If any of the occupants of that Florida registered speedboat in Cuba were US and had drugs on them, enjoy your FAFO moment, USA.

Also, fuck the men's US Hockey for not getting a team's worth of 10 min roughing misconducts after finding their locker room invaded by a pedophile

StOp AcTiViSt JuDgEs

How about we stop activist cops?

Go look up how cops respond to right wing vs left wing protests. And how they respond to escalations, even the when the police themselves are the escalation.

Which protests does "police escalation" happen at?

Look it up.

I'll wait.

Ok, email to the mood team has been sent. Let's see what happens. If this thread is deemed unacceptable... The my apologies to everyone and may whatever higher power we worship have mercy on all of us.

I'm actually going to report my own posts to the bluesky admins. If this is against the EULA, ie, an academic examination of when it's legal to act illegally, then that's everything you need to know about your right to actually resist tyranny. The only way it will ever be "legal" is retroactively.

At which point...in the face of a government that can and does justify killing you for the act of merely bearing those arms...what's the point of 2a at all?

Either we are free to shoot back at some point, or we're all structurally required to be killed by the first govt who dares to be oppressive.

If this conversation is against the EULA of the laws that govern *individual citizens* and just the jurisprudential infrastructure such as lawyers and judges...then 2a fundamentally doesn't exist. The right to bear arms is necessarily limited to the right to bear, but never *use*, arms.

I would argue that trying to understand those ethical and legally justifiable circumstances is *exactly what we should be doing* when it comes to situations where 2a might conceivably be put into action. Ie, you cannot and should not use 2a without having this conversation.

Before these posts are banned, deleted, and reported to some terror watchlist, please remember that*it's not ME implicitly advocating violence against the government*, it's the people who literally *wrote* the US Constitution. I am merely trying to understand when it's ethical to employ that right.

....against the need to ensure that the general population was, by a baked in fundamental right, to EVENTUALLY use legal force against their own government.

Maybe they meant that only 3 out of 5 sufficiently oppressed people could start shooting back before everyone else feels it necessary?

So we are once again confronted with the blind spots of the legal framework for the citizenry to employ violence against tyranny. The framers had to weigh the likelihood of people using violence because of an insufficiently generalized threat they disproportionately and unacceptably targets them...

This non-uniformity of threat is what produced the complicity of the general population *as well as the Jews* during the Holocaust. At some level, people thought it sufficiently acceptable that Jews should die before they finally agreed to resist. By which point, of course, it was far, far too late

Also remember: NOT EVERYONE IS OPPOSED EQUALLY, NOT DOES OPPRESSION CARRY A UNIFORM THREAT TO EVERYONE. Should certain populations have to WAIT until everyone agrees to resist? What if that population begins to be exterminated before the majority agrees violent resistance is justified?

People out there trying to suggest that 2A is for people to like, show fascists their guns with the expectation that the fascists will immediately and magically disband.

The right, the legally defensible RIGHT, is to bear, and where a reasonable person thinks it's necessary, to USE arms vs tyranny.

The first 10 seconds of No Reason by Sum 41 is one of the best 10 second intros to any song I've heard. Like damn I could just listen to those 10 seconds on repeat, but if I did I'd never hear the LAST 20 seconds of that same song, which is equally epic for an outro.

Dammit Sum 41, you're TOO good

Happiness is peace in action. Peace is happiness at rest. Neither has to be perfect to be real.

People are so desperate to stop trans women from assaulting women in women's change rooms, (because trans women are just men) that they vote in a man who routinely assaulted women (and girls) in women's change rooms and bragged about it on national TV.

Try sleeping once the threat is gone and people who also cared about the missing and the dead remember how you didn't say a word when the night cleaning crews came to your neighbours houses one by one.

Just try sleeping.

Unless maybe you think that...saying something with strong gestures is better

No literally, try sleeping at night when you've lived through a period where friends who you thought were safe, untouchable, were taken from their homes in the night with much noise that no one can recall hearing.

You're on the list, and you know it. You used your friends lives as ante. Good job!

The fact that there might be retribution for any events that might transpire....you know that retribution is coming no matter how well you behave, right? Only those with privilege have any chance of getting through, but try sleeping at night after all your out-group friends are vanished and/or dead

The "lose" conditions might come sooner than they would have otherwise, but come they must. Fascism not resisted is fascism rampant and all-consuming. Each time they fail to be forcibly stopped, they take over that space.

Fighting Nazis may be a losing prospect, but it's not the wrong one.

The fascists (on the streets and in the halls) aren't in a fight with us. They're setting the stage for us. They are deliberately creating no-win situations, as all good strategy attempts to do.

If there are no win conditions, there are no lose conditions either, not that represent poorer outcomes

This is standard counter-protest rhetoric, and, as always, the presence of unambiguous, undeniable fascists invalidates it.

You cannot win a war if you're unable to change your tactics when it's needed. Staying on message is great, but when the game has changed to violence, words no longer matter.

There's rhetoric that I find interesting to contemplate from an academic and purely not practice oriented theory:

The talking point that physically influencing people like Jayk Long in Minneapolis to reconsider their approach all the way out of town is "playing into their trap", a thread:

One thing "law and order" types who buy tanks for their local police force don't mention, is that it is an inevitability--an INEVITABILITY--that those resources will be used against the citizenry they are ostensibly meant to protect.

I've been thinking about how we as humans are so often incapable of applying to ourselves the grace and comfort that we expertly offer to others. It's frustrating as hell, but maybe it's an opportunity? It forces us to rely on community and relationships, which is good because no one can solo this.

This is a flagrant and I can only assume intentional misrepresentation of what the charter. The notwithstanding clause allows a law to stand notwithstanding the fact that it contravenes the charter. It does not say that the law is constitutional. Only that it can't be challenged constitutionally.

Scott Adams is the latest inductee into the Hall of Don't Live Your Life In Such A That People Celebrate Your Death.

That's an adhesive surface, right? That's why subsequent powder applications don't change the colouring from the first application, right?

Is this a standalone piece or is this a transfer sheet that can be applied to clothing or other surfaces?

Either way, this is wicked cool.

Oh, it's a sticky surface, isn't it?

Can this be put onto clothing items, or other surfaces? Or is it a standalone art piece?

I'm confused: how does brushing the colouring over the areas you weed only apply the first colour? Like the skin tone powder gets all over the hair colour field, but doesn't discolour it?

Otherwise, this video is amazing I wish I could do this. Is this a Cricut transfer vinyl?