That wasn't what your previous post stated. If you want to make that argument, fine. But ranting about "no riot having occurred" as a pretext for not charging conspiracy is ignorance of the law, as written.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2101

Explain to me; what's the difference between first world countries that prefer white people versus China that prefer Chinese people, Arab countries that prefer Arab people and Africa that prefer black people? Is there a difference? If not, why is it racist to be white and prefer white people in white countries when black countries/arab countries/chinese countries prefer their own races?

And again, as I stated, creating such a definition of a precrime that requires nothing more than for a group to assemble, completely utterly violates the 1st amendment and overturns the right to assembly. This is not a hard distinction to understand. Authorities have a duty to protect the right of people to assemble and voice political opinions, especially those with objectionable opinions, because those are the ones that need protection. They also have a duty to protect the public from crime once an assembly becomes lawless. And the declaration of an unlawful assembly is the critical moment that defines the tradeoff of secuirty and constitutionally protected rights.

To lock people up in mass arrests the moment they show up to a protest, without any proof of lawless action or terrorist intent, people who abided all laws up to that point, and then declare that they are engaged in a conspiracy- is the kind of banana republic repression we expect to hear from communist regimes violently suppressing dissidents

This is setting a precedent for completely throwing the first amendment out the window. Nobody will be able to assemble to petition their government for a redress of grievances or to express opinions in public at all, when the government can accuse them of being troublemakers and lock them up.

And its obvious how the normalization of crushing political dissent from the January 6th reaction has led to this point. The slippery slope keeps slipping. Civil liberties are a fart in the wind

So it's under-educated guys with some bad personal experience in life, usually these groups are simply toxic (including hate speech that is not legal everywhere). Still very armed in US.
The problem for FBI (thanks to these guys for saving Brett Kavanaugh's ass) is that there's always a risk that a cell or even a sub-cell derails and commit a true, massively lethal, terrorist attack.
Btw this often end up like this (especially when they get massive amount of money, here it could be donations even from a foreign country that would spread shit in US).

This is a dangerous weakness.

This post was edited by Saucisson6000 on Jun 12 2022 11:22am

I definitely have disavowed Antifa after they started embracing the philosophy of "preemptive self-defense" against every single person who tried to speak their opinion. I was a supporter of them and BLM until our cities burned and I took my little sign down and quit defending and advocating them.

I didn't see any signs there, and I bet they were armed. So I'm good on letting another mass shooting happen. I know you think they're the good guys with the guns going to stop the homosexualization of America. It isn't totalitarian to stop an attack on somewhere. How about we let some facts some out before we jump to conclusions. We know the police do a bang up job and don't falsely arrest people.

I didn't see any knees on any necks btw, how do we know they were being property arrested?

This post was edited by Skinned on Jun 12 2022 11:36am

The police stated they recovered "one smoke bomb from the vehicle" and "shin guards". They weren't armed. They didn't have weapons. That's from the police's own statement.
This is that philosophy of "preemptive self-defense" hard at work, except instead of it being communist soyboy militants, its the police state. They just mass arrested people for trying to speak their opinions.

it is interesting to see which types are the ones who fully support the notion that “you must prove you are innocent to the government - which by the way is racist and tyrannical, but should be the only entity which may possess guns”

the usual suspects here who do of course are not a surprise

This post was edited by excellence on Jun 12 2022 11:51am

>only the government should be allowed to carry guns
>you should be considered an armed terrorist for possessing tactical assault shin guards and dangerous paperwork



All that's left is to charge them with seditious conspiracy and deny them bail

This post was edited by Goomshill on Jun 12 2022 12:05pm

You are the guys who are married to qualified immunity.

This post was edited by Skinned on Jun 12 2022 12:08pm