Okay? So people shouldn’t defend themselves against violence committed against them?
Do you always ask permission of your assailant on which methods you are allowed to use to defend yourself against them?
I also think the key thing you’re missing here is that you wouldn’t be the only one who is armed and ready to defend yourself and others around against it. You would be organized as a community, maybe through having a well regulated militia that exercises the right to bear arms in the event that it is necessary to the security of a free state
It absolutely is. ICE is a “legal” terrorist organization that is committing crimes against marginalized individuals. They are to be treated as a threat, as their only role is to do harm against my community. It is absolutely well within the right of a community to defend themselves against organizations that only seek to do harm.
No it’s not. Defense in a legal context is averting imminent physical harm. When you “sight” a bunch of ICE agents abducting someone, it’s just not going to meet that legal requirement.
You’re well within your right to shoot ICE agents on sight.
This is just plain false. Anyone following your advice is just going to get shot by a half dozen ICE goons.
Fuck your “legal context”. I do not respect the authority that decides what is or isn’t “legal”.
My advice is to organize community militias and stand in the way of an oppressive regime, to defend their community against those who wish to do them harm. If that means a fight, then it’s a fight. So be it. You come to my community armed and ready to kidnap people and you bet your ass is going to be shot on sight.
point one : lets shoot ice under 2A
Me: 2A defense doesn’t apply to people they don’t want it to apply to
You can warhgarrghhg after the fact all you like, but the fact is the way the US is going you should not be thinking your “constitutional rights” are going to protect you. Throughout US history under saner governments they’ve violated them as they see fit for demographics of their choosing.
The current administration is not sane.
IF your response to having this pointed out to you is to claim that the person pointing it out is boot gobbling and therefore never going to resist then you probably need to sit back a bit and think about your comprehension levels
The 2nd Amendment isn’t about legality, as much as a small enumeration of our natural rights. James Madison was against including a Bill of Rights because he felt that an actual list of rights was far too numerous, and had to be talked round to including a portion of the most important rights to be written down.
It’s written down for us, the people, the citizens. It’s to remind us that we have inalienable rights that cannot be taken from us by a tyrannical government, big or small. That we have these rights inherent to our very being.
From the Declaration of Independence:
" 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.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. "
(Broke it up for readability)
My point with this is that the only defense that matters at this section of time is social defense. If I end up on the jury for someone who shot someone who was masked up as ICE. In no way would I ever consider them guilty, regardless of the events. It is socially acceptable in my eyes to kill an individual in a gestapo like organization. That’s just self defense/defense of a third party, as they represent an actual threat, even if an individual’s current actions aren’t threatening.
Your entire screed still relies on there being rules of social order
Fascism 101: they don’t play by these. Think such a thing in america is preposterous? Then you are not paying attention because due process is already being fucked harder than caligula’s favourite watermelon.
Friend, you may want to actually read the “Screed”. You’ll see I was agreeing with you, and pointing out that it’s down to us the people, that “legality” doesn’t matter at all.
The fact you literally cannot comprehend that any form of resistance will be met with violence of state oppression, disguised as “enforcing law and order”, and that people should be prepared to defend themselves when they attempt to challenge the status quo is as breathtaking as your own ignorance of power structures.
The state will enact violence upon people regardless. If you’re going to be unlawfully deported to a country that has basically offered to enslave and torture the people sent there by the USA - then why not defend yourself? The violence will happen no matter how you behave. More violence will happen to other people if you do not. If a critical number of people choose to defend themselves, the federal government will be unable to continue inflicting violence.
Also wondering what happens if there next goon squad is all ventilated.
“Oh yeah, I saw an attempted kidnapping and then somebody shot the kidnappers. Victim and the shooter ran away. Guy was wearing a hoodie. No idea who they were”
I was under the impression that US rules about trespassing left the owner with a lot of rights, even to use weapons to protect their property. Doesn’t this apply when ICE raids homes without warnings or warrants?
Apparently not, either die trying or live in servitude as all hopes of resistance gets further stripped away. A lot of people in here seem to choose the latter, it’s how the bad guys win every time.
Yes but no, you have the right to defend your home but not against an officer of the law carrying out a warrant. So if a plain clothes officer, with a drawn fire arm, carrys out a no knock warrent, and the homeowner tries to shoot them. That’s attempting to kill an officer of the law. It doesn’t matter if the appearance of a plain clothes no knock warrent is identical to a home invasion, and the homeowner defends themselves, the ICE agents are just going to kill the homeowner and the ICE agents will have protection of the law.
This isn’t really true. People have gotten off on shooting at officers because they didn’t know they were officers. It’s a huge risk, because they’ll also likely just shoot you, but the law doesn’t actually require people to have telepathic knowledge of the association of a presumed home invader.
It’s still very much a matter of privilege to afford a good enough attorney to get you off. Black people tend to get shot while sleeping and convicted postmortem.
You are forgetting they are not using warrants. A court would find you not guilty if they have no warrant and you defend yourself according to your laws.
I certainly wouldn’t find anybody shooting an ICE “agent” as guilty if I was on the Jury, regardless of what a judge might say. Jury Nullification is an important right that every U.S. Citizen should know about, but never talk about inside a court house.
I refuse to put away people defending their community from a gestapo like force, regardless of the events surrounding said gestapo’s death.
Sadly, no. I mean, MAYBE, with the right administration you could get away with killing an officer if they are breaking the law and endangering your life. But it’s really up to the courts, and courts are usually not okay with killing their officers. Even when it is justified or self defense. The state will not go down without a fight.
I don’t think there is any realistic resistance without an organized army of civilian soldiers. The 2nd amendment and ‘militias’ and all that.
Actually an organized militia isn’t needed. As the bill of rights is just a small enumeration of our natural rights, and does not include all of them. They are solely there to remind the populace what our rights are even in the face of a tyrannical government. Funny enough your arguments now are why James Madison didn’t want a bill of rights included as he felt that Natural Rights were too numerous to list, and people would think themselves limited to only the enumerated powers or confuse them into thinking the government granted them those rights. When, in fact, those rights are inherent to our very being.
Some Relevant reading:
" 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.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. "
-The Declaration of Independence.
So important they wrote it down, and signed it.
(Broke it up for readability)
Yes, I’m aware of this and in fact I agree with Madison’s position. I just wasn’t trying to get into the nitty gritty behind having a top-down system of authority dictating what is or isn’t “rights” and its flaws.
I still stand behind my position that having well-organized, volunteer community militias is a necessity that every community should have and be engaged with to some extent. So long as the state exists, people need to be ready to defend themselves against it.
Also, personally, I oppose the existence of the state as a concept and believe it should be abolished, with its roles being replaced by bottom-up structures of authority from within communities, but that’s also getting into much deeper politics.
Americans love to preach about their rules. Especially about how uniquely exceptional the rules are. Turns out it’s all bullshit. They’re just another tinpot dictatorship ruling over a barbaric shithole.
Would you consider ICE losing being -1 officers and you in prison or dead? Like I said, I don’t disagree with the sentiment, I’m just being realistic.
Let me put it this way: If people start killing ICE officers, they will be rolling up with every resource they have to kidnap whoever they are looking for.
Is that a better situation?
Killing officers is not the end, it’s the beginning.
Then the people need to organize and be ready to fight back and defend themselves against state oppression. We know it is going to happen if we stand up for ourselves, so we might as well be prepared instead of letting it deter us from doing what is right.
You act like they aren’t already rolling in and kidnapping whoever they desire. So the threat of them doing it “harder” is moot.
I mentioned people organizing and fighting back in my earlier comment. I absolutely support it. But the main point is the organization.
And I really don’t think it’s unreasonable to suggest that, while sure they are doing whatever the fuck they want now, they have far more gross tools they can use. I think what we’re seeing right now is Trump trying to normalize the military protecting ICE.
I’m more inclined to think that unidentified ICE officers kidnapping random folk without any warrant or due process is the beginning, citizens defending themselves from the gestapo is the only appropriate response. To be realistic, they’re already rolling up with every resource they have to kidnap whoever they are looking for, it’s already reached that point. Who do you think would back down first? Who do you think should back down first?
Dear Americans,
You’re well within your right to shoot ICE agents on sight.
Do you not understand what the 2nd Amendment is for and are utterly ignorant to concepts such as “self defense”?
In the current climate, do you really think a judge will support your assertions of self defence?
If you shoot an ICE officer, I very much doubt you’d ever see a court room.
We’re a little past hoping judges do the right thing.
Okay? So people shouldn’t defend themselves against violence committed against them?
Do you always ask permission of your assailant on which methods you are allowed to use to defend yourself against them?
I also think the key thing you’re missing here is that you wouldn’t be the only one who is armed and ready to defend yourself and others around against it. You would be organized as a community, maybe through having a well regulated militia that exercises the right to bear arms in the event that it is necessary to the security of a free state
Gee why does that sound familiar?
You literally advocated shooting ICE agents on sight. That is not “defending” oneself.
It absolutely is. ICE is a “legal” terrorist organization that is committing crimes against marginalized individuals. They are to be treated as a threat, as their only role is to do harm against my community. It is absolutely well within the right of a community to defend themselves against organizations that only seek to do harm.
ICE gets the same treatment as Nazis.
No it’s not. Defense in a legal context is averting imminent physical harm. When you “sight” a bunch of ICE agents abducting someone, it’s just not going to meet that legal requirement.
This is just plain false. Anyone following your advice is just going to get shot by a half dozen ICE goons.
Fuck your “legal context”. I do not respect the authority that decides what is or isn’t “legal”.
My advice is to organize community militias and stand in the way of an oppressive regime, to defend their community against those who wish to do them harm. If that means a fight, then it’s a fight. So be it. You come to my community armed and ready to kidnap people and you bet your ass is going to be shot on sight.
I don’t see any well-regulated militias around here…
Yea. That’s kinda the entire problem that I’m attempting to highlight. See my other comment where I literally quote the amendment word for word
Hey bud,
This doesn’t apply to people they don’t want it to apply to. It never has.
Hey bud.
That’s all the more reason for people to exercise their right in the face of those trying to take it away from them.
It doesn’t matter what they say. We shouldn’t respect their authority and should be preparing to challenge it.
Cycle back a bit bud. Lets roll to the start:
point one : lets shoot ice under 2A
Me: 2A defense doesn’t apply to people they don’t want it to apply to
You can warhgarrghhg after the fact all you like, but the fact is the way the US is going you should not be thinking your “constitutional rights” are going to protect you. Throughout US history under saner governments they’ve violated them as they see fit for demographics of their choosing.
The current administration is not sane.
IF your response to having this pointed out to you is to claim that the person pointing it out is boot gobbling and therefore never going to resist then you probably need to sit back a bit and think about your comprehension levels
The 2nd Amendment isn’t about legality, as much as a small enumeration of our natural rights. James Madison was against including a Bill of Rights because he felt that an actual list of rights was far too numerous, and had to be talked round to including a portion of the most important rights to be written down.
It’s written down for us, the people, the citizens. It’s to remind us that we have inalienable rights that cannot be taken from us by a tyrannical government, big or small. That we have these rights inherent to our very being.
From the Declaration of Independence:
(Broke it up for readability)
My point with this is that the only defense that matters at this section of time is social defense. If I end up on the jury for someone who shot someone who was masked up as ICE. In no way would I ever consider them guilty, regardless of the events. It is socially acceptable in my eyes to kill an individual in a gestapo like organization. That’s just self defense/defense of a third party, as they represent an actual threat, even if an individual’s current actions aren’t threatening.
Your entire screed still relies on there being rules of social order
Fascism 101: they don’t play by these. Think such a thing in america is preposterous? Then you are not paying attention because due process is already being fucked harder than caligula’s favourite watermelon.
Friend, you may want to actually read the “Screed”. You’ll see I was agreeing with you, and pointing out that it’s down to us the people, that “legality” doesn’t matter at all.
But go off I guess, lol.
Hey bud, not standing up ensures more lie down forcefully. Will you still defend inaction when you are the one with the boot on your neck?
The fact you literally cannot comprehend resistance without shooting someone is almost as breathtaking as your ignorance of power structures
The fact you literally cannot comprehend that any form of resistance will be met with violence of state oppression, disguised as “enforcing law and order”, and that people should be prepared to defend themselves when they attempt to challenge the status quo is as breathtaking as your own ignorance of power structures.
The state will enact violence upon people regardless. If you’re going to be unlawfully deported to a country that has basically offered to enslave and torture the people sent there by the USA - then why not defend yourself? The violence will happen no matter how you behave. More violence will happen to other people if you do not. If a critical number of people choose to defend themselves, the federal government will be unable to continue inflicting violence.
This dude gets it.
Only if you want to spend the rest of your life dead or in prison.
It’s a lovely thought, but ICE has the entire weight of the government behind them.
If ICE comes for you, there’s an over 50% chance that’s gonna happen either way. May as well even the field a bit.
Also wondering what happens if there next goon squad is all ventilated.
“Oh yeah, I saw an attempted kidnapping and then somebody shot the kidnappers. Victim and the shooter ran away. Guy was wearing a hoodie. No idea who they were”
Same rules as when you see a young mom/dad steal diapers and baby food.
No, you didn’t.
I was under the impression that US rules about trespassing left the owner with a lot of rights, even to use weapons to protect their property. Doesn’t this apply when ICE raids homes without warnings or warrants?
Apparently not, either die trying or live in servitude as all hopes of resistance gets further stripped away. A lot of people in here seem to choose the latter, it’s how the bad guys win every time.
Yes but no, you have the right to defend your home but not against an officer of the law carrying out a warrant. So if a plain clothes officer, with a drawn fire arm, carrys out a no knock warrent, and the homeowner tries to shoot them. That’s attempting to kill an officer of the law. It doesn’t matter if the appearance of a plain clothes no knock warrent is identical to a home invasion, and the homeowner defends themselves, the ICE agents are just going to kill the homeowner and the ICE agents will have protection of the law.
This isn’t really true. People have gotten off on shooting at officers because they didn’t know they were officers. It’s a huge risk, because they’ll also likely just shoot you, but the law doesn’t actually require people to have telepathic knowledge of the association of a presumed home invader.
It’s still very much a matter of privilege to afford a good enough attorney to get you off. Black people tend to get shot while sleeping and convicted postmortem.
You are forgetting they are not using warrants. A court would find you not guilty if they have no warrant and you defend yourself according to your laws.
I certainly wouldn’t find anybody shooting an ICE “agent” as guilty if I was on the Jury, regardless of what a judge might say. Jury Nullification is an important right that every U.S. Citizen should know about, but never talk about inside a court house.
I refuse to put away people defending their community from a gestapo like force, regardless of the events surrounding said gestapo’s death.
Honest question: what warrant are they operating under? These guys won’t even produce ID when asked so I doubt they’ve got paperwork
If you’re asking about ICE officers, they’ve been given the authority to sign their own warrants.
Sadly, no. I mean, MAYBE, with the right administration you could get away with killing an officer if they are breaking the law and endangering your life. But it’s really up to the courts, and courts are usually not okay with killing their officers. Even when it is justified or self defense. The state will not go down without a fight.
I don’t think there is any realistic resistance without an organized army of civilian soldiers. The 2nd amendment and ‘militias’ and all that.
Yea. The key part of the 2nd amendment is the “organized militia” part that has conveniently been left out of main stream discussions.
Civilians need to start organizing or we are all royally fucked.
Actually an organized militia isn’t needed. As the bill of rights is just a small enumeration of our natural rights, and does not include all of them. They are solely there to remind the populace what our rights are even in the face of a tyrannical government. Funny enough your arguments now are why James Madison didn’t want a bill of rights included as he felt that Natural Rights were too numerous to list, and people would think themselves limited to only the enumerated powers or confuse them into thinking the government granted them those rights. When, in fact, those rights are inherent to our very being.
Some Relevant reading:
-The Declaration of Independence.
So important they wrote it down, and signed it. (Broke it up for readability)
Yes, I’m aware of this and in fact I agree with Madison’s position. I just wasn’t trying to get into the nitty gritty behind having a top-down system of authority dictating what is or isn’t “rights” and its flaws.
I still stand behind my position that having well-organized, volunteer community militias is a necessity that every community should have and be engaged with to some extent. So long as the state exists, people need to be ready to defend themselves against it.
Also, personally, I oppose the existence of the state as a concept and believe it should be abolished, with its roles being replaced by bottom-up structures of authority from within communities, but that’s also getting into much deeper politics.
Americans love to preach about their rules. Especially about how uniquely exceptional the rules are. Turns out it’s all bullshit. They’re just another tinpot dictatorship ruling over a barbaric shithole.
I guess ICE wins then. Yayyyyy.
Sure are and will continue to do so because of ignorance and inaction.
Would you consider ICE losing being -1 officers and you in prison or dead? Like I said, I don’t disagree with the sentiment, I’m just being realistic.
Let me put it this way: If people start killing ICE officers, they will be rolling up with every resource they have to kidnap whoever they are looking for.
Is that a better situation?
Killing officers is not the end, it’s the beginning.
Then the people need to organize and be ready to fight back and defend themselves against state oppression. We know it is going to happen if we stand up for ourselves, so we might as well be prepared instead of letting it deter us from doing what is right.
You act like they aren’t already rolling in and kidnapping whoever they desire. So the threat of them doing it “harder” is moot.
I mentioned people organizing and fighting back in my earlier comment. I absolutely support it. But the main point is the organization.
And I really don’t think it’s unreasonable to suggest that, while sure they are doing whatever the fuck they want now, they have far more gross tools they can use. I think what we’re seeing right now is Trump trying to normalize the military protecting ICE.
Yea, no shit. Still doesn’t change anything about my point.
The more officers they have to send to a kidnapping, the fewer kidnappings they can perform.
I’m more inclined to think that unidentified ICE officers kidnapping random folk without any warrant or due process is the beginning, citizens defending themselves from the gestapo is the only appropriate response. To be realistic, they’re already rolling up with every resource they have to kidnap whoever they are looking for, it’s already reached that point. Who do you think would back down first? Who do you think should back down first?
I feel like this wording could have been better
No, the wording is perfect. Similar to when you wake up dead.
It’s just a stupid joke, like waking up dead.