quote:

Originally posted by oddball:
Pretty amazing, ain't it?

One of the above scenarios applies to the following, it is not difficult to understand. Unless one has the idiotic notion that Pretti was not breaking any laws.

He may have broken A law, but that's not specifically what we're talking about here.

If you can point me towards where he fulfilled the above criteria for that US Code, I am certainly open to it.

quote:

Originally posted by bdylan:
People have a hard time recognizing insurrection.

This is precisely the reason I started to study the guide I quoted in our last interaction earlier in this thread. Back in 2020, I wondered how does one know they are in the middle of an insurrection or civil war before main hostilities break out. There are always pre-cursors that historians will discuss later, but how can one analyze the here and now.

quote:

Our media has convinced many people it looks like a riot at the capital. Likewise, our media would like to convince you that fighting with law enforcement in the streets is 'protest'. I understand that insurrection is likely bad for business and it is possible for this 'movement' to spread to other blue cities, but we need to lock down Minneapolis, carry out the ICE mission, and then get out of the streets. We'll never win the PR battle in these cesspools that are full of foolish people willing to die to signal their virtue.

Notice that the violence only happens in a single city at a time, not massive outbreaks in LA, Chicago, Portland, Settle, NY, and MSP at the same time. Also notice that many of the rioters, once apprehended, often turn out to be from elsewhere. The violence is conducted by professional agitators and joined by local enthusiasts. Since the pros can't be in more than one place at a time, we only have one riot at a time. This is part of the reason I say we are in the incipient stage, violence has begun, but only really instigated by a few. They want to spark the massive wide-spread violence, but need a catalyst. For now, they travel to start trouble to make it appear support for their cause is wide-spread, but in reality, I don't think that are that many true believers. This is why the feds have to be careful not to give them a catalyst.

In an earlier reply, you mentioned the local LE support the rioters. While the political appointees probably do, if the rank-and-file really support the rioters, then we are already in full-blown insurrection. I doubt the majority of cops support the rioters. I think the feds need to put real pressure on Walz, Ellison, Frey to stop what is happening in MN. IF the feds can't stop those 3, then the feds are ineffective and expect LA, and others to explode, and eventually vigilante opposition to the insurrectionists. Then we will be in a civil war. I think the current unrest is timed due to desperation of the insurrectionists at the rate Trump is closing down on their plans. They need to spark something soon, and can't wait until traditional rioting weather comes in June.

As long as I have gone off the rails a bit, I would like to posit a related thought. One of the characteristics of an insurrection is outside support. Our vulnerabilities were obviously the southern border, which Trump has secured. But, the Caribbean was a weak spot, hence the operation against Maduro, which also neutralizes Cuba. The last remaining corridor was to the north, hence the action on Greenland. The recent urgency in action against Venezuela and Greenland, in my opinion, was to seal off the avenues of support our enemies could provide to the insurrection.

If my speculation above is true, strap in, because things are going to get wilder before they get better. The dying beast is most dangerous just before its demise.

Looks to me like the Trump administration is on top of things, even though they look more chaotic from our perspective.

Keep this up Minnesota and the result may very well be martial law to squelch the level of protestor violence!

quote:

Originally posted by Oregon:

This is an absurd statement. Just because someone is armed doesn't mean that they are engaged in "armed conflict" by any common definition...

Well, no. And that isn't what I said.

Pretti engaged in a criminal activity when he attempted to interfere with law enforcement in the performance of their duties.

Adding in the fact that he attempted to interfere with law enforcement while he was armed took this to another level. At this point, yes, he was engaged in an armed conflict.


.

quote:

As long as I have gone off the rails a bit, I would like to posit a related thought. One of the characteristics of an insurrection is outside support. Our vulnerabilities were obviously the southern border, which Trump has secured. But, the Caribbean was a weak spot, hence the operation against Maduro, which also neutralizes Cuba. The last remaining corridor was to the north, hence the action on Greenland. The recent urgency in action against Venezuela and Greenland, in my opinion, was to seal off the avenues of support our enemies could provide to the insurrection.

DrDan, when I think of outside support, I think of Soros. Do you think financial or bad actor support is also coming from other countries?

quote:

Originally posted by 6guns:
DrDan, when I think of outside support, I think of Soros. Do you think financial or bad actor support is also coming from other countries?

It has been reported that at least 1000 military-aged Iranian men crossed the southern border during the previous administration. Iran had a military training compound in Venezuela, the Russians had paid Maduro $1B, for who knows what, and we know the Chinese had a major relationship with Venezuela. It isn't too hard to believe these activities were intended to support unrest in the US. Probably to support their activities in South America as well, but it is hard to believe we aren't their enemy #1. This doesn't even count the drug cartel related illegal border crossers, and the fact that China is a major supplier of fentanyl pre-cursor drugs to the cartels.

My phrase "outside support" means more than just money, it includes weapons, ammunition, logistical support, intelligence support, advisors, and perhaps cyber-attacks. I do not believe China nor Russia intend to put their troops into the mix. However, if things got far enough along, China might be "invited" by an insurrectionist governor to send some "peace keepers" to aid the poor oppressed rioters. I think this is a ways off, but closing that gap now is a lot easier now than later.

^^^ Thanks! I appreciate your additional thoughts.

quote:

Originally posted by Oregon:

He may have broken A law

Keep digging that hole.

quote:

Originally posted by Oregon:

quote:

Originally posted by TigerDore:
Pretti engaged in an armed conflict with federal law enforcement officials in the commission of their sworn duties. He essentially declared war on the United States.

This is an absurd statement. Just because someone is armed doesn't mean that they are engaged in "armed conflict" by any common definition. And the proclamation that this dude "essentially declared war on the United States" is farcical at best.

So if these illegals had sneaked across the border with guns holstered on their side they wouldn’t be “armed” invaders?

It's a terrible state of affairs that POTUS basically needs to force Walz, Frey, and those radicals to allow the enforcement of federal law. I think it was Lincoln that lamented he was sick and tired of trying to bore a hole with an auger too dull to take hold! It's a dangerous game as well because our media works with the insurrectionists. It's as if George Wallace and Ross Barnett had been aided and abetted by our mainstream media!

The only positive takeaway from all of this is that the right people are being killed

Sooner or later the libtard contingent may figure out that they’re always going to be on the losing side.

quote:

Originally posted by oddball:

quote:

Originally posted by Oregon:

He may have broken A law

Keep digging that hole.

Ah. GIFs instead of reasoned discourse. Lovely.

quote:

Originally posted by Oregon:

reasonable discussion

You think highly of yourself, doncha?

I believe this sums it up.



I still maintain this is a good shoot and I support the actions of ICE and Immigration Enforcement.

quote:

Originally posted by Oregon:
Ah. GIFs instead of reasoned discourse. Lovely.

He did break a law. Did. Not “may have”. But you refuse to acknowledge that, even when said law is spelled out. What else is there to discuss?

quote:

Originally posted by oddball:

You think highly of yourself, doncha?

I have no idea where you're going with this.

When we re-elected President Trump, we knew this was going to happen. None of us should be surprised. You encounter flak when you're above the target.

The is all being instigated for:
-A mid-term narrative so they can paint us as fascist, nazi, etc...
-To deflect from the assassination of Charlie Kirk
-To shift the attention off of the daycare fraud scandal
-To shift the attention off the democrat corruption (Walz)

The governor has called for interference and they want more useful idiots to die.

They never cared when the crimson kenyan was deporting illegals en masse.

Tony.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
He did break a law. Did. Not “may have”. But you refuse to acknowledge that, even when said law is spelled out. What else is there to discuss?

Well, he's dead. He didn't draw a gun, and I didn't see anything that rose to the code that Oddball brought up.

With the number of people here and in the government saying that there is no reason to carry a gun during a protest (using Kash Patel's words), I thought it was worth discussing on a firearms forum.

quote:

Originally posted by Oregon:


With the number of people here and in the government saying that there is no reason to carry a gun during a protest (using Kash Patel's words), I thought it was worth discussing on a firearms forum.

I see the problem here. It’s terminology.

In your dictionary, “protest” means to violently obstruct and assault law enforcement.

I guess you weep each time a car jacker is shot dead while “exercising their rights” for just trying to get affordable transportation. Or virtue signal about “shall not be infringed” when an armed home invader is shot dead for trespassing in someone else’s house at 2 AM. All misunderstandings by people just out to exercise their rights, I’m sure.

I guess up next is “it wasn’t THAT violent”.

You and I aren’t the same.

quote:

Originally posted by Oregon:

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
He did break a law. Did. Not “may have”. But you refuse to acknowledge that, even when said law is spelled out. What else is there to discuss?

Well, he's dead. He didn't draw a gun I wasn’t there, haven’t seen any (clear) video showing what the agents saw, and I didn't see anything that rose to the code that Oddball brought up.

With the number of people here and in the government saying that there is no reason to carry a gun during a protest (using Kash Patel's words), I thought it was worth discussing on a firearms forum.

FIFY

Reality is, if he just raised his hands when the agents confronted him for his actions, he would most likely still be breathing and only facing state and (maybe?) federal charges for not having a permit and ID on his person to show he was allowed to legally conceal carry - regardless of how stoopid even that action would be.

His actions were akin to a conceal carry in the vicinity where a POTUS was speaking and then resisting when confronted by an agent or LEO.

In other words, if you feel the need to make the police chase you, they are likely bringing an ass whooping with them