Let’s talk about Antifa.

[z31maniac]

Well it's because I'm functionally retarded.

You told me so!

[decay]

Oh man, I'm so far below you, why do you waste your time responding?

*Insert "I taught you to use your correctly"
*Insert "I want to try to teach the reeeeees like you"

i like how you missed the important part

[z31maniac]

Oh man, I'm so far below you, why do you waste your time responding?

*Insert "I taught you to use your correctly"
*Insert "I want to try to teach the reeeeees like you"

[decay]

You're grandiose since of self-importance is amusing to more than just myself. If you really cared about the planet earth, you'd stop wasting it's resources.

whoa, that's a whole lot of fail in two sentences

1.) *your

2.) logical fallacy: appeal to popularity

3.) i am reducing my use of non-renewable resources; hence the 300cc motorcycle that gets better mileage than any hybrid available. not that that has anything to do with what we're talking about?

4.) your (see how i used that correctly) inferiority complex, while not unjustified, is causing you to act like a low-grade schoolyard bully, attempting to cut others down to try and salvage what's left of the diminished self-esteem resulting from knowing you're a loser but not knowing how to drag yourself out of that trench

are you done being taken apart yet, little boy?

[z31maniac]

you're not even bothering anymore so i guess i can stop responding now

enjoy your irrelevance

You're grandiose since of self-importance is amusing to more than just myself. If you really cared about the planet earth, you'd stop wasting it's resources.

[decay]

Hahahahaha, sure thing bud!

you're not even bothering anymore so i guess i can stop responding now

enjoy your irrelevance

[z31maniac]

i'm sorry you're threatened by someone who has the balls to do something about it when they see their own country going off the rails.

Hahahahaha, sure thing bud!

[decay]

Sure thing bud.

Hopefully, you won't pull a Christopher Reeve off that high horse.

i'm sorry you're threatened by someone who has the balls to do something about it when they see their own country going off the rails.

[z31maniac]

bitch, you think i do it myself? hell no.

http://zazaspa.com

$29 gets you acrylics, a mango exfoliant scrub up to the elbows by a hot vietnamese chick, and an hour in a massage chair. wine is extra but i'm not a wine guy so i just go get a beer at the brewery next door afterwards.

it's called self-care. maybe if you tried it you wouldn't be such a miserable little shithead.

Sure thing bud.

Hopefully, you won't pull a Christopher Reeve off that high horse.

[decay]

and to answer your question, if i understand your thrust, no, there is no right for you to use violence against other citizens and people as defined in the 2nd amendment.

your choice of the words "for you" speaks volumes. you could have just said "there is no right to use violence". kinda sounds like you just don't approve of violence when it's done by people you disagree with; the rest of the time it's fine.

but at least you finally answered the question. you're cool with violence, but only when it's committed by a government actor. hard disagreement on that, but i know i'm not going to change your mind.

[decay]

You're right you win.

Now go paint your nails.

bitch, you think i do it myself? hell no.

http://zazaspa.com

$29 gets you acrylics, a mango exfoliant scrub up to the elbows by a hot vietnamese chick, and an hour in a massage chair. wine is extra but i'm not a wine guy so i just go get a beer at the brewery next door afterwards.

it's called self-care. maybe if you tried it you wouldn't be such a miserable little shithead.

[gwb72tii]

that's probably because you're misinformed and making assertions based on a false premise.

these people are seeking asylum.

https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/r...asylum-process

ya see how "arrive in the US" is step one?

so we can just throw your assumption of "illegally" right out the window. i've edited your sentence to reflect that.

but back to my original point. i was using the term "the state" to simplify the phrasing of the question because i thought breaking it down barney-style might help you in particular. substitute "government actors" if you like, and then *answer the fucking question*:



why does antifa not deserve that same right? because that's what we're doing, excepting that we give enough of a shit that we want to protect others as well.

Your interpretation of the phrase "in the US" is so wide that it justifies anyone using any means to gain entry, which is ridiculous.

The government has the right and means to regulate how people enter the country and apply for asylum legally.

Further, POTUS has the authority to prohibit these people from entering, period.

and to answer your question, if i understand your thrust, no, there is no right for you to use violence against other citizens and people as defined in the 2nd amendment.

[z31maniac]

You're right you win.

Now go paint your nails.

[decay]

So I'm not sure what parallel you are trying to draw between "the state" using violence to prevent people from entering the country

that's probably because you're misinformed and making assertions based on a false premise.

these people are seeking asylum.

https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/r...asylum-process

ya see how "arrive in the US" is step one?

so we can just throw your assumption of "illegally" right out the window. i've edited your sentence to reflect that.

but back to my original point. i was using the term "the state" to simplify the phrasing of the question because i thought breaking it down barney-style might help you in particular. substitute "government actors" if you like, and then *answer the fucking question*:

US Citizens protecting themselves from a tyrannical government

why does antifa not deserve that same right? because that's what we're doing, excepting that we give enough of a shit that we want to protect others as well.

[z31maniac]

doesn't the 2nd amendment exist because the founders agreed that the state *shouldn't* have a monopoly on violence?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The "spirit" of the 2nd amendment is that US citizens can be armed to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. And of course there is much debate upon the scope of the Amendment and whether it's meant to guarantee an individual right to own weapons, or if it's meant to prevent Congress from legislating away an individual state's right to defense against the Feds.

So I'm not sure what parallel you are trying to draw between "the state" using violence to prevent people from entering the country illegally and US Citizens protecting themselves from a tyrannical government.