| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17776 Posts
On January 25 2026 06:33 decafchicken wrote: Well dhs posted a picture of a handgun on a car seat so that should be all the evidence they need 👍 Well, the dude had a gun permit so technically he could own a gun somewhere sometime. Is that not proof enough of his guilt and insurrectionist affiliations? | ||
|
ahswtini
Northern Ireland22212 Posts
On January 25 2026 07:02 Manit0u wrote: Well, the dude had a gun permit so technically he could own a gun somewhere sometime. Is that not proof enough of his guilt and insurrectionist affiliations? 2A advocates completely silent | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States2803 Posts
On January 25 2026 02:06 LightSpectra wrote: MAGA are 100% going to say without a hint of irony that the fact that the guy owned a gun was justification enough to shoot him. I'd like to say I'm a prophet, but "hypocritical morons use the most hypocritically moronic argument possible" was always the most easily predictable future. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24059 Posts
I mean, I strongly advise people that oppose fascism learn how to own and use a gun safely ASAP. As per my earlier reference to This Nonviolent Stuff’ll Get You Killed and the clear inability for the state government to secure its citizens against this federal invasion. Even if you never plan to use it (as in you'd choose pacifism in the face of your family being taken/brutalized/etc in your own home with 0 legality), you should know how to, so you don't have to learn from 0 if you ever change your mind on the pacifism thing. | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17776 Posts
| ||
|
LightSpectra
United States2803 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States44137 Posts
On January 25 2026 01:53 JimmyJRaynor wrote: The analyst projects the China deal is a bargaining chip in the upcoming USMCA negotiations. There are no USMCA negotiations. The expiration of the first agreement Trump dictated to them is 2036. There's a talk going on soon about whether to extend the agreement beyond that date but there's no renegotiation of the agreement, the terms are known and agreed upon. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44137 Posts
On January 25 2026 09:34 Manit0u wrote: Oh no. Let's not to this again please... How does owning and knowing how to use the gun protect you from the government? They have tanks and drones, your pea-shooter won't help you one bit. A Christmas Carol. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3304 Posts
On January 25 2026 09:34 Manit0u wrote: Oh no. Let's not to this again please... How does owning and knowing how to use the gun protect you from the government? They have tanks and drones, your pea-shooter won't help you one bit. It doesn’t seem incoherent to me at all to say “if the system isn’t going to impose consequences on ICE, we better make them scared to break into our houses for no reason another way.” More generally, it’s pretty hard right now to say “don’t take matters into your own hands, the right way is to let the proper authorities mete out justice.” The best argument *against* political violence right now is that it would escalate the violence in a way that would hurt everybody. But when men with guns are coming into your neighbor and killing people for no crime other than peaceful dissent, and no authority exists with both power and inclination to stop or punish them, “guess we’ll have to start shooting back to defend ourselves” starts to look pretty reasonable. Lol, I see I made an impression. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44137 Posts
It’s literally the perfect name for it. You ask Scrooge when he’s in his element at work and he attacks you for your temerity. But 3 spectres show up in his room at midnight and suddenly he’s capable of learning a lesson about how you treat people. | ||
|
Vivax
22405 Posts
On January 25 2026 11:14 KwarK wrote: It’s literally the perfect name for it. You ask Scrooge when he’s in his element at work and he attacks you for your temerity. But 3 spectres show up in his room at midnight and suddenly he’s capable of learning a lesson about how you treat people. The scrooges have organized. They might show up in ones room instead these days. | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17776 Posts
On January 25 2026 10:58 ChristianS wrote: It doesn’t seem incoherent to me at all to say “if the system isn’t going to impose consequences on ICE, we better make them scared to break into our houses for no reason another way.” More generally, it’s pretty hard right now to say “don’t take matters into your own hands, the right way is to let the proper authorities mete out justice.” The best argument *against* political violence right now is that it would escalate the violence in a way that would hurt everybody. But when men with guns are coming into your neighbor and killing people for no crime other than peaceful dissent, and no authority exists with both power and inclination to stop or punish them, “guess we’ll have to start shooting back to defend ourselves” starts to look pretty reasonable. Lol, I see I made an impression. What I meant was that if ICE will be scared of going after people because they're armed then government will simply give them bigger guns, APCs etc. their ROE might also change to favor immediate use of force (even more than now) and it gets worse for everyone. Violence only begets violence. The 2nd amendment might've made sense back in 18th century when population was more widespread and muskets were a thing. Unfortunately it doesn't work today, especially that one of the defining attributes of a state or a country is monopoly on violence. Can't let citizens break that monopoly. | ||
|
Billyboy
1928 Posts
That it is about government over reach is NRA marketing. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44137 Posts
On January 25 2026 12:29 Manit0u wrote: What I meant was that if ICE will be scared of going after people because they're armed then government will simply give them bigger guns, APCs etc. their ROE might also change to favor immediate use of force (even more than now) and it gets worse for everyone. Violence only begets violence. The 2nd amendment might've made sense back in 18th century when population was more widespread and muskets were a thing. Unfortunately it doesn't work today, especially that one of the defining attributes of a state or a country is monopoly on violence. Can't let citizens break that monopoly. A logical reading of the second amendment would cover all armaments. RPGs, cable guided FPV drones etc. It’s not a complicated bit of writing. The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17776 Posts
Now they're justifying Alex Pretti's execution because he was armed which in their eyes could potentially make him dangerous. Back in 2020 they were touting Kyle Rittenhouse as a hero for showing up to protests with an assault rifle and shooting 3 men. It's mind-boggling really. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44137 Posts
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3304 Posts
On January 25 2026 12:29 Manit0u wrote: What I meant was that if ICE will be scared of going after people because they're armed then government will simply give them bigger guns, APCs etc. their ROE might also change to favor immediate use of force (even more than now) and it gets worse for everyone. Violence only begets violence. The 2nd amendment might've made sense back in 18th century when population was more widespread and muskets were a thing. Unfortunately it doesn't work today, especially that one of the defining attributes of a state or a country is monopoly on violence. Can't let citizens break that monopoly. If they have to pacify Minneapolis with tanks and shooting civilians on sight, that’s not a position of strength. It would absolutely be hell for everyone involved, but that’s the kind of thing that actually *might* give GH his revolution. But also I don’t think that’s what would happen. If some ICE officers get shot because they broke into US citizens’ houses without a warrant or identifying themselves, I think it’s pretty likely that citizen would go unpunished. | ||
|
oBlade
United States6267 Posts
On January 25 2026 10:58 ChristianS wrote: It doesn’t seem incoherent to me at all to say “if the system isn’t going to impose consequences on ICE, we better make them scared to break into our houses for no reason another way.” More generally, it’s pretty hard right now to say “don’t take matters into your own hands, the right way is to let the proper authorities mete out justice.” You need a warrant to go in a home. You just do. The FBI arrested 67,000 people in 2025. Did they show you and I a warrant for every one? Or probable cause? Is there a searchable mandatory public database with every warrant for every arrest? Maybe with enough innuendo and saying the FBI are breaking into people's homes and kidnapping people I can get some rubes to similarly mob the FBI until a Democrat is elected to pretend to dismantle them. After all, who invited federal agents to execute national law in states? Perhaps the FBI should only operate in the few parts of the nation that aren't states. Even if you outlawed getting people at their homes, how's public places, ChristianS? That's the only alternative. There's either public or private places. You're on board with public? If you can't get them in either then the law effectively doesn't exist until we have the invention of Star Trek teleporters. On January 25 2026 12:29 Manit0u wrote: What I meant was that if ICE will be scared of going after people because they're armed then government will simply give them bigger guns, APCs etc. their ROE might also change to favor immediate use of force (even more than now) and it gets worse for everyone. Violence only begets violence. The 2nd amendment might've made sense back in 18th century when population was more widespread and muskets were a thing. Unfortunately it doesn't work today, especially that one of the defining attributes of a state or a country is monopoly on violence. Can't let citizens break that monopoly. There is supposedly no reason ICE should be scared when doing their titled and statutory job of enforcing immigration law, because I've been told illegal immigrants are all rainbows who behave better than citizens. And since federal court cases have largely said the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to people who aren't at least legal residents, there's no evidence to accuse illegal immigrants of breaking the law by owning or carrying guns illegally, so there would be no possibility of danger to ICE agents. The truth is if people insist on interfering with federal law enforcement, or especially if the brave leaders in Minneapolis or Minnesota literally want to fight the federal government, that just leads directly to the Insurrection Act being invoked. No need to beef up ICE again. Just the Insurrection Act. And then the leftist disruption networks would have to relocate and find a new place to interfere with federal law enforcement like Washington or California and then the cycle repeats. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3304 Posts
I think the federal government should not be able to kill law-abiding citizens with no consequences, in public *or* in private. I also think posthumously deciding the person is a terrorist assassin and blasting that on all channels immediately after you killed them is despicable, and any sane government would fire people who did something like that. Do you disagree? | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18336 Posts
On January 25 2026 14:52 ChristianS wrote: I’m surprised you’re not coming better-equipped than that. There’s been pretty robust reporting that ICE is entering people’s homes without getting a warrant signed by a judge, are you asserting they’re not? Or do you just think that’s a good thing that should continue? I think the federal government should not be able to kill law-abiding citizens with no consequences, in public *or* in private. I also think posthumously deciding the person is a terrorist assassin and blasting that on all channels immediately after you killed them is despicable, and any sane government would fire people who did something like that. Do you disagree? You're off by a day. That's what he would've told you yesterday, but today he has good reason to doublethink that the government has always had the right to enter into peoples' homes without a warrant and shoot them dead. Anything else would be a thoughtcrime! | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
Kung Fu Cup
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
Bombastic Starleague
The PondCast
HomeStory Cup
Replay Cast
HomeStory Cup
Replay Cast
HomeStory Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
