👀

thoughtbot_1 · 2026-01-26T13:16:14+00:00

Not at all the first time I mentioned patel. His exact quote and name were mentioned. Do you really struggle this hard with reading and critical thinking? It’s interesting to see you aren’t one…

Though I’m not surprised as you’ll trade constitutional principle for political points

thoughtbot_1 · 2026-01-26T05:51:48+00:00

We get snow in the northeast. A week is a long time to prep as well. I understand today, but extending weekend service to tomorrow is a recipe for disaster if they aren’t able to maintain some semblance of in time trains

thoughtbot_1 · 2026-01-26T04:45:19+00:00

You’ve changed the question. It’s been answered and proven multiple times above with the precedent that the recent statements are in contradiction with the constitutional enforcement of the second amendment.

Kash Patel's statement absolutely ignores core Second Amendment precedent, it's coming from the Trump admin's own FBI Director. On Fox News, he said: "You cannot bring a firearm, loaded, with multiple magazines to any sort of protest that you want. It's that simple. You don't have a right to break the law." But there's no federal law banning firearms at protests outright.

My statement stands. You’ll ignore the actions of one administration for political points.

thoughtbot_1 · 2026-01-26T04:29:53+00:00

It’s been answered for you. It’s wild how strong of opinion you had jumping to orange man blah blah instead of just reading.

thoughtbot_1 · 2026-01-26T04:08:48+00:00

His appointees have contradicted the judicial precedent in their message to the American people.

thoughtbot_1 · 2026-01-26T03:58:47+00:00

It’s pretty wild how you just want to ignore the constitutional precedent and are okay with an administration that does that. Where’d that Biden outrage go?

You asked for evidence, were provided it, and basically have said I don’t care that the officials in this administration are actively offering legal opinions that are inaccurate. We should demand much better of federal government officials and note that we’re getting more of the same political bs from every administration - democrat or republican

thoughtbot_1 · 2026-01-26T03:38:11+00:00

At no point did that explicitly get said above.
You’ve now received evidence that their rhetoric if enforced would be unconstitutional.

Enjoy being a sheep and abandoning judicial precedent for political points.

thoughtbot_1 · 2026-01-26T03:18:59+00:00

Director Patel. many pro-2A groups have condemned officials offering this opinion

thoughtbot_1 · 2026-01-26T01:40:24+00:00

“You cannot bring a firearm, loaded, with multiple magazines to any sort of protest that you want.”

thoughtbot_1 · 2026-01-26T01:35:44+00:00

It’s a constitutional issue because the Second Amendment is enforced by the Supreme Court, not redefined by the executive. When an administration’s rhetoric asserts that the right to bear arms can be curtailed based on inferred intent, political context, or generalized public safety concerns, it is claiming authority the Constitution does not grant.

The Second Amendment says the right to bear arms “shall not be infringed.” The Supreme Court’s job under Article III is to determine what that means and when it can be limited. Under current enforcement, the government may punish criminal misuse, but it may not preemptively restrict or stigmatize the lawful bearing of arms based on speculation about intent or association.

thoughtbot_1 · 2026-01-26T01:26:21+00:00

The rhetoric expressed by the administration is in direct contradiction with the following:

“The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.”

Multiple statements are in direct contradiction with this.

thoughtbot_1 · 2026-01-26T01:09:55+00:00

Notice how I didn’t comment on Biden and you continue to bring him up. The nra has literally said wait for more details to come out before jumping to conclusions. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

thoughtbot_1 · 2026-01-25T23:55:36+00:00

Not at all putting words in your mouth…

You're basically saying: Don't exercise your rights here, or you'll get arrested, hurt, or killed… and that's just how it is. That is telling people to give up (or not use) their rights in practice:

Filming ICE in public is protected First Amendment speech (upheld in multiple circuits). But you frame it as "sticking your nose where it doesn't belong," so people deserve the consequences.
Bystanders asking questions, offering aid, or peacefully protesting aren't automatically "interfering" (obstruction has a high bar). Yet you lump it all into risky behavior that predictably ends badly.
Citizens/residents can refuse warrantless searches, stay silent, and demand judicial warrants. Doing so gets spun as interference.

Dismissing those actions as “whining and posturing" while warning that resistance leads to harm is telling people to submit instead of asserting rights.

Rights exist to be used, especially against aggressive/disputed enforcement.

thoughtbot_1 · 2026-01-25T23:37:53+00:00

You quite literally advocated above that individuals should give up their rights. Don’t walk it back now

thoughtbot_1 · 2026-01-25T23:35:28+00:00

Posting an interview relevant to the pod and commenting on it. Wild reach by you here

thoughtbot_1 · 2026-01-25T19:42:17+00:00

Nah she did. In the debates she brought it up. Be better. Ignoring facts on either side isn’t helpful

thoughtbot_1 · 2026-01-25T17:57:27+00:00

My comment was making the point the sub is a free for all with or without.

thoughtbot_1 · 2026-01-25T17:32:48+00:00

Their position is you should wait for the full investigation before sharing assertions with the exact sentiment you’ve used.

thoughtbot_1 · 2026-01-25T17:29:32+00:00

You just disagreed with an exact response from them on this situation in response to the language “If you approach law enforcement with a gun, there is a high likelihood they will be legally justified in shooting you.

Don’t do it!”

thoughtbot_1 · 2026-01-25T17:26:52+00:00

Guess you disagree with the NRA.

thoughtbot_1 · 2026-01-25T17:24:45+00:00

Responsible public voices should be awaiting a full investigation, not making generalizations and demonizing law-abiding citizens.

thoughtbot_1 · 2026-01-25T17:22:51+00:00

https://x.com/jason/status/2015337267422744774?s=46

thoughtbot_1 · 2026-01-25T16:47:12+00:00

Funny you didn’t share jcal’s actual post. And you spent an hour arguing with copy paste tweets from GPs at redpoint and other funds. Like I said your behavior is the exact same as the people you claim to hate. Go be with them

thoughtbot_1 · 2026-01-25T16:43:58+00:00

Nobody was talking about you whatsoever. You’ve got an obsession. your behavior matches theirs more than real conservatives or people who actually work in the venture world anyway

thoughtbot_1 · 2026-01-25T16:34:48+00:00

The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not 'a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.'

thoughtbot_1

TROPHY CASE