This is rather chilling...

[Pio1980]

Originally Posted by Oerets

Agree with you and could tell from the post we were on the same wave length.

Yes they are a very vocal minority and seem to enjoy being the bully. Have a neighbor who will wear a exposed sidearm on his lawn mower. I'm in the city BTW.

Intimidation, technically "menacing".

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by GChief

And since I read and do really post, I am a middle of the road independent that thinks the extremes of both teams are equally effed up.

Individual examples may be equally nuts, but I continue to insist that there are more violent people on the right, and they act in more dangerous ways. Check out this study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies: Pushed to Extremes: Domestic Terrorism amid Polarization and Protest

The attached graph from this study illustrates the burgeoning frequency of far right incidents. And the paper points out, just after this graph, "Most violent far-right perpetrators were motivated by white supremacist or anti-government sentiments, and they committed most of the fatal attacks in 2021. Of the 30 fatalities in 2021, 28 resulted from far-right terrorist attacks." (emphasis added)

[whell]

Originally Posted by Pio1980

This is basically why "originalism" is nonsense, and we know what a rapid fire/high capacity interchangeable magazine tactical firearm is by definition.
Semantics is no defense of the obvious.

Well, if you want to codify something into law and make it enforceable, you probably need a definition of the thing that you're looking to ban/enforce/penalize, etc. Such specificity is not semantics.

[Pio1980]

Originally Posted by whell

Well, if you want to codify something into law and make it enforceable, you probably need a definition of the thing that you're looking to ban/enforce/penalize, etc. Such specificity is not semantics.

Which I provided in the quoted post.

[whell]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

The attached graph from this study illustrates the burgeoning frequency of far right incidents. And the paper points out, just after this graph, "Most violent far-right perpetrators were motivated by white supremacist or anti-government sentiments, and they committed most of the fatal attacks in 2021. Of the 30 fatalities in 2021, 28 resulted from far-right terrorist attacks." (emphasis added)

Interesting graph. It supports the observation that leftist violence is rarely challenged when it occurs, and convictions for such violence are rare. For instance, it's interesting that leftist/anarchist activity, in many cases becoming violent and destructive, during 2020 was unfolding in cities across the country, and the graph shows leftist activity going down.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Well, if you want to codify something into law and make it enforceable, you probably need a definition of the thing that you're looking to ban/enforce/penalize, etc. Such specificity is not semantics.

Assault rifles were defined by the Nazis in 1944 with the introduction of the Sturmgewehr 44 (assault rifle 44). Moreover, they were also defined for the (largely effective) law banning assault weapons in 1994.

[GChief]

Originally Posted by whell

Interesting graph. It supports the observation that leftist violence is rarely challenged when it occurs, and convictions for such violence are rare. For instance, it's interesting that leftist/anarchist activity, in many cases becoming violent and destructive, during 2020 was unfolding in cities across the country, and the graph shows leftist activity going down.

If you really drill down on the BLM protests you will probably notice the rioting/looting was opportunist taking advantage of the situation. And I am not saying some protestors did not get sucked in.

As I have said both teams are culpable. But there is a difference between protest that turns violent and planned violence.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Interesting graph. It supports the observation that leftist violence is rarely challenged when it occurs, and convictions for such violence are rare. For instance, it's interesting that leftist/anarchist activity, in many cases becoming violent and destructive, during 2020 was unfolding in cities across the country, and the graph shows leftist activity going down.

Almost none of the deaths linked to BLM protests were caused by the demonstrators. A review of 27 deaths linked to either BLM protests or subsequent violence indicated that those ultimately alleged to be culpable, in cases where a suspect or perpetrator were identified, were almost never actually part of the protest movement. Indeed, the most notorious of them were committed by Far Right wingnuts infiltrating the mobs.

[Rajoo]

Since right to bear arms, freedom of speech, petitioning the government and organized militia are all stated in the constitution, why isn't Trump's Insurrection Militia's march to the capitol with the stated purpose of hanging Mike Pence deemed legal? Surprised that no one is claiming this on Team Trump.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by whell

Interesting graph. It supports the observation that leftist violence is rarely challenged when it occurs, and convictions for such violence are rare. For instance, it's interesting that leftist/anarchist activity, in many cases becoming violent and destructive, during 2020 was unfolding in cities across the country, and the graph shows leftist activity going down.

Look again. The graphed value for leftist acts goes up in 2020 over 2019, from about 20 to maybe 35. Are you gaslighting us? We can read a graph, even if you can't.

This discussion in the study may help you understand what is on the graph:

This analysis focuses on terrorism, which is defined as the deliberate use—or threat—of violence by non-state actors in order to achieve political goals and create a broad psychological impact.
...
The brief does not analyze the broad topic of hate speech or hate crimes, though hate speech and hate crimes are clearly concerning.
...
The brief also does not include other forms of civil disturbance or criminal activity outside of the definition of terrorism, such as looting or trespassing. Some of these disturbances do not involve violence, and many individuals that participate in these activities lack political goals or an intention to cause broad psychological impact. However, the data set does include terrorist attacks committed by demonstrators, attacks targeting demonstrators, and attacks intentionally timed to occur alongside demonstrations, often to obscure the identity or the intent of the perpetrators.

Here's the first paragraph on the CSIS from Wikipedia. Note it has been labled "centrist" by U.S News.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) is an American think tank based in Washington, D.C..[5] CSIS was founded as the Center for Strategic and International Studies of Georgetown University in 1962. The center conducts policy studies and strategic analyses of political, economic and security issues throughout the world, with a specific focus on issues concerning international relations, trade, technology, finance, energy and geostrategy.[6]

In the University of Pennsylvania's 2019 Global Go To Think Tanks Report, CSIS is ranked the number one think tank in the United States across all fields, the "Top Defense and National Security Think Tank" in the world, and the 4th best think tank in the world overall.[7][8] CSIS has been named the number one think tank for Defense and National Security for the past seven years, and has been declared the 'Center of Excellence'.[8]

Since its founding, CSIS "has been dedicated to finding ways to sustain American prominence and prosperity as a force for good in the world", according to its website.[9] CSIS is officially a bipartisan think tank with scholars that represent varying points of view across the political spectrum. The think tank is known for inviting well-known foreign policy and public service officials from the U.S. Congress and the executive branch, including those affiliated with either the Democratic or the Republican Party as well as foreign officials of varying political backgrounds. It has been labeled a "centrist" think tank by U.S. News & World Report.[10]