You won’t, though, because he isn’t on the right. Yes, he is an idiot. He calls for the military to mutiny and “point our weapons at the people who keep killing black people.” The police kill a dozen or so black people a year. That isn’t even a single weekend in Chicago. Wanna point your weapons at those who kill black people? Point them at other blacks.
Try to find any information about the number of National Guard troops currently deployed in Washington, DC to guard the capitol. The information was there yesterday. It doesn’t seem to be available today. Almost like we are not permitted to know. The last I saw, it was 2,500 troops authorized until at least May 23. The Capitol is fenced off like this:
I also would like to know how the Vice-President was giving orders to the Army, seeing as how he isn’t in their chain of command. Doesn’t seem to me that his orders would be lawful ones.
The National Guard troops in the Capitol have formed a QRF, which they recently deployed. Note in the picture below that the QRF has no firearms, and there are no armor panels in their plate carriers. At least three of the eight members of this squad have mags in the ammo pouches. Does this mean that they are only armed with riot gear for this specific mission, but have the option of firearms?
Meanwhile, the US military is busy purging itself of anyone who is remotely Republican or has Conservative leanings. This, coupled with a push to call all police forces tools of racist oppression, makes me believe that we are seeing the pieces being put in place for a national police force. This is typical of communist takeovers- the personnel for the national police force comes from pro-Communist forces. That’s right- BLM and Antifa will likely be the core of this new police force, if history is any guide. In fact, documents leaked in 2016 show that George Soros was planning exactly that, and has been funding BLM to achieve this goal. Barak Obama himself advocated for the Federalization of the nation’s police in 2011.
The reality is exactly the opposite. It is virtually illegal for anyone to have firearms in Washington, DC. So the protesters followed the law, leaving their firearms in the nearest location where it was legal for them to be. They rented a hotel in nearby Virginia, stashed the weapons there with a person tasked to ensure they didn’t fall into the wrong hands, and proceeded into Washington for the protest.
Instead of proving some nefarious plot, it shows me that the people involved were doing what they could to comply with the law. If they were actually trying to overthrow the government, it was the worst plot ever.
The “can’t yell fire in a crowded theater” trope is worn out bullshit. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote what is perhaps the most well-known — yet misquoted and misused — phrase in Supreme Court history: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”
Whenever a free speech controversy hits, someone will drag this phrase out as proof of limits on the First Amendment before using that limit as an excuse to violate other rights. Holmes’ quote has become a crutch for every censor in America, yet the quote is misunderstood. Those who quote Holmes might want to actually read the case where the phrase originated before using it as their main defense. If they did, they’d realize it was never binding law, and the case it comes from, U.S. v. Schenck, was overturned over 40 years ago.
U.S. v. Schenck had nothing to do with fires, theaters, or false statements. Instead, the Court was deciding whether Charles Schenck, the Secretary of the Socialist Party of America, could be convicted under the Espionage Act for writing and distributing a pamphlet that expressed his opposition to the draft during World War I. The pamphlet did not call for violence. It did not even call for civil disobedience. All it did was express opposition to the draft.
The Court’s description of the pamphlet proves it to be milder than any of the dozens of protests currently going on around this country every day:
It said, “Do not submit to intimidation,” but in form, at least, confined itself to peaceful measures such as a petition for the repeal of the act. The other and later printed side of the sheet was headed “Assert Your Rights.”
The crowded theater remark that everyone remembers was an analogy Holmes made before issuing the court’s holding. He was explaining that the First Amendment is not absolute. It is what lawyers call dictum, a justice’s ancillary opinion that doesn’t directly involve the facts of the case and has no binding authority. In fact, the statement was The actual ruling, that the pamphlet posed a “clear and present danger” to a nation at war, landed Schenk in prison and continued to haunt the court for years to come.
Two similar Supreme Court cases decided later the same year–Debs v. U.S. and Frohwerk v. U.S.–also sent anti-war activists to jail under the Espionage Act for the mildest of government criticism. Together, the three cases did more damage to First Amendment than any other set of cases in the 20th century.
It wasn’t until Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969 that Schenck and any authority it carried was overturned. There, the Court held that inflammatory speech–and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan–is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech is directed to incite or produce imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. (Note that this is the same reason why Trump can’t be prosecuted for what he said in his speech on January 6)
Today, despite the “crowded theater” quote’s legal irrelevance, advocates of government overreach have not stopped trotting it out as the final word on the lawful limits of the First Amendment. That quote is worse than useless in defining the boundaries of the limits on speech or on government tyranny. When used metaphorically, it can be deployed against any constitutional right. This is intellectually lazy and is outright dishonest.
Like the original case, this statement is being used by a tyrannical government that is using it to violate the rights of people who are on the wrong side of the political debate.
The people being held due to their arrests stemming from the January 6 incident are being beaten and tortured by guards while in custody, reports Politico.
One Capitol riot defendant, Ryan Samsel, was severely beaten by correctional officers, is now blind in one eye, has a skull fracture, and detached retina. One of the prisoners reports that a guard declared, “I hate all white people and your honky religion.”
One attorney remarked that his client was taken to an area of the jail that was out of sight of security cameras, then beaten by guards. “I have seen Ryan. He has two black eyes to this day, two weeks later. All the skin is ripped off both wrists, which shows the zip ties and how tight they were,” said the attorney.
We continue to edge ever closer to the concentration camp phase, it is unreal.
Biden claims that tomorrow, he will sign an Executive Order requiring people to undergo a background check when buying a so-called “ghost gun.” I want to know just how that will happen.
Will he declare that an 80% lower is now a firearm? OK, so then a company will make 75% lowers. Are you going to outlaw paperweights? I just don’t see that working out.
Or will he make it illegal to sell a home made firearm? How would this be enforced? Will it work as well as making it illegal to sell unregistered drugs?
Even if he does issue it, any executive order he signs will have to clear the same hurdle as Trump’s bump stock ban. The courts have already ruled that an EO can’t be used to make law.
The left has taken a picture of a group of people at the range to mean that they participated in paramilitary training. Our blogshoot, like any common day at the range, looked a lot like this.
