Is everyone unphased by deploying federal special forces on unarmed citizens?

[OakRiver]

Hopefully he called his sister.

He might want to call his brother too

 

[JCSR]

So the OP drops this feces bomb and hides? I would love to hear his solution to all this. At first I was on the "just let the lefty cities burn" side but after a little more thought I'm torn. After all we as taxpayer are going to pay for all this one way or another.

 

[1nderbeard]

Words matter. Federal agents aren't federal special forces. I think the OP is a little provocative.

Yes. If rioters damage federal property the feds are authorized to use force to protect the property.

I'm not sure if 100% on on board with this next part: if the local/state government refuses to protect citizens and their property against rioters, the federal government has a duty to protect citizens from damage. Of course this principle can be abused, if words become deemed hateful violence. So I'm not sure I'm all for that just yet.
"Mostly Peacefull [except for those brief moments where they set fires and shot people] protests"

 

[OakRiver]

So the OP drops this feces bomb and hides? I would love to hear his solution to all this. At first I was on the "just let the lefty cities burn" side but after a little more thought I'm torn. After all we as taxpayer are going to pay for all this one way or another.

Seems he didn't get enough attention here: https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...hen-9mm-fmj-going-$-40-round.html#post8375313

Yeah, I guess we’ll see if this improves or gets worse. I expect deploying army guys to detain citizens doesn’t bode well.

 

[DMTJAGER]

For the sake of brevity I will not quote that.

The answer is when they are asked to do so by the State in question.

True enough that is how our system of government is supposed to work. the feds can not step in unless asked to do so.

And if as is the case with Portland, Minneapolis, most of CA, Chicago, NYC the politicians in charge not only have no intentions what so ever of asking for help to restore rder but are actively adding, abetting and supporting and enabling the rioters to destroy entire cities, then what can be done to restore order and allow what are literally 100's of thousands of citizens who are being forced to live under tyranny forced upon them by the rioting to once again live their lives a free Americans?

Are you proposing that unless a Mayor or Governor asks for help (That has vowed not to under ANY circumstance and is as i said is a willing party to the rioters) that the absolute utter mayhem and insanity is allowed to continue and the citizens only option is to pray it simply stops and if i feel it will undoubtedly continue to grow and spread into other communities until citizens themselves take action and it ends up in open armed conflict between citizens and the rioters?

I'm not trying to be anything but pragmatic and a absolute realist in this matter. These are unprecedented acts in American history never have we seen open insurrection like this that is also openly supported and even funded by fully half of our government since the not so civil civil war and even then the south had no intentions of over throwing the entire American government they simply wished to secede from the union and form their own country, so in fact the actions we are witnessing right now ARE entirely unprecedented in American history.

 

[2A_Tom]

I had to skip several (10 post) pages. I cannot keep up.

A point about catch and release, it may be that there are specific people that are sought and people that meet the general description of said individuals are being stopped and questioned.

Once upon a time in an America, not so far away, that was called police work.

 

[two70]

It is a really really bad precedent to be setting. When Biden or the next wacko lefty bird puts them on us, remember this.

The precedent has been set long before now. The Little Rock riots of 1954 are just one example. Do you really think the lack of a precedent would ever stop a wacko lefty? Even if the lack of a precedent were a possible impediment, the media would just invent the "precedent" or whatever cover they needed.

Hell ****ing no.
They never learn, that's why they're on that side of the isle. Once the mind virus has infected them, no matter how many times they see their policies result in total devastation they will think that they just need another try.

If you let them into your communities, your communities will look exactly like the communities they fled from.

Don't be fooled by them playing lip service that they had a change of heart either, the second they enter the polling booth, they beg for the same policies to come to your neighborhood.
There may be very rare exceptions, but they are almost unheard of.

Many of them never learn because they never have to face the full consequences of their actions, they are either protected from those consequences by pandering politicians or they have the means to insulate themselves from those consequences. The ones that truly are incapable of learning are those that recognize the consequences, flee, and then have the hubris to promote the same damn stuff that destroyed the place they left while thinking it could never happen again.

Eh. Maybe if it bothers you turn the channel?

I guess you need to be more specific about what you’re reacting to. If it’s to what happened in Portland, they were there to protect federal property. I don’t see a problem with that. If they’re there to stop people from protesting that’s clearly a problem to worry about but I don’t see any indication of that happening. If you’re talking about sending federal agents to cities to work with state and local law enforcement, notwithstanding the fact that it’s unsolicited, it’s not to work independently of the state and local police. I suspect that many of these city officials not wanting the help actually want it, but don’t want to say it publicly. And of course the press is going to spin this as Trump fascism.

I think you're on to something here at least in some cases.. Listening to the Chicago Mayor, I got the impression that she was secretly glad for the help but had to go through the OMB motions.

 

[BugI02]

ANTIFA = Anarchist/Socialist

BLM = Socialism/Separatism/Reparations

This is not Waco, Ruby Ridge or Wounded Knee the Federal government is protecting Federal Property. The time for petty ideological stands is drawing to a close. Getting the vapors over witnessing Federal forces in a semi Communist state won’t do any good. The fight between good and evil is afoot as always.

View attachment 89264

 

[Alpo]

View attachment 89265

My opinion:? Sedition results in rendition

For the rest: come within 4 feet and you get your head broken

 

[BugI02]

The precedent has been set long before now. The Little Rock riots of 1954 are just one example. Do you really think the lack of a precedent would ever stop a wacko lefty? Even if the lack of a precedent were a possible impediment, the media would just invent the "precedent" or whatever cover they needed.



Many of them never learn because they never have to face the full consequences of their actions, they are either protected from those consequences by pandering politicians or they have the means to insulate themselves from those consequences. The ones that truly are incapable of learning are those that recognize the consequences, flee, and then have the hubris to promote the same damn stuff that destroyed the place they left while thinking it could never happen again.

[This. It seems quite congruent that socialism and liberalism always believe last time wasn't true socialism or liberalism and they'll surely get it right next time]


I think you're on to something here at least in some cases.. Listening to the Chicago Mayor, I got the impression that she was secretly glad for the help but had to go through the OMB motions.

*.*

 

[raider600]

Were they sent to de-escalate, or escalate? Seems they are doing a great job of the latter.

 

[jamil]

For the sake of brevity I will not quote that.

The answer is when they are asked to do so by the State in question.

I can see that people who have a sort of law-and-order bias would really like to see some law and order in these cities. I think they'd be reasonably eager to accept Trump sending feds in at least in some limited capacity. And of course people would reasonably oppose some of that. There will just be people all over the spectrum on this. You lean pretty libertarian and your answer is what I would expect. Mine is pretty close to that. I say don't send in feds unilaterally unless you have to defend federal buildings because locals won't do it. I actually WANT them to do that if locals refuse to protect federal buildings/monuments/whatever. I think we're pretty close to a moderate, reasonable view on that, which most sane people would at least consider us sane for having that position. Okay, so where is the boundary for what is sane that most people would say is sane?

Is it sane for Trumpers to want feds in there whether the locals invited them or not, to help restore order? Not if you're far left and think Trump is literally Hitler. I think it's fair to want order restored if you're a law-n-order type, and the locals aren't doing it. Not that I agree with it, but both sides can argue about that. It's not insane. I think the point where it goes over into the insane right, would be where they start supporting the feds unilaterally imposing curfews, unilaterally arresting people for committing crimes that are uniquely locally jurisdictional, federally imposed martial law, things like that. Supporting that at this point would be insane.

On the left, is it sane for people not to want feds enforcing laws in their own locales, even if they are protecting federal property? No. That's still sane. I don't agree with it. Both sides can argue about it though. Where is out of bounds on the left? Well, rhetoric for one thing. No, Trump isn't sending in storm troopers for **** sake. That's kinda nuts. Advocating that feds should be arrested by state/local police for protecting federal property, that's definitely nuts too. It's nothing about what you're saying. It's just that you got me thinking about when it's okay to accept people simply disagreeing with us, and when the thing they're saying is bat **** crazy and we need to alarm on it. I don't think what Trump is doing so far is an alarming situation yet, contrary to the screechy people on the extreme left.

 

[jamil]

Words matter. Federal agents aren't federal special forces. I think the OP is a little provocative.

Yes. If rioters damage federal property the feds are authorized to use force to protect the property.

I'm not sure if 100% on on board with this next part: if the local/state government refuses to protect citizens and their property against rioters, the federal government has a duty to protect citizens from damage. Of course this principle can be abused, if words become deemed hateful violence. So I'm not sure I'm all for that just yet.
"Mostly Peacefull [except for those brief moments where they set fires and shot people] protests"

What can the federal government do that doesn't cross a line? How far can they go in your opinion?

 

[jamil]

The precedent has been set long before now. The Little Rock riots of 1954 are just one example. Do you really think the lack of a precedent would ever stop a wacko lefty? Even if the lack of a precedent were a possible impediment, the media would just invent the "precedent" or whatever cover they needed.



Many of them never learn because they never have to face the full consequences of their actions, they are either protected from those consequences by pandering politicians or they have the means to insulate themselves from those consequences. The ones that truly are incapable of learning are those that recognize the consequences, flee, and then have the hubris to promote the same damn stuff that destroyed the place they left while thinking it could never happen again.



I think you're on to something here at least in some cases.. Listening to the Chicago Mayor, I got the impression that she was secretly glad for the help but had to go through the OMB motions.

During an interview with one of the city council people I think it was discussed that she had said in a different setting something to the effect that she could use some help from the FBI to deal with the spike in crime. But when you're in front of the cameras, you have to be on message. She'd get canceled if someone had a recording of her saying that she wanted federal help.

 

[Route 45]

warzone? Cities burning? Really? My sister lives in Portland and hasn’t reported that...

Your sister works for CNN?

[video=youtube;B8z0jFxOmFo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8z0jFxOmFo[/video]

 

[jamil]

*.*

I wish we would define "liberalism" the way the rest of the world does because then we can use the word more literally. It's primarily in the US that "liberal" became associated with any ideas left of center, including the left-wing collectivist thinking. There's some overlap, but liberal doesn't literally mean left. It means more like not restricted. Liberals don't support socialism. Progressives do.

The first example that comes to mind of what a real liberal is: Alpo. He is left of center, kinda favors free enterprise over socialism, but not without sufficient regulation and taxation. Kinda likes some well targeted social programs, but not to the extreme of a total welfare state. Kinda likes to prioritize support for working class/unions. He's pretty much on the individualist side of the individualist/collectivist divide. So not an identitarian leftist socialist. NOT communist. Basically an old-school democrat. I think that's the distinguishing point between collectivist progressives who support ideas like socialism and liberals, who still want a mostly capitalist economy, but with regulation/taxation, meritocracy, "fairness" in terms of equal opportunity, and some social programs to catch the people at the bottom.

I'd say I'm far enough from Alpo to disagree with him on some things, but I also overlap enough that I can agree. But with progressives I have very little in policy that I can agree with. And that seems to hold true for Alpo too. We have some common ground with liberals. Not much at all with the SJW progressives.

 

[jamil]

warzone? Cities burning? Really? My sister lives in Portland and hasn’t reported that...

Did the violence we saw in the videos of what happened outside of the federal court house happen? Or were those videos faked? C'mon. Be honest.

 

[jamil]

How many people have died as a result of the protests? Like legitimately protesters killing people? I think I heard of a few shootings, not many if any deaths but I’m not following it religiously.

Are local governments being overrun? Is the national guard overwhelmed? The states haven’t asked for help for the reasons I mentioned above.

Curious, have you been threatened or has your home damaged?

I worked downtown before Covid. I’m Remote now. Our tower was damaged that one weekend, but I haven’t heard of any more destruction in Indianapolis since chargers were made against the officer in the Floyd incident.

It seems unnecessary and moving towards totalitarian in my opinion.

How many killed? Have you read the news from Louisville? I can't tell you much about Indy because I live across the bridge from Louisville. Buddy I can tell you what's happened here.

Also, I think you might overestimate how totalitarian what's happening now is. How do you get your information? It seems to me that you're unwilling to see all that's happening. If you think the violence has not gotten out of control, you're filtering out some important parts of reality man.

 

[looper]

My answer: Protest - no Fed. action required
Rioting - Put em down hard

 

[Jaybird1980]

Where exactly are these "Special Forces" being deployed against people that are committing misdemeanors or less?

Seriously asking if this is happening.