![IMG_0342[1]](https://i0.wp.com/starvinlarry.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/img_03421.jpg?w=325&h=243&ssl=1 "IMG_0342[1]")
Re-post because link didn’t work in original
4Chan Sparks Mass Triggering With NPC Meme; Twitter Responds With Ban Hammer | Zero Hedge
Posted: October 25, 2018 by gamegetterII in Uncategorized0
October Update on the Second American Civil War – Forward Observer
Posted: October 25, 2018 by gamegetterII in Uncategorized“Q: Is there a developing relationship between the Democratic Party and militant left wing groups?
One of the central themes in contemporary insurgent movements is the relationship between armed combatant groups and their ostensibly peaceful political party cohorts.
The Irish Republican Army and Sinn Fein in Ireland. Hezbollah, the Shi’ite militant group, and Hezbollah, the Shi’ite political party, in Lebanon. The YPG militant group and the Democratic Union Party in Kurdistan/Syria. Jaysh al-Mahdi and the Sadrist Party in Iraq. The Badr Brigade and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq.
There are numerous other examples of political parties having militant wings, in addition to examples of militant organizations establishing themselves as political parties during a conflict.
Historically, insurgent campaigns are more likely to lead to political resolutions than martial victories, so militant organizations must have political representation. On the other hand, violence carried out by a militant wing provides leverage for the political party and an incentive for governments to solve political issues peacefully.
Neither side necessarily has direct influence or control over the other, but they often act to accomplish mutually beneficial goals. A militant wing can offer muscle to a political party, and the political party can provide judicial protections to the militant wing.”
Read the rest @
https://forwardobserver.com/october-update-on-the-second-american-civil-war/
The Death of the First Amendment in Cyberspace – Quillette
Posted: October 24, 2018 by gamegetterII in Uncategorizedh/t WRSA
“In 1996, cyber activist John Perry Barlow addressed national governments in his Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace; a radical call for complete online freedom. “I declare,” he wrote, “the global social space we are building to be naturally independent of the tyrannies you seek to impose on us.”
In the early 2000s, it seemed as if Barlow’s Declaration was becoming a reality. In 2006, Time magazine named “You”—that is to say, all of us—as their Person of the Year:
It’s about the many wresting power from the few and helping one another for nothing and how that will not only change the world, but also change the way the world changes. The tool that makes this possible is the World Wide Web.
Social media became instrumental in the toppling of dictators in Egypt, Tunisia, and Yemen and, in 2010, it was Mark Zuckerberg’s turn to be awarded Time‘s Person of the Year. A couple of years later Twitter confidently declared itself ”The free speech wing of the free speech party.” This commitment to the global spread of radical free speech and openness was specifically informed by the First Amendment. Through the embrace and global reach of Silicon Valley, it seemed for a brief moment as if American free speech exceptionalism would go viral and impose a Libertas Americana upon cyberspace.
But less than a decade later things look radically different. In a prevailing atmosphere of anxiety, the digital promised land has turned into a dystopia of surveillance, disinformation, trolling, and hatred. As evidence of Russian interference in the American presidential election emerged, the platforms once hailed as the global infrastructure of freedom and democracy are now widely seen as the enemies of these values. In April 2018, the New York Times called Zuckerberg “an Enlightened Despot,” and argued thatFacebook and Twitter had been “turned into engines of deception and propaganda.”
Read the rest @
https://quillette.com/2018/10/22/the-death-of-the-first-amendment-in-cyberspace/
Battlefield Intelligence: A Primer on Collection & Exploitation | American Partisan
Posted: October 24, 2018 by gamegetterII in UncategorizedDitch Medicine: Sterilization | American Partisan
Posted: October 24, 2018 by gamegetterII in UncategorizedOur Revolution’s Logic – The American Mind
Posted: October 22, 2018 by gamegetterII in UncategorizedMalhama Tactical: Professional Jihadists, Professional Training | American Partisan
Posted: October 22, 2018 by gamegetterII in UncategorizedWitkin Is Zoned Out | The Zelman Partisans
Posted: October 22, 2018 by gamegetterII in Uncategorized“This little piece of witlessness made the rounds last week:
Can zoning laws settle the gun debate?
If there could be a “right” to be free of guns, the logical question is then how it should be asserted. The answer may be in zoning. Because gun rights are tied to personal security, there appears to be room for citizens to exclude guns in their immediate surroundings as one means of protecting themselves.
No.
The is no “right” to be free of guns owned by other people. Your rights do not extend to denying other people’s rights. One can choose to be free of guns by not owning one. One cannot choose to make anyone else not own a gun. You do not have a right to my property.
Because gun rights were tied to personal security, there appears to be room for citizens to exclude guns in their immediate surroundings as one means of protecting themselves.
Witkin cites Heller, and claims that a decision, which specifically ruled against firearms restrictions so onerous as to prevent possession, somehow supports… zoning laws that prevent possession.
For example, zoning at the neighborhood or even block level could allow people to assert a right to be free from guns. Zoning is a policy tool that courts have upheld even when it clashes with the constitutional rights of individuals, such as freedom of expression and the sale of guWill he volunteer to lead the stack in confiscation raids?ns.
And there he cites Teixeira to demonstrate that zoning laws can restrict Second Amendment rights. Wrongly:
The district court’s characterization of residentially-zoned districts” as “sensitive areas” is incongruous with Heller, which assumed that firearms could be restricted in sensitive places “such as schools and government buildings,” specifically in contrast to residences, where firearms could not be prohibited.
It seems unlikely that Witlesskin actually readTeixeira, any more than he read Heller. Teixeira did not uphold the restriction of 2A rights through zoning; it found that zoning which excluded a proposed gun store did not infringe upon a recognized right because there were other stores in the area where firearms could be purchased, and people could still possess firearms. That is the opposite of Witkin’s claim.
I repeat: Heller (and later McDonald) specifically ruled against firearms restrictions so onerous as to prevent possession.
No, you cannot zone away our rights.”
Read more @
Starvin Larry 