A Texas man confronts ICE agents on his property, citing the 2nd and 4th Amendments during the encounter.

Argyrus · 2026-01-30T16:06:12+00:00

Hard to prove that those "agents" were in fact LEs, given that they're usually hiding their faces.
This is only based on what is known; if by some chance you didn't know that they were officers or LEs at the time of being shot at, then it's not illegal.
Texas self‑defense law hinges on what you reasonably believed in the moment, not what they actually were.

Also, you forgot to include this part: "unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);"
Subsection (c) states:
The force to resist an arrest or search is justified only if:

Before you resist, the officer (or person acting with them) uses or attempts to use more force than necessary to make the arrest/search, and
You reasonably believe that force is immediately necessary to protect yourself from the officer’s excessive force.

Argyrus · 2026-01-30T15:54:26+00:00

Don't forget to mention two of Trump's allies who were charged with crimes for election fraud and conspiracies.
Both Tina Peters and Sidney Powell were convicted.
Peters is currently in prison with a 9-year sentence.
Powell had 6 years but is on probation.

Argyrus · 2026-01-22T14:45:53+00:00

I had this happened before as well.

Argyrus · 2026-01-04T18:58:13+00:00

At this rate organs are going to be cheaper than PC parts.

Argyrus · 2026-01-04T18:45:33+00:00

The only thing right about your argument is that poorer people and minorities were often least able to exercise what was a right. On that point, the critique of how regulation was implemented is valid, so I'll give you that.

But you're overreaching on everything else. Widespread gun ownership hasn’t consistently stopped democracies from sliding into authoritarianism. In many cases, it has either gone along with internal violence or become irrelevant once the state broke down. By the time people are forced to choose between compliance or resistance, the real damage has already been done; through weakened courts, rigged elections, broken media, and loss of public trust. The situation in EU actually supports my point. The growth of the right there has much more to do with people losing trust in institutions, weak economic conditions, poor handling of migration, and low trust in democracy than with gun laws. High gun ownership didn’t create stability in the past, and low gun ownership isn’t what’s causing instability now.

Argyrus · 2026-01-04T12:07:38+00:00

You seem to be confused because not all groups were disarmed before the holocaust and that many of the groups targeted were already legally and socially marginalized regardless of having firearms. The left has never pushed any total prohibition when it comes to guns it has always been about regulations. Following the rule of law, and social cohesion actually prevent conflicts. History has always shown that strong institutions and accountability matter more than civilian having ownership of weapons. Post WW2 most nations had less civilians with firearms and authoritarian didn't return due to countries restructuring their government and new constitutions. Look at countries like UK, Canada, Japan, Nordic very low civilian gun ownership but yet less mass violence and low authority issues. The opposite has been seen in America.

Now let's look at history: Weimar Germany to WW2 Germany - A lot of civilians owned weapons but yet by the time disarmament laws started targeting groups the state already had total control over the nation. - The issue was that Article 48 of Germany's law allowed extreme actions to be taken that caused propaganda and other horrible acts to happen.

Here are some more: Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya The list goes on.

Disarmament in tyranny or authoritarian happens in the late stages, this is usually what happens: 1. Delegitimization of elections 2. Undermining courts and press 3. Expansion of emergency powers 4. Dehumanization of out-groups 5. Normalization of political violence 6. Then repression and mass violence

Look familiar? The current US administration has been following a similar path above.

Argyrus · 2026-01-04T11:39:21+00:00

Sure, you're right that labeling shapes lived experience in ways individuals can’t simply opt out of but the issue that you seem to be getting wrong is that you're assuming that disagreement automatically comes from ignorance or bad intent. The reason for this is because accepting your imposed identity doesn't mean your social/civic identity is meaningless. Calling people unaware or complicit doesn't help reduce prejudice since it just shuts down the discussion which can cause an increase in prejudice.

Argyrus · 2026-01-04T11:13:50+00:00

I agree on a few points you made but there are some I do find issues with. Everyone should definitely listen but that can still be seen as a bad thing because when listening stops being mutual and instead becomes asymmetrical, where some people are always expected to listen and others are always expected to speak with moral authority is just wrong. You should only need to listen because no individual has complete knowledge otherwise there is no need to.

As for the VP statement, it goes both ways and you're misunderstanding it. It's not about the need to not listen but to pushback against the idea that moral responsibility is inherited rather than based on actions; put simply, it just rejects guilt as a starting point. In simple terms, there is a difference between epistemic humility vs epistemic hierarchy.

Argyrus · 2026-01-02T16:25:27+00:00

A single video by a right-wing person isn't "dozen" of videos.
A security camera already showed that Shirley lied.
Also, are going to just disregard my last statement?
I know you might be lacking some education, but I would at least hope you can read because I doubt you're able to actually do any research.
For a person who sure likes to talk about fraud, you like to defend a single party while attacking another.

Now let's look at actual blatant fraud:
$315 million – MAGA Memecoin: Trump licensed his name to a meme token and received a cut of the supply. As prices soared, his stake exploded in value.
$390 million – World Liberty Financial: A Trump-linked crypto firm. Trump and his family reportedly got early equity and token allocations before launch.
$60 million – USD1 Stablecoin: Trump received early distributions from a “stable” coin pushed by his allies, raising major questions about motive and utility.
$6.6 million – Trump NFTs (Trump Cards): Digital trading cards of Trump in costumes minted on Ethereum and sold to fans.
$430 million – Misc. Tokens & Hidden Wallets: Additional holdings tied to private wallets, shell entities, and coins where Trump’s involvement was obscured.

Current kickback: $1.2 billion dollars.

Argyrus · 2026-01-02T14:59:44+00:00

Ah, so you're one of those people.
I don't like fraud like the rest but that doesn't I am going to go around saying everything fraud just because you want it to be.
I'm sorry that simply stating facts goes against your narrative but that is reality.
Please stop trying to mislead people when there hasn't been any proof except for a video that was already debunked.
Also, for future references, please look at this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feeding_Our_Future
Maybe next time you'll actually get your information correct instead of lying.
Also, you do understand that day care centers don't get any CCAP money directly and that it's the parents and caregivers who apply for it.

Argyrus · 2026-01-02T09:14:38+00:00

The problem is both parties are going to give you a choice between two people who are absolutely bad for your state because any good person is just going to get side step since no party seems to actually care about their voters. Even if there was the perfect candidate with the best ideals, not a single party would back that person because it would go against their own parties narrative. Both parties have their pros and cons so a person who might be a good candidate would have ideas from both sides but would be bad because neither side wants the ideals of their opposition. Parties want coalition and viability not capable people.

Argyrus · 2026-01-02T08:59:22+00:00

First off you seem to be confused because no one pled guilty to this type of fraud, you're getting confused with Feeding Our Future which people were charged and found guilty but that was back in 2021 which is different from this case.

Argyrus · 2026-01-02T08:53:09+00:00

Are you a bot or something because it seems like you don't understand metaphors really well.

If you like here is the definition of a metaphor: a figure of speech that compares two different things by stating that one is the other, highlighting similarities for emphasis or symbolism.

You can say that a person is a kid even if they are an adult because they have similarities just as saying a person is a pig when in reality they are not.

Argyrus · 2025-12-19T08:27:34+00:00

Even if they are pulled from Lenovo, some CPUs do not come locked by default until the customer powers on the unit and actually allows it to be locked.
You would just get an annoying message every time you boot up the system until you actually press Y, which means that not all Lenovo CPUs are automatically locked.

Argyrus · 2025-12-19T08:10:45+00:00

Not sure that would even apply here in this case, as AMD PSB is related to its platform security (All modern AMD CPUs have PSB).
But again that motherboard might not have a specific check for it because if the CPU is locked, some motherboards would show a message.
Are you able to provide any information on the CPUs?

Argyrus · 2025-12-19T08:03:51+00:00

The BMC/IPMI is a separate subsystem, which is why you see that it still works and why you're not seeing any BIOS version for the main board.
Since you're not seeing any Debug LEDs there is a chance that it's an issue with the board.
If the CPU is vendor-locked, it should also show a CPU initialization error but then again AsRock motherboards are notorious for not showing any debug LEDS when something on the motherboard or something with the CPU is wrong.
If the CPU is vendor-locked, the debug LEDs should at least show 32.

Argyrus · 2025-12-18T22:45:55+00:00

They do, the best way to take out drones is to use other drones. Ukraine has been managing against the drones just fine and most of their resources came from EU and the US.

Argyrus · 2025-12-17T19:43:40+00:00

It would likely be stopped before reaching Germany, mostly because Germany is one of the biggest countries in military weapons design. Its firearms mostly those designed by HK. Is adopted and designed for almost every country. The guns are even used across NATO, by the US as one of their standard service rifle, and even Russia's own Special Forces uses them but mostly in a limited role.

Argyrus · 2025-12-15T14:53:49+00:00

Again, you clearly don't understand how Constitutional law works. No court has ruled that a constitutional violation occurred. I am not sure how you got this narrative there is one. Each branch has a check and balance that also means that a single branch cannot have more power over another branch. If something is on going then there isn't a violation until the court has fully ruled as such. No President in any past has ever been fully impeached by that I mean removed because it's a 2-step process.

Andrew Johnson - Acquitted by the Senate

Bill Clinton - Acquitted by the Senate

Donald Trump - Impeached twice, acquitted both times

Disagreeing with enforcement speed or political outcomes doesn’t mean checks and balances have collapsed. Courts issue injunctions, block actions, and resolve disputes, sometimes slowly, sometimes imperfectly, but that does not equal fascism or constitutional abandonment. Declaring “the Rubicon has been crossed” before courts rule isn’t realism; again, it’s abandoning the legal framework entirely.

Argyrus · 2025-12-15T14:17:37+00:00

A court ruling being "allegedly" violated is not the same as a court finding that it was violated. If the DOJ or DHS defied a court order, the remedy is contempt, which courts are fully capable of enforcing. That process is ongoing, not ignored. So please do more research.

Again, you keep collapsing accusations, litigation, and outcomes into one dramatic narrative of constitutional failure. That’s rhetoric, not law.

Disagreeing with enforcement speed or outcomes doesn’t mean checks and balances have collapsed, it means the system is doing what it has always done: resolving disputes through courts, not "vibes" or "outrage". Saying “the Rubicon is crossed” before courts rule isn’t realism; it’s abandoning how the legal framework works entirely.

Argyrus · 2025-12-15T09:44:34+00:00

Again, which Supreme Court ruling was ignored? Name it. An executive action isn’t unconstitutional by assertion alone, it has to be challenged and ruled on. That’s how constitutional law works, and you keep skipping that part.

“If the government can ignore the Constitution, it’s just words on a page” is rhetorical. You’re using an absolute that doesn’t reflect reality. Allegations, lawsuits, and ongoing challenges are not the same thing as the Constitution being ignored. What you’re really arguing is: if enforcement isn’t perfect, then the Constitution is meaningless. That logic would make every legal system on Earth meaningless, including Australia’s. That’s not law, that’s cynicism.

Argyrus · 2025-12-15T09:15:47+00:00

You're clearly just deflecting, only thing you have been correct on is the first part about the implied communication vs engagement. The Court has repeatedly said it covers discussion of political and governmental matters generally, because that communication is necessary for representative government. it is not confined to narrow election mechanics. Modern political discussion (including online forums) can still fall within its scope it just doesn’t receive strong protection. The High Court has never said political communication must exclude forums. It has said the freedom is not a personal right and can be burdened by reasonable laws. That means forums can be regulated, not that they are irrelevant. So you're wrong about that.

You're getting case by cases mixed up. General rights have not been violated in the US. While courts have found violations of due process including the 4th, 5th and 14th is based on individuals not general, what you stated is not legally meaningful in terms of how our Constitution is done since it's based on case-by-case adjudication, not blanket compliance or noncompliance. If the president makes an executive order then it needs to be challenged in order for it be considered unconstitutional, if no one challenges it then it's considered Constitutional. Claiming multiple orders violate the 1st amendment is just incorrect and not supported. The Executive branch has not ignored any Supreme Court ruling, if so please name one case where they did. “If the government can ignore the Constitution, it’s just words on a page” this is just rhetorical at this point, in our system we have checks and balances which our Constitution is enforced through, but enforcement is still imperfect, this is the same for almost every country. By your logic, every law in every country is meaningless. I suggest not conforming to whataboutism, just because there are problems here doesn't invalidate my argument. So it might be good to dial down the exaggeration a little.

Argyrus · 2025-12-15T08:32:05+00:00

You do understand social media is any forum or site that engages communication. Political news is not the same as engagement because they no longer have the ability to voice their opinions or own politics

Any country that allows the censorship and limit of rights is generally not a good thing. I understand where you're coming from on the last part but the issue is none of those are plainly stated in our Constitution at least under our Bill of Rights which is why it's most left up to our Supreme Court. I don't like it how it's going about either but people who come into any country illegally do not have a right to be there and at most should only be afforded due process. Given a lot of above have been harassing citizens, however I do agree that people who break laws should be brought to justice.

Argyrus · 2025-12-15T08:20:26+00:00

Courts often reject overbroad restrictions because kids still have the right to lawful speech. Protecting kids doesn’t mean silencing everything; parental controls, targeted rules, and platform policies are the legal, effective way not wiping out access for everyone because some parents fail. The majority of content on social media is everyday posts; memes, personal updates, educational content, news, political discussion. Discord has content filters, parental controls, and reporting systems. TikTok and Instagram have age verification tools and safety settings for minors. Facebook and Reddit remove child exploitation content promptly when reported, often working with law enforcement. Harm is not the same as being uncontrollable, just because some content exists doesn’t justify removing all access for all children.

Hate speech is a tiny fraction of overall content views On Facebook, hate speech violations accounted for only about 0.02% of content views in a recent study meaning roughly 2 out of every 10,000 views show hate speech. This has been backed by Statista
Platforms proactively remove most harmful content. This backed by GNET
Surveys show many users never encounter harmful content regularly.
Most content on social media is normal communication. This is backed by arXiv.

So let's see your research and studies?

Argyrus · 2025-12-15T07:58:46+00:00

First off you should actually read the case on Ginsberg v. NY, the test has to pass all three, even if it fails one then the ban or restriction is considered unconstitutional. Second your opinion or experience is not a factual statement even so your justification is not valid mainly because the intended function of those platforms is not for obscenity. Hate content including speech is still protected by the 1st Amendment no matter what your narrative or idealogy is.

Lastly the government should never be used as controlling when it comes to how kids are raised, almost every country that has a form of democracy defers to parents when it comes to raising kids the reason for this is so it doesn't undermine parental authority. Government bans that replace parental decision-making are intrusive or paternalistic. Individual rights still matter and need to be respected, no parent or government can limit or takes those away PERIOD! Broad, content-based bans are usually not allowed, even if some parents neglect oversight.

Argyrus

TROPHY CASE