What does it mean to be vigilante though? If someone in a position of power, let's say the president of a country, kills someone, it's not vigilante. But if someone who is not in a position of power kills someone, it is? I'm genuinely curious how you distinguish vigilante violence.
I mean Reagan advocated against legal open carry and signed into law the Mulford Act which prohibited it. But that's more because black people were doing it and Republicans would rather violate everyone's rights than respect the rights of black people as they do everyone else's.
I think it's any time a person who does not have the authority to do so, takes it upon themselves to commit an act of violence. It does not include self defence, defence or others or defence of property and does not include those given the legal right to commit an act in a given situation.
Like i said, those without power. The people who have "authority" are the people with "power" meaning legal power. The authority you speak of generally comes from popularity, or people who popular people like.
I'm not sure who has the moral authority to commit violence outside of these scenarios. You'll have to elaborate to me who has that ability and why they have it.
Generally depends on who you are in this country as to how you feel about it. I think arguing that the US isn't oppressive is quite a challenge today, and getting harder.
In other words, you're perfectly fine with someone getting murdered because they said things. Yes, that guy said a lot of utterly idiotic things, but it's still all he did. He didn't stone someone, he didn't assault someone, nothing. He said things and that got him killed, and it's OK for you. If someone doesn't like all the crap your mother/wife/etc. has spouted over the years, by the same standards it's OK to shoot them. Or you for that matter. Or does it only apply to people you don't like because you're somehow better than all the others?
He sure as **** advocated for it, though.
I'm not sure an AR-15 would be the best choice; an AR-10 is more of the "sniper" variety of the rifle, but that's not bolt action either. If they needed to conceal the weapon, ARs do break down decently well, but they're not really made to be taken apart for concealment. You can field strip one in probably a couple of minutes, but if you're trying to get in and get out, it's probably not the best choice.
Kirk likely contributed to the deaths of some individuals based solely on his COVID conspiracy BS. He was also complicit in the January 6th attack on the Capitol, even pleading the 5th to Congress over it.
I'm not talking about the morals of it, rather that I don't count people committing an act of violence in self defence, or defence of another person or property as vigilante violence. The difference between violence comitted by authority and vigilante violence is purely practical, as you put it. But if the practical benefit is not there because it's being abused for example, and used against the people to opress, then vigilante violence may well become the practical option at some point. Where I am, it certainly isn't close to that, and I hope it never gets close in my lifetime.
Basically Project 2025. Trump is more than just an idiot or traitor. He's an instrument being used to dismantle the US government and turn it into something mimicking Iran's or North Korea's. The US isn't there yet, but prevention is a better strategy than doing nothing until the problem is too serious.
Did the things he said - which included hate against women, homosexuals, trans people, atheists, Muslims, immigrants, and Jews and included anti-abortion, anti-vax, election fraud and (subsequently) J6 conspiracy nonsense - cause other people to go out and commit violence against groups and individuals, and did he continue to espouse these viewpoints in the full knowledge that they did? If so (and it's pretty hard to quantify) then just saying stuff is not "all he did".
It's not used to disqualify your ideas though, it's used to demonstrate (in good faith) that your ideas are wrong and misguided and it also tells you precisely why they are wrong and misguided. You're claiming some equivalency between the belief among some conservatives that they are being persecuted and their actual persecution of others. It's like claiming that the idea of a sheep is just as real as an actual sheep.
It's a .30 Mauser....which is weird. That means it's not a .30-06 since they are different rounds and .30 Mauser rounds are the typical ammunition for a Mauser C96 pistol. I really don't think the dude was shooting with a Mauser Gewehr 98, but maybe I guess? Also a Venezuelan FN 24 uses that round.
