ATL Bear said:
Harrison Bergeron said:
ATL Bear said:
Harrison Bergeron said:
El Oso said:
Harrison Bergeron said:
However, it's not disputed he's a paid, semi-professional agitator and actively and intentionally interfering with lawful operations of the government. Again, why else would he be there? If you disagree with me, what evidence do you have that he was just walking to the store and bumped into a law enforcement operation?
Bringing a gun to actively interfere with a law enforcement operation obviously speaks to his state of mind. Again, why do you think he would take a gun? What would be the other possible intentions?
I appreciate that some folks are anti-ICE and have TDS (no idea if you do or not); but just be direct vs. trying the mental gymnastics that this was just a "Maryland father" who happened upon a law enforcement action.
Where is the proof he is a paid agitator? Yes, it is pretty clear according to his family reports about him he is anti-Trump and anti-ICE. That doesn't make him a paid protestor. But let's say he is.
Now he is exercising his first amendment rights. He can peacefully protest. Possession of a gun does not make you an unpeaceful protestor. I carried my gun in downtown Dallas a few years ago as I walked in and out of dueling protests about the NRA convention being in town that year. While I was not protesting, the possession of a firearm by probably everyone in the pro NRA group did not make them unpeaceful protestors. Had they pulled those guns out, now we probably have a non peaceful protest. But this man did not pull out his gun. He is still a peaceful protestor in all videos I have seen.
Again, it does not speak to state of mind. Most gun carriers I know, and I know quite a few, carry their gun absolutely everywhere they go. It goes on every morning like it's a pair of socks. I don't think about putting it on. I just do. So he took his gun because that is what licensed gun carriers do everyday of their life. They carry a gun.
I'm not mental gymnasticing anything. He's there to protest. That protest is peaceful. Protected under the constitution. He is carrying a gun. Protected by the constitution. The police shoot him when he is unarmed. I don't know how that's legal. There is a straight line between every single one of those dots.
Ya'll have fun. Football is coming on.
You're really misrepresenting the situation. While no one has produced a pay stub, it has been demonstrated that he actively participates in organized, well funded insurrection activity.
You owe us all some basic intellectual honestly that we all know he was not just peacefully protesting. It's amazing how TDS has made something like interfering with law enforcement somehow controversial. This is exactly what are mental gymnastics - maybe you're poorly intentioned or maybe you're naive.
Yes, there is a chance the guy is a moron and thought it would be a good idea to bring a gun to interfere with law enforcement. If I was betting on it - given what we know about him - it was likely very intentional to provoke the officers and potentially be a "martyr" to radical, anti-government groups.
And I hate the Broncos and the Patriots so I am I guess going to hate watch.
Harassing ICE whether volunteer, paid agitator, or pissed off human does not make one an insurrectionist,
Once again, the False Premise Fallacy.
Based on common sense as well as the definition posted by TDSer earlier, actively interfering with lawful federal law enforcement absolutely is an insurrection. It is exacerbated by the fact that elected Democrat officials are at best participating and at worse leading these efforts in conjunction with global billionaires and potentially foreign actors. It is much more of an insurrection than a few senior citizens trespassing at the Capitol.
Texas actively resisted and didn't enforce federal gun laws they disagreed with. Even passed a law prohibiting law enforcement from enforcing anything that wasn't in state law.
You are spinning the Texas vs Biden argument around immigration
It played out mostly in the courts (Minnesota is also welcome to sue the Feds if they want)
They don't have much of a stand but they can try.
Texas invoked the Constitution as an argument
[Abbott formally declared that the surge of migrants constituted an "invasion" under the U.S. Constitution, citing Article I, 10, Clause 3, to invoke Texas's authority to defend itself]
Texas officials were also offering to spend their time, money, and resources to enforce already established Federal immigration laws…do the job the Federal Government was refusing to do (not to undermine them or nullify them)
Texas spent money to rebuild razor wire the Feds under Biden then destroyed and Texas would rebuild them.
Texas troops deployed to an island in the Rio they was hot bed for illegal entry to help prevent it. Feds sued them to make Texas withdraw those national guardsmen from the uninhabited island.
Texas built a floating pontoon barrier to prevent illegal crossings. Feds sued them to remove it
Ect.
Most Presidents would welcome this help in enforcing Federal laws.
But Texas also complied with SCOTUS rulings that while pointing out the hypocrisy of the Biden Admin. position alap affirmed Federal authority/supremacy over the border area.
Texas complied with the rulings as ordered
I think you might need to drop this line of argument since it does not rise to the levels as the Minnesota issue taking place right now (trying to prevent Federal laws from being enforced and encouraging, aiding and abetting violent harassment & intimidation of Federal law enforcement officials within the State.
Texas actions were not insurrection. (Biden administration never even made that argument)
Minnesota actions might not yet be insurrection…but they are playing dangerously close to that line…if not already stepping over it
