Fuck your “legal context”. I do not respect the authority that decides what is or isn’t “legal”.
My advice is to organize community militias and stand in the way of an oppressive regime, to defend their community against those who wish to do them harm. If that means a fight, then it’s a fight. So be it. You come to my community armed and ready to kidnap people and you bet your ass is going to be shot on sight.
Rights don’t come from an authority. They are inherent aspects of existence. If you need an authority to legitimize those rights then they aren’t “rights”, they are privileges.
I don’t need an authority to legitimize the human right to self defense, to food and water, to shelter, to autonomy, etc…
I will exercise those rights regardless of what any body of authority dictates.
"WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security." - The United States Constitution.
I would also suggest reading the bill of rights, and James Madison’s arguments on natural rights, and why he felt The Bill of Rights was both unnecessary and damaging to human rights overall because there were too many to list.
To get you started here the wiki on bill of rights, you can use the links and sources at the bottom to confirm the information.
Please educate yourself. If you’re incapable, get a tutor that isn’t AI.
Your opponent is correct, we are within our INALIENABLE RIGHTS to defend ourselves from a criminal government organization. So important our founding fathers made sure to write it down and sign it.
Personally I socially consent to ICE being gun downed, and considered those who do it Heroes. ICE is disappearing people to a concentration camp in El Salvador. They are attacking the populace(That’s you and me included) and any violent acts against them are inherently self defense as they are proven threats. Fuck collaborators and those that would side with them regardless of “legality”.
Then you need to work on your reading comprehension.
It’s not based on a vibe, it’s literally written down as part of our Declaration of Independence. It’s a part of our Bill of Rights, It’s a part of The Constitution, and in some cases our state constitutions.
Yours and others ignorance of their natural rights, and the places they are codified doesn’t excuse the breaking of this social contract. ICE and ICE collaborators have broken this social contract, and are no longer protected by it.
It’s not based on a vibe, it’s literally written down as part of our Declaration of Independence.
The commenter I replied to, who seems to have disappeared, was saying there’s no authority that grants these rights. Now you’re arguing that those rights are provided by the constitution?
Regardless, the assertion I take issue with, is that Americans are within their rights to shoot ICE officers on sight. Even if that were true according to your personal interpretation of the constitution, it’s terrible advice to be handing out on lemmy.
A more accurate statement would be “under some interpretations of the constitution it may be lawful to oppose ICE agents with force, however in the current climate you’re very likely to be shot or incarcerated or deported should you attempt to do so”
Fuck your “legal context”. I do not respect the authority that decides what is or isn’t “legal”.
My advice is to organize community militias and stand in the way of an oppressive regime, to defend their community against those who wish to do them harm. If that means a fight, then it’s a fight. So be it. You come to my community armed and ready to kidnap people and you bet your ass is going to be shot on sight.
You can’t claim “rights” and then say you don’t respect the authority that grants or denies those rights.
Rights don’t come from an authority. They are inherent aspects of existence. If you need an authority to legitimize those rights then they aren’t “rights”, they are privileges.
I don’t need an authority to legitimize the human right to self defense, to food and water, to shelter, to autonomy, etc…
I will exercise those rights regardless of what any body of authority dictates.
So… when you say “you’re well within your rights to …” you’re just kind of making that up based on the vibe?
As in… you’re within your rights to shoot an ICE agent, but they will probably shoot you right back, and if you don’t die you’ll probably go to jail.
That’s a hell of a caveat you didn’t mention.
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
I would also suggest reading the bill of rights, and James Madison’s arguments on natural rights, and why he felt The Bill of Rights was both unnecessary and damaging to human rights overall because there were too many to list.
To get you started here the wiki on bill of rights, you can use the links and sources at the bottom to confirm the information.
Please educate yourself. If you’re incapable, get a tutor that isn’t AI.
Your opponent is correct, we are within our INALIENABLE RIGHTS to defend ourselves from a criminal government organization. So important our founding fathers made sure to write it down and sign it.
Personally I socially consent to ICE being gun downed, and considered those who do it Heroes. ICE is disappearing people to a concentration camp in El Salvador. They are attacking the populace(That’s you and me included) and any violent acts against them are inherently self defense as they are proven threats. Fuck collaborators and those that would side with them regardless of “legality”.
You haven’t actually responded to what I’ve said.
Then you need to work on your reading comprehension.
It’s not based on a vibe, it’s literally written down as part of our Declaration of Independence. It’s a part of our Bill of Rights, It’s a part of The Constitution, and in some cases our state constitutions.
Yours and others ignorance of their natural rights, and the places they are codified doesn’t excuse the breaking of this social contract. ICE and ICE collaborators have broken this social contract, and are no longer protected by it.
The commenter I replied to, who seems to have disappeared, was saying there’s no authority that grants these rights. Now you’re arguing that those rights are provided by the constitution?
Regardless, the assertion I take issue with, is that Americans are within their rights to shoot ICE officers on sight. Even if that were true according to your personal interpretation of the constitution, it’s terrible advice to be handing out on lemmy.
A more accurate statement would be “under some interpretations of the constitution it may be lawful to oppose ICE agents with force, however in the current climate you’re very likely to be shot or incarcerated or deported should you attempt to do so”