Ultra-Violent Leftists Attacking and Threatening US Government Officials

[ByzantinePowerGame]

In Tennessee a violent leftist ran a US Congressman off the road, boxed his car in, and began to beat on his car, beat on his windows, and tried to reach in to attack him through an open window. She had followed/stalked him from a political public townhall meeting, she told police she went after him because she knew he was a Republican, and she wanted to get him for his voting on healthcare.

http://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2017/...-as-folk-hero/



Across the country a number of love, peace, and tolerance leftists have been arrested for calling Republicans in Congress and threatening to kill them and their families.

http://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2017/...ween-the-eyes/


At this point I almost feel as though we need a Spanish Civil War type war so we can just clean house and move on as a nation.

The left are amateurs when it comes to political violence. They are a unorganized bunch of misfits who loathe military/paramilitary discipline, they tend not to understand crew-served weapons [or even small arms], they don't understand small unit tactics, combined arms operations, call for fire support, how to adjust fire, traversing and elevation on a tripod mounted machine-gun, the beaten zone, enfilade fire, move to contact, breaking contact, etc.

The left specialize in 20 vs 1 with their antifa punks attacking old people and handicapped people in the street, or sucker punching unarmed people from behind.

If things come to outright civil war in the USA, it will be no holds barred, no quarter, and no mercy.

The left is literally playing with fire.

[the_mango55]

How triggered are you right now? There won't be any civil war this is just crazy s doing crazy s stuff, happens on both sides.

[ByzantinePowerGame]

How triggered are you right now? There won't be any civil war this is just crazy s doing crazy s stuff, happens on both sides.

I'm not triggered at all but it has inspired me to make sure I get in to the advanced rifle/concealment/camouflage/stalking/escape-evasion courses sooner rather than later, time to brush up on the basics and progress forward with the skills.

Gear-wise, it makes me want to buy an MG-42, MG-3, or an M60 [the M60 would be my last choice... my first choice would be an MG-3 or an M-240B] a tripod, a traversing and elevation mechanism, 6 spare barrels, and 30,000 rounds of linked ammo.

Things are becoming very dangerous in this country, politically.

[Roma_Victrix]

For starters, violence is never the answer. If you are passionate about politics, express yourself at the ballot box and in peaceful protest. Attacking a Congressman is obviously insane and I'm glad that he is safe. No matter how partisan things may seem, violence still has no valid place in our politics and quite frankly we've had enough of it. It might be a little better today, actually, but let us not forget the assassinations of Abraham Lincoln, James A. Garfield, William McKinley, and John F. Kennedy (and his brother Robert), and the attempted assassinations of Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan. Recently the Democratic Arizona House Rep Gabrielle Giffords was shot and wounded in the head by a crazed gunman, so before anyone else comments here, know that this is an issue that affects both sides of the aisle and we should all stand firm when members of the opposing party are heinously targeted in a similar manner.

At this point I almost feel as though we need a Spanish Civil War type war so we can just clean house and move on as a nation.

That's not helpful. Promoting violence and widespread bloodshed as a response to this assault is beyond stupid and you should know better.

Gear-wise, it makes me want to buy an MG-42, MG-3, or an M60 [the M60 would be my last choice... my first choice would be an MG-3 or an M-240B] a tripod, a traversing and elevation mechanism, 6 spare barrels, and 30,000 rounds of linked ammo.

You're more than welcome to stock up. Hell, I wouldn't mind going to the range with you. Yet you're living in a fantasy land if you think a civil war is on the horizon. For starters, the US National Guard would shut any sort of yahoos down if they tried to organize en masse.

[Napoleonic Bonapartism]

You seem less angry about their use of violence than their lack of professionalism in carrying it out.

[ByzantinePowerGame]

You seem less angry about their use of violence than their lack of professionalism in carrying it out.

Both are offensive.

I am sick of the left engaging in violence for political ends, and I am sick of the left engaging in dim-witted poorly conducted violence and wrongly aimed violence.

Instead of going after the powerful corporate interests that are poisoning the air, water, soil, genetically modifying animals, and tainting our food, they are trying to attack legislators for rolling back the freebie benefits they feel entitled to.

[Napoleonic Bonapartism]

So you're sick of the left using violence for political ends, but also seem to wish for a revival of the glory days of the Red Brigades and Red Army Faction where businessmen were kidnapped and murdered. Right.

[ByzantinePowerGame]

So you're sick of the left using violence for political ends, but also seem to wish for a revival of the glory days of the Red Brigades and Red Army Faction where businessmen were kidnapped and murdered. Right.

I'm sick of seeing pathetic leftist violence against people who won't vote to give them free stuff.

Nobody has a right to initiate violence against a politician who will not vote to give them free stuff to be paid for by others and by the public treasury. That is essentially the utilization of violence to facilitate for a robbery. You have no right to rob another individual.

Anybody and everybody has a right to initiate violence against businessmen who are corrupting the political process to gain the "right" [power] to compel farmers to use their seeds, to be able to sue farmers who are cleaning/saving seeds, and to patent gene sequences. You should not be able to patent life/genetics.

If I were a businessman and I swayed enough officials to legalize slavery and grant me a 10 year state monopoly on slavery, anybody who was about to become a slave would have a right to kill me or kill the politicians who were making this possible, in an attempt to stop it.

Nobody has a right to use violence against a politician to try to coerce them into voting for freebies.



I just glanced over this basic list of actions of the Red Army Faction. I don't believe they were anything more than a gang promoted by the Soviets for the sake of destabilizing BRD and causing NATO trouble.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Ar...ted_to_the_RAF

Nothing they did was justifiable, nothing was effective [if their aims were to stop corruption and stop abuses by industry/finance], and I would have a lot of disdain for such an organization.

[Napoleonic Bonapartism]

You're sick of people being attacked for not giving "free stuff"? You've given one example.

[ByzantinePowerGame]

You're sick of people being attacked for not giving "free stuff"? You've given one example.

Thanks for ignoring it and waving it off.

Greeks have been shutting down Athens for years while they rage against austerity and demand a continuation of their idle lifestyle, in many instances even demanding that the ultra-productive Germans should be made to pay for their laziness.

Germans have to work harder so Greeks can loaf? Is this what the world is coming to?


There are plenty of examples of people using violence to demand the continuation of free stuff. Large parts of Brazil have been shut down by protests/riots and the ongoing violence via demonstrators who are outraged that the government is scaling back the unsustainable [and terrible] entitlement programs of Lula/Dilma and their PT.

[Napoleonic Bonapartism]

Well, at least a good riot gets all the idle Greeks and Brazilians out of the house. Look, lets not have this devolve into another "is taxation theft" thread. A lot of reasonably minded people don't think it is.

[ByzantinePowerGame]

Well, at least a good riot gets all the idle Greeks and Brazilians out of the house. Look, lets not have this devolve into another "is taxation theft" thread. At lot of reasonably minded people don't think it is.

My point on violence is that I am consistent and non-hypocritical in my views on violence, and my theories on violence are internally consistent.

You have a right to use violence to defend yourself, your natural rights, and your justly acquired property. This means if a politician tries to infringe my natural right to grow my own vegetables, at the behest of his corporate sponsors, I have a right to use violence.


You have no right to use violence to compel others to give you stuff you are not entitled to. I have a right to use violence to compel a thief to return my bicycle, my automobile, my silver bars, etc. I have no right to use violence to compel a legislator to vote for a bill that will provide me financial benefits at the expense of others.

My concept of violence centers around my variation of the basic non-aggression principle.


When people use legislators to vote to extract wealth from others, for their own benefit, they are using violence via the political process and via proxies. When you use the mechanism of the state to take from your neighbor for your benefit, you are using the state's near-monopoly on the application of violence, via its coercive policing function, to facilitate for the transfer of your neighbor's stuff to you. It is actually worse than if you just went into his house and started taking stuff, because at least the latter would require some physical courage on your part, the former is cowardly.

[HannibalExMachina]

there are no natural rights, and defense of your property is foremost a matter for the authorities. bang.

your non-agression is cherrypicked where it suits you, you have no right to violence save where the law allows it, so:




btw, these leftists seem to follow your example, by defending their rights to live and not be bancrupted by a bunch of plutocrats, so your double standard is glaringly obvious.

[NosPortatArma]

This means if a politician tries to infringe my natural right to grow my own vegetables I have a right to use violence.

No.

You don't have that "right". Rights are given by society. They gave you no such right. If society has, by some collective method of deciding, declared that thou shalt not be allowed to grow vegetables, if you use force to attempt to violate this, society will use force against you.

there are no natural rights. Just because you imagine you have these rights doesn't mean you have them. You have exactly ZERO rights until other people decide that you do. Rights isn't something you bestow upon yourself. Rights are for other people to bestow on you.

[HannibalExMachina]

sadly, this problem will persist as long as people buy into the fiction of god-given rights, aka natural rights. thats why democracy is often problematic in countries like the US.

but i guess youd have to be a commie to understand that.

[the_mango55]

It's unnerving how much pleasure some people on the right take in imagining commiting justified homicide. Look at the OP's first couple of posts listing all the specific ordinance the OP wants to use to kill these hypothetical enemies. Usually this kind of fantasy involved a burglar who said conservative can kill and get away with it, but recently it's more often been rioters and protestors as the subject of these daydreams.

[IronBrig4]

Wait, silver bars?

[ByzantinePowerGame]

No.

You don't have that "right". Rights are given by society. They gave you no such right. If society has, by some collective method of deciding, declared that thou shalt not be allowed to grow vegetables, if you use force to attempt to violate this, society will use force against you.

there are no natural rights. Just because you imagine you have these rights doesn't mean you have them. You have exactly ZERO rights until other people decide that you do. Rights isn't something you bestow upon yourself. Rights are for other people to bestow on you.

My rights come from God, nature, or by mere virtue of existence, and are backed and defended by my willingness to use violence against anybody who dares try to infringe them.


I suppose you supported the Holocaust because German society decided to do it? I suppose you supported slavery and apartheid because all of those policies were legal, decided by the state.

If the majority in the USA decide blacks have no rights and are to be chattel slavery, then that makes it so?


Rights are not given by society, your conception of a right is warped beyond description.

Wait, silver bars?

You can put your faith in inked paper, I prefer something a bit more real. Silver and gold are useful to have for barter, or if necessary, for bribes to flee the country in the event the US version of the NKVD shuts down exit points.

btw, these leftists seem to follow your example, by defending their rights to live and not be bancrupted by a bunch of plutocrats, so your double standard is glaringly obvious.

Being required to pay for your own healthcare is the normal state of any society.

The "right" to have other people pay for your healthcare is no right at all.

[Big War Bird]

I have silver bars - they make good paper weights

[ByzantinePowerGame]

sadly, this problem will persist as long as people buy into the fiction of god-given rights, aka natural rights. thats why democracy is often problematic in countries like the US.

but i guess youd have to be a commie to understand that.

Rights come from the government, or society, according to you...

When Hitler decides to revoke the rights of Jews, and society supports that, it must be okay, because rights come from society and the government. If the government, if society, decides that Jews have no right to live, and that they must die, then so be it... Democracy at its finest.


Those who do not believe in natural rights have no coherent, internally consistent argument as to why the Holocaust was wrong. Rights are not inherent, rights are not natural, God is a fiction, the existence of the intangible concept of rights that go along with us and are inherent with our existence is wrong, it is a fiction... So if society decides Jews have no right to live, how can that be objectively wrong? How can it be wrong on any level that is consistent with the idea of rights not being natural?


If man has natural rights, then the holocaust was wrong.

If man has no natural rights and rights come from the government and are determined by society, then not only can the holocaust not be wrong, but it was right because society approved of it and society decides what is right.