Maybe not in the most recent case with the border patrol. Aside from their bad gear and bad communication the agent that cleared the Sig said "Muffled word Gun" and the guys holding the known agitator down clearly misunderstood that as "Gun!" so they repeated it and the agent in cover position fired. I'm sure it did not help that all these guys could hear is blaring loud whistles which is why I would personally hold the protestors partially responsible. I know I will catch flak for those observations but I stand by them as I am neither left nor right and these observations are just obvious. As an insufferable principal armchair commander I would also add that these incidents are primarily occurring in sanctuary cities where antifa community organizers are escalating non stop in hopes that someone dies and they can use it as political fodder later on and in hopes they can radicalize people. Just my opinion but I think it is going to backfire. The normies can see what is going on.

▲

bonsai_spool 7 hours ago | parent [-]

> cleared the Sig said "Muffled word Gun"

The person in front said "I've got the gun, I've got the gun", and I can tell that quite clearly in the videos.

> here antifa community organizers are escalating non stop in hopes that someone dies [...] in hopes they can radicalize people

I think this rhetorical frame highlights how many people don't believe in protest. Expressing disdain for trampling of civil liberties is not 'escalation' any more than the curtailment of fourth amendment rights that inspire the protests.

I am not attacking you (I believe we should all be able to express how we feel with respect to the government). I just want to highlight a reason why you may feel that this level of unrest is meant to "radicalize people".

▲

Bender 7 hours ago | parent [-]

The person in front said "I've got the gun, I've got the gun", and I can tell that quite clearly in the videos.

That means there is an even better version that what I saw and heard which means normies will figure out fairly quick this was not malicious intent. Perhaps malicious incompetency but certainly not an intentional execution.

I just want to highlight a reason why you may feel that this level of unrest is meant to "radicalize people".

I would accept that if these were just protesters, stood at the side of the road holding up signs but a number of them are far from it. They have formed military squads, dox agents and attack them at home and in their personal vehicles, coordinate their attacks between multiple groups of "vetted" agitators. They are tracking their personal vehicles and their family members. They are blocking traffic and forcing people out of their cars. At best this is an insurgency being coordinated from out-of-state agitators and at the behest of the state governor. They are egging people on to break numerous laws, obstruct federal agents, throw bricks at agents or anyone they think is an agent, use bull-horns at full volume in the ears of anyone supporting the agents. I could go on for hours regarding all the illegal shenanigans. So yeah these are people trying to radicalize others and trying to get people hurt or killed. This is primarily occurring in sanctuary cities where the government is actively encouraging their citizens to attack federal agents. That is not even close to anything that resembles protesting and is not anywhere near a protected right.

I also blame President Trump for not invoking the insurrection act and curtailing this very early on.

▲

bonsai_spool 7 hours ago | parent [-]

Thanks for your response, I think we disagree on a few things but I appreciate your arguments.

My main question is how you might frame the protests (comprising legal and potentially illegal behaviors) in the context of how the US was founded, or in the French revolutions. Were we in the 1750s, would your assessment about how to go about protesting be the same?

Here, I'm not making arguments about what is or is not similar, just trying to understand how you view historical political upheaval from the perspective of the people who lived in those times.

edit: https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2026/01/27/congress/pr...

Apparently the agents yelled 'he's got a gun'

▲

Bender 6 hours ago | parent [-]

The founding of the nation was far more violent and laws were sparse but I am sure you know how complex of a question you are asking. There are multi-volume books and movies created around that mess. I would never want a return to those times and behaviors that we are purportedly evolved beyond.

What I do not understand is why people in some cities are defending violent illegal immigrants. I am told it is for voting purposes to get more delegates but it can't really be worth it. At least in my opinion it would not be worth it. All of that said I am not in favor of kicking people out that have been here for decades and that had properly integrated into our society. That I could see people protesting if they were in fact just protesting.

	▲	bonsai_spool 6 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> What I do not understand is why people in some cities are defending violent illegal immigrants. I am told it is for voting purposes to get more delegates but it can't really be worth it. At least in my opinion it would not be worth My issue with the current tactics is a loss of our Bill of Rights privileges (note this doesn't depend on citizenship), which really can only go poorly from here. > What I do not understand is why people in some cities are defending violent illegal immigrants. There's an easy argument about maintaining Constitutional rights for every person—once we stop doing that, we're essentially finished as a democracy. The majority of people being removed are not criminals of any sort whatsoever. It's tricky to get data about this as DHS is releasing very political statements[1] but many have been in the US for decades and have no criminal records in Minnesota. Also, Minnesota is not a liberal state—being a Democrat means different things in different parts of the country, and things are quite 'centrist' there; I say this to discourage porting sensibilities from other states. 1. DHS Highlights Worst of the Worst Criminal Illegal Aliens Arrested in Minnesota Yesterday Including Murderers, Drug Traffickers, and an Illegal Alien with TWENTY-FOUR Convictions - (this is the title of the relevant webpage) edit - To distill my perspective, I am worried that we will lose our rights, not because I am alarmist, but because this has happened in several democracies this century, notably Turkey (but also cf Hungary, Poland, the Philipnes). Even amongst undemocratic nations, strongmen are upending institutions (China, but also more recently in West Africa). The only way the US can escape is by continually standing up for what rights we still have.
	▲	zzrrt 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		> why people in some cities are defending violent illegal immigrants Most are not violent.[1] Many of them are “here for decades and that had properly integrated into our society” just like you said, or are attempting to integrate and be here legally, so people are defending them. If the government can trample one group over the worst crimes of a few of its members, it can trample any group for any reason, so we must stand together to protect our freedom. [1] https://www.cato.org/blog/5-ice-detainees-have-violent-convi...
	▲	convolvatron 6 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I guess I'll bite. ICE is not targeting violent illegal immigrants. They are targeting legal residents, immigrants with pending asylum cases that allow them to stay, US citizens that happen to look like immigrants maybe, people that are legally recording their activities in public from a safe distance, all kinds of people really. they are protesting masked armed thugs running around their neighborhood smashing windows and dragging people out of cars because they happen to feel like it. running up to people and pepper spraying them in eyes for saying things they dont like. and yes, shooting them. I think everyone can understand someone saying 'wtf, no' in those circumstances. except you.