resistance against an oppressive government.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Sure, you could sit outside the ice station and see who goes in and out. But you have no idea which one of those are agents and which and one of them are administrative people.Unless you're suggesting that you're just going to follow everybody home. So what you're suggesting is terrorism and stalking.

Still, how many people are actually gonna sit outside an ice station? And wait for agents to go home to follow them. Maybe a couple yes, but it would be a lot easier for those who wish to dox others to just sit there and watch on t v for anybody who has been demasked and take a screen, grab and then post it online for everybody to find out who they are. We don't need this to happen.



From what I just read, it would appear.They were talking about religious people.Being forced into the militias. I don't think this had anything to do with people being able to keep guns. Maybe i'm wrong, but in the paragraphs that you just posted, that is what it looks like to me.



do you consider what nelson mandela did terrorism? Was he going around killing innocent people? He led an armed resistance against an oppressive government.

What you were suggesting before was "terrorism and stalking". You think they want to kill the families of ICE people. Does it matter if they're admin or not to those people?

Yes, they were talking about religious people being forced into militias. They believed that if they had the end part of the 2nd that forced people to "bear arms" that it would be unfair to the religious people.

Do you think they wanted to force people to have guns to protect their own property and call it "render military service" and "militia duty"?

Not a chance.

Nelson Mandela was considered a terrorist by the US government.

Also, he was killing people for POLITICAL PURPOSES.

 

[ThisIsMe]

What you were suggesting before was "terrorism and stalking". You think they want to kill the families of ICE people. Does it matter if they're admin or not to those people?

I think we should not make it easier for those who wishe to harm people to do so. I know that you're trying to do this "it doesn't matter" thing, but it does. If people want to sit outside an ice station and then follow agent's home or administrative people, home for the purposes of terrorizing their family, then they can do so at the risk of being arrested and thrown in prison. But I will still maintain that there is no reason whatsoever that an ice agent should have to be demasked, so that it makes it easier for these people who want to dox them to do so.

Yes, they were talking about religious people being forced into militias. They believed that if they had the end part of the 2nd that forced people to "bear arms" that it would be unfair to the religious people.

Do you think they wanted to force people to have guns to protect their own property and call it "render military service" and "militia duty"?

Not a chance.

Defending against an oppressive government was the primary reason for the second amendment but some would also suggest that defending personal property and their own lives is also another part of it. Also, when reading the second amendment, if you look at the way that it's worded, it doesn't say that the malitia should be armed.It says that the people should be armed.

Nelson Mandela was considered a terrorist by the US government.

Also, he was killing people for POLITICAL PURPOSES.

I would imagine that any government that encountered resistance would consider them to be a terrorist. Consider this, the declaration of independence said that the citizens should throw off tyrannical government. Our second amendment, it gives us the ability to defend against the tyrannical government. yet congress has made laws that said, if you fight against the government, it's considered insurrection.

That's very contradictory wouldn't you say?

 

[frigidweirdo]

I think we should not make it easier for those who wishe to harm people to do so. I know that you're trying to do this "it doesn't matter" thing, but it does. If people want to sit outside an ice station and then follow agent's home or administrative people, home for the purposes of terrorizing their family, then they can do so at the risk of being arrested and thrown in prison. But I will still maintain that there is no reason whatsoever that an ice agent should have to be demasked, so that it makes it easier for these people who want to dox them to do so.




Defending against an oppressive government was the primary reason for the second amendment but some would also suggest that defending personal property and their own lives is also another part of it. Also, when reading the second amendment, if you look at the way that it's worded, it doesn't say that the malitia should be armed.It says that the people should be armed.



I would imagine that any government that encountered resistance would consider them to be a terrorist. Consider this, the declaration of independence said that the citizens should throw off tyrannical government. Our second amendment, it gives us the ability to defend against the tyrannical government. yet congress has made laws that said, if you fight against the government, it's considered insurrection.

That's very contradictory wouldn't you say?

Yeah sure, let's not make things easier for those who want to do harm. Let's have proper policies in place, instead of just a hammer that ICE is, and let's not give ICE the power to go around beating people up.

I feel that if things were done properly, ICE agents wouldn't need masks in the first place.

Many would suggest that defending personal property is a part of the 2nd Amendment. Many would suggest the Earth is flat too. Doesn't make these people right, does it?

I've done a lot of research since the Columbine High School massacre, I've learned a lot about the 2nd Amendment, and if I ask people to find evidence that the Founding Fathers intended for the 2nd Amendment to protect the right to self defense, people will struggle to find a single thing to say. What they might come up with is usually something they misunderstand.

You can do anything lawful with your guns. The 2nd Amendment protects the right to OWN those guns, and the right to be in the militia. Anything else isn't protected. Doesn't mean you can't do it, it depends on the states and their laws.

Yep, the Apartheid regime thought he was a terrorist because he wanted to take down the Apartheid regime. Most people, except the US govt and UK govt and the Afrikaaners, saw Mandela as a "freedom fighter".

In the US, a lot of people think the Confederacy wasn't treasonous. They were, by the very definition of what they did. However people don't see it like that. And if people were to rise up against the govt, they're say it's not terrorism, but freedom fighting, but the US govt would call it terrorism.

Do I think the 2nd's aim and the govt saying fighting against them is treason as being contradictory. Yes, but also logical.

 

[OODA_Loop]

I've done a lot of research since the Columbine High School massacre, I've learned a lot about the 2nd Amendment, and if I ask people to find evidence that the Founding Fathers intended for the 2nd Amendment to protect the right to self defense, people will struggle to find a single thing to say. What they might come up with is usually something they misunderstand.

Heller

 

[ThisIsMe]

Yeah sure, let's not make things easier for those who want to do harm. Let's have proper policies in place, instead of just a hammer that ICE is, and let's not give ICE the power to go around beating people up.

You all want to take the few examples. And highlight them as if they are the norm.

I feel that if things were done properly, ICE agents wouldn't need masks in the first place.

Sure, they would because cartels would still be after them. And liberals who think they that they shouldn't be deporting illegals.

Many would suggest that defending personal property is a part of the 2nd Amendment. Many would suggest the Earth is flat too. Doesn't make these people right, does it?

All I can say is that if you do not like guns, feel free to be the first to turn yours in.

I've done a lot of research since the Columbine High School massacre, I've learned a lot about the 2nd Amendment, and if I ask people to find evidence that the Founding Fathers intended for the 2nd Amendment to protect the right to self defense, people will struggle to find a single thing to say. What they might come up with is usually something they misunderstand.

You can do anything lawful with your guns. The 2nd Amendment protects the right to OWN those guns, and the right to be in the militia. Anything else isn't protected. Doesn't mean you can't do it, it depends on the states and their laws.

Again, if you believe that guns are not to be used for personal protection and to protect yourself in the case of a home invasion, then feel free, If it ever happens to leave your guns in the dress or drawer or wherever you keep them.

Yep, the Apartheid regime thought he was a terrorist because he wanted to take down the Apartheid regime. Most people, except the US govt and UK govt and the Afrikaaners, saw Mandela as a "freedom fighter".

In the US, a lot of people think the Confederacy wasn't treasonous. They were, by the very definition of what they did. However people don't see it like that. And if people were to rise up against the govt, they're say it's not terrorism, but freedom fighting, but the US govt would call it terrorism.

Exactly, which is why I said what I said about how we have constitutional protections to be armed to rise up against tyrannical government. And our Declaration of Independence say that we should throw off tyrannical government, but the government has made laws to protect itself from people who would do just that.

Do I think the 2nd's aim and the govt saying fighting against them is treason as being contradictory. Yes, but also logical.

So what are we arguing about? Are you suggesting that the US condemning Mandela was in fact, logical?

 

[frigidweirdo]

You all want to take the few examples. And highlight them as if they are the norm.



Sure, they would because cartels would still be after them. And liberals who think they that they shouldn't be deporting illegals.




All I can say is that if you do not like guns, feel free to be the first to turn yours in.




Again, if you believe that guns are not to be used for personal protection and to protect yourself in the case of a home invasion, then feel free, If it ever happens to leave your guns in the dress or drawer or wherever you keep them.




Exactly, which is why I said what I said about how we have constitutional protections to be armed to rise up against tyrannical government. And our Declaration of Independence say that we should throw off tyrannical government, but the government has made laws to protect itself from people who would do just that.



So what are we arguing about? Are you suggesting that the US condemning Mandela was in fact, logical?

Doesn't it work both ways. There are 6,000 ICE agents, there were 79 "assaults" on ICE agents in the first 6 months of the year. And ICE say these are "Not limited to physical attacks".

From 2015 to 2021 there were 59 shootings, with 23 of them being fatal. "There’s no evidence any ICE agent was indicted."

"However, many shootings occurred during operations where the individuals shot were not the intended targets."
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=8df0...Z3JhdGlvbi1lbmZvcmNlbWVudC12aW9sZW5jZS8&ntb=1

Armed and Untouchable: ICE’s History of Deadly Force

Nemesia Martinez was working at one of Mississippi’s dozens of poultry plants on July 20, 2016, when she missed a call from her neighbor. It was 9 p.m., and her shift defeathering and extracting the livers from chickens at a facility about an hour outside Jackson, wouldn’t end until 10:30. But...

www.thetrace.org

If things were done properly, there wouldn't be any cartels smuggling people into the US.

What are you talking about? "f you believe that guns are not to be used for personal protection and to protect yourself in the case of a home invasion"

It's like you don't understand what I'm saying at all. Or your just not reading what I'm writing.

No, I'm not saying the US condemning Mandela as being a terrorist is logical. I'm saying the South African Apartheid regime doing so was logical.

Also doesn't make Mandela wrong. "terrorist" is a loaded word. A negative word. People use it to make their enemies look bad. However not all "terrorists" are wrong. They just feel it's their only recourse.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Doesn't it work both ways. There are 6,000 ICE agents, there were 79 "assaults" on ICE agents in the first 6 months of the year. And ICE say these are "Not limited to physical attacks".

From 2015 to 2021 there were 59 shootings, with 23 of them being fatal. "There’s no evidence any ICE agent was indicted."

"However, many shootings occurred during operations where the individuals shot were not the intended targets."
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=8df0...Z3JhdGlvbi1lbmZvcmNlbWVudC12aW9sZW5jZS8&ntb=1

Armed and Untouchable: ICE’s History of Deadly Force

Nemesia Martinez was working at one of Mississippi’s dozens of poultry plants on July 20, 2016, when she missed a call from her neighbor. It was 9 p.m., and her shift defeathering and extracting the livers from chickens at a facility about an hour outside Jackson, wouldn’t end until 10:30. But...

www.thetrace.org

If things were done properly, there wouldn't be any cartels smuggling people into the US.

What are you talking about? "f you believe that guns are not to be used for personal protection and to protect yourself in the case of a home invasion"

It's like you don't understand what I'm saying at all. Or your just not reading what I'm writing.

No, I'm not saying the US condemning Mandela as being a terrorist is logical. I'm saying the South African Apartheid regime doing so was logical.

Also doesn't make Mandela wrong. "terrorist" is a loaded word. A negative word. People use it to make their enemies look bad. However not all "terrorists" are wrong. They just feel it's their only recourse.

Again, the whole premise of my point is that I just cannot agree that ice agents should be demaske so that liberals on the internet can out them publicly to cause terrorism and harm to their families. There is just no scenario where I would ever agree that that's a good thing.

I'm saying the South African Apartheid regime doing so was logical.

If you agreed to that, then why did you ask me if i thought he was a terrorist?

It's a tricky situation because nobody would ever really want to cross swords with their government. However, if the government is being oppressive, what choice do you have?

I mean, one could say that America went through a somewhat similar situation and we were able to resolve ours without the violence to a large extent, and we are still working through it. My point is that by the words of our Constitution and our Declaration of Independence, technically, the kind of thing that Mandela did would not be considered terrorism. But then our government passed the law to say that it basically was.

 

[Jarlaxle]

The problem is, these people don't have a real home. They are failures who are living in their cars, mother's basement, friends couch, or down by the river in a van. They are there striking back at the system they believe has caused them to be utter losers.

This, class, is projection. You refer to ANTIFA rent-a-mobs, not ICE agents.

 

[Slyhunter]

A "lawful order". What is a "lawful order"?

Is a cop telling you to get out of an elevator "lawful"?

When asking someone to leave a car, it's considered about safety, because people could have weapons and many cops have been killed in such a manner.

Pennsylvania v. Mimms - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

""According to a study, approximately 21% of police shootings occurred prior to a police officer approaching a suspect seated in an automobile during a traffic stop.""

However asking someone to leave an elevator. Is there a security issue? The journalist is one of many who have been in the building for months. They haven't harmed any ICE agents. There's no risk for the ICE agents.

So, that's not lawful. The journalist had every right to be in that elevator.

He could've3 been a security issue. He would've been in the way.

 

[frigidweirdo]

He could've3 been a security issue. He would've been in the way.

Anything could be a "security issue", couldn't it?

"Oh, you're a security issue, so I'm going to throw you on the floor and crack your skull open.

Yeah right. This is the sort of police you want?

 

[Slyhunter]

Anything could be a "security issue", couldn't it?

"Oh, you're a security issue, so I'm going to throw you on the floor and crack your skull open.

Yeah right. This is the sort of police you want?

being in a box, elevator, where cops might need to leave fast would put him in the way.

 

[frigidweirdo]

being in a box, elevator, where cops might need to leave fast would put him in the way.

Then they could just take the stairs if elevators are problematic.