(Really? Eric Garner wasn’t even killed more than a month ago, the chokehold is still illegal, and the offending officer had his gun & badge taken.)


A friend of mine sent me this thread to point out yet another pointless conversation he had with statists. It was rough to read through, and I think the biggest mistake when talking to these people in threads is that they won’t show you any notion of respect or understanding. My friend Mr. AnCap should have stuck to his ethical concerns surrounding the case, and not get so caught up in the legal implications of what followed it. Arguing with statists about the law is pretty fruitless because most of the time they will just appeal to authority. If a law is on the books then the police are only taking orders like any soldier would have to do. Mr. AnCap brought up some good points but it didn’t really matter for these folks, and they just kept calling him crazy and tried to get a rise out of him. However, now I get to share those links here and expose some really sadistic sentiments towards the end of this thread. Thank you Mr. AnCap for linking to Liberate RVA, and I hope you are treated with more respect on Facebook in the future. Some people are proudly statist, and it doesn’t matter what you say to them because they have probably already heard it all before and cheerfully took the blue pill.

To keep all parties anonymous I will give everyone nicknames. The original poster, his friends, Mr. AnCap, a few bystanders, and some lady who started getting really sadistic toward at end of the thread; are given the nicknames OP Statist, Statists 1-7, and Statist Sadist. Luckily, there were one or two people that backed Mr. AnCap so I will label them as “Friends,” but they didn’t help out that much later. Thank you for joining me today for some Facebook drama, and I hope you enjoy my commentary.

To quote my friend when he made first contact with me about the thread,
“Dude i had so many statists go full retard today”, then he goes on to say “like so retarded i don’t even know how to respond.”

Original Post:

OP Statist shared a link.
Three Law Enforcement Officials Shot In NYC's Greenwich Village
(54 people like this, and 55 shared it.)

Profile Picture of OP Statist

Statist #1: I understand the point about “no right to resist arrest” … and mostly agree.

I do disagree with the notion that the solution to the specific incident noted is more subservience on the part of the citizenry.

I think a better approach would be to eliminate this notion of “quality of life crime”.

Certainly, someone escalating a situation by refusing to comply with lawful orders is a problem, but we cannot ignore the fact that LE are often tasked with enforcement of stupid laws.
(Thinks some laws are stupid, but that citizens shouldn’t resist when assaulted by them.)

Statist #2: Is complying with lawful arrest is now subservience?
(3 likes, doesn’t understand why anyone would have a problem with being kidnapped by complying with an imposed violent authority.)

Mr. AnCap: Sounds like some nazi bullshit to me. “hey jews, you dont have the right to resist. what we are going is legal, don’t like it take it up with the nazi courts.”

“The simple fact, painful as it may be for some to acknowledge, is that Eric Garner would be alive today if he’d cooperated when cops tried to arrest him for illegally selling loose, untaxed cigarettes.”

He didn’t pay his mafia protection money (tax), “you want to make money, you need to give us a cut”

“The fastest way to defuse a confrontation like the one that ended in Garner’s death is not to resist arrest.”

Again, just get on the train jew, or we will kill you.
(3 likes, points out the hypocrisy of the OP’s article with quotes and personal beliefs.)

OP Statist: Actually, you are dead nuts wrong.
The crime wave of the 70’s-early 90’s when Guliani was Mayor and Bratton was PC.
The reason for it was the quality of life arrests.
Squeegie mutts, drug users, fare beaters and a host of oher crimes were enforced, and the crime stayed low until recently.
(5 likes for law enforcement, and tells Mr. AnCap he is “dead nuts wrong”. That was fast.)

Statist #2: Godwin’s Law is proven once again.
(2 likes for reference.)

OP Statist: So billy, the Constitution is a Nazi document? Really?
(3 likes, misunderstands example that illustrates police state)

Friend #1: Bull. An America citizen has the right to resist false arrest.
(A right to another charge maybe.)

Mr. AnCap: Is your signature on the Constitution?
(Challenges social contract theory.)

OP Statist: @Friend #1- please quote the authority for that, Like chapter and verse.
Than you
(3 likes, that don’t comply with muh statist script.)

OP Statist: Is yours Mr. AnCap. What is your point.
(Used periods when should have used question marks.)

Statist #3: Get’em OP Statist
(Yay, team statist!)

Mr AnCap: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWESql2dXoc
(Posted link to 2hr Youtube video that I’m sure no one from the thread watched)

Statist #1: I think there is is a line of demarcation between the types of crimes you are noting and the type I am think of, OP Statist.

People generally don’t get arrested for traffic violations, for instance.

The idea that someone ends up dead because they sold cigarettes without the right government stamp on them should be disturbing to us all. After all, this country exists in the first place due to a bunch of unruly citizens who’d had enough of that nonsense.

The proximate cause is the failure to obey a lawful order by LE. The root cause is the stupidity of something like a special “tax stamp” being required to sell a legal product.
(1 like for being conflicted. Doesn’t agree with killing, but thinks the illegitimate authority should have issued a citation for something that similarly sparked the American Revolution.)

Friend #2: Sad commentary from the top LE in NYC…. must be Holder lap dog
(Thinks that pleas to authority go straight to the top of the DOJ.)

Friend #1: Its the same as a Soldiers right to refuse following an illegal order, except in this civil case, the cops are not your superior officer.
(Thinks people are respected as equals regardless of which side of the government they happen to be on.)

Mr. AnCap: Ill post it for Friend #1

http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm (Links to reference concerning unlawful arrests.)

OP Statist: Roger Statist #1. Traffic laws are generally violations, where a summons is issued in lieu of arrest.
However, traffic laws may also be misdemeanors or felonies, where an arrest is made.

Re loosies.
This was not self generated by the cops. It was the result of multiple complaints by residents and businesses.
(2 likes, addresses confliction with Statist #1, then claims a legitimate reason for assault.)

Statist #1: I don’t think that the arrest in question was unlawful, but the right to resist unlawful arrest is an established principle of law:

State v. Eddington, 95 Ariz. 10, 386 P.2d 20 (1963); Finch v. State, 101 Ga. App. 73,
112 S.E.2d 284 (1960); State v. Goering, 193 Kan. 307, 392 P.2d 930 (1964); State v. Miller,
253 Minn. 112, 91 N.W.2d 138 (1958); State v. Parker, 378 S.W.2d 274 (Mo. 1964); Walters
v. State, 403 P.2d 267 (Okla. Crim. App. 1965).

People should also review:
United States v. Heliczer, 373 F.2d 241, 248 (2d Cir. 1967)
(Fuck the citizens. Dunt Da Dada no need to fear the law is here! Don’t resist because then that makes it ok for them to kill you.)

OP Statist: I am not a lawyer, but those appear to be all state issues, no?
(Are you speaking my statist lingo?)

Statist #1: US vs. Heliczer … federal court, I don’t recall at what level.
(Yeah, brah no worries)

OP Statist: Thank you Statist #1- i’ll pass it on to the DA
(Yeah, we got this.)

Statist #1: Lol … no need.
(1 like, haha yeah bro.)

Statist #4: Friend #1, the Soldier has no right to refuse an illegal order: the servicemember has the responsibility to refuse and prevent the enforcement of such. As with any form of resisting arrest, the burden of properly assessing the situation, and responding appropriately; exists solely in the individual acting crossways to the rest.

Use your best judgement.
(3 likes for, best not be checking muh authoritah)

OP Statist: Statist #4, and how would you know?
(Whatever bro, you speakin’ my lingo?)

Statist #4: well, Recruits have the right to ignore their Instructors, but best judgement cautions against such…
(2 likes, affirmative, I’m speaking your lingo brah)

Mr. AnCap: My point is the constitution is a contract, contracts are not bound to those who don’t sign them. Unless you are granted a monopoly on law like the state, then you can bind generations of people yet to be born.

Theft is illegal, unless you are the state and you make it legal and call it taxation.
(Questions authority, social contract theory, and monopoly on law.)

Statist #4: Would you consider yourself without allegiance to the nation, or a man-unto-themselves (by any words), perhaps?
(1 like. Bro, you unamerican bro?)

OP Statist: I think I understand you very well now. Are you a sovereign citizen?
(2 likes for asserting that Mr. AnCap is a domestic terrorist with statist lingo.)

Half Statist Friend: I support local LEO’s, hell I am married to one, but I cannot get behind this politician “top cop”. Chiefs who are appointed are nothing more than lap dogs for the mayors they serve, you don’t see elected Sheriffs making statements like this. And the fact that it is coming from liberal land NYC isn’t helping at all. Then again selling unregistered cigarettes is illegal in NYC, hell everything is illegal there.
(5 likes for the law being total bullshit in NYC)

Statist #5: I remember when we used to be able to have a calm, reasoned, researched, and factual discussion on LF…
(3 likes that people should be more statist)

Mr. AnCap: Am i a sovereign citizen? No, i am sovereign, in that only individuals are sovereign but i am a anarcho-capitalist.
(0 likes for asserting self-ownership and states his political orientation)

Statist #1: I am happy to play the “gatehouse lawyer” game with anyone, but there generally isn’t a percentage in trying to out-smack-talk an NYPD cop … and especially not a retired one … and especially not a short one.

(Now I am seeking some combination of distance, cover and concealment)
(2 likes for being sketchy statists.)

Half Statist Friend: OP Statist is good people though
(1 like for thinking of statists as good people.)

OP Statist: NY, as do other states, have a *No Sock* law, as stated below

Penal Law §35.27 states that “A person may not use physical force to resist an arrest, whether authorized or unauthorized, which is being effected or attempted by a police officer or peace officer when it would reasonably appear that the latter is a police officer or peace officer.” –
(Respect muh authoritah!)

Mr. AnCap: legality does not equate morality.
(Highlights difference between legality and morality.)

Friend #1: Fine, NY has the same law as the Nazi’s when they ordered the Jews to the trains.
(1 like for reiterating metaphor of police state.)

OP Statist: Statist #1- I am short and I am retired, but I enjoy trading Barbs.
As you know
(1 like for having nothing better to do than talk shit on the internet.)

Statist 4: Friend #1, could you cite the particular German law of that period, please?
(Statist law changes between states and over time. Mmmmmk…)

OP Statist: Friend #1- it is amazing how the Nazi thing keeps getting thrown around.
That you do or don’t like any particular law is irrelevant, but equating people putting others onto a train, and resisting a misdemeanor arrest are two different things.
And Garner knew how the system works.
He had been in it 30 something times.
(3 likes for Garner already being a criminal and not having any rights.)

Mr. AnCap: The nazi thing gets thrown around because “we” defeated the national socialist military, not the national socialist form of government.
(Continues to bring up police state)

OP Statist: Yes, I do understand you very clearly now
(Just doesn’t care.)

Statist #4: Mr. AnCap, as you posted for him earlier; do you have the statutory cite, either?
(l like. The monopoly on law refuses to accept your claims and references. )

Mr. AnCap: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqpdIcGEQsY
(Posts link about abolishment of the monopoly on law.)

Statist #6: Every Mutt on the street thinks his/her arrest is “unlawful”.

(Shows little respect for citizens call them “mutts”, and insults Mr. AnCap with link.)

OP Statist: Mr. AnCap- I would strongly appreciate it if you keep this on track, and stop posting these loons on vid.
What next? Info wars?? Chem trails, Fema detention camps?
(2 likes for calling Mr. AnCap a conspiracy theorist.)

OP Statist: Roger Statist #4, everyone…
(1 like for the suggestion that everyone should now insult Mr. AnCap.)

Mr. AnCap: Statist #6 – its called Reichstag Fire Decree

OP Statist, We call that a strawman. All the videos have been on track, you bring up law, so i post a video on law, you bring up the constitution, i post a video on the constitution. And if you think Milton freidman’s son and lysander spooner are loons, then Bill Bratton is a evil loon.
(Confronts them on not arguing and taking an unethical stance.)

Mr. AnCap: And to say you understand me clearly, then say “whats next, X,Y,Z” shows me you don’t understand me.
(Doesn’t appreciate being made fun of.)

OP Statist:Wait, isn’t Bratton a nahsi? I get confused.
(Patronizing insult)

OP Statist: Oh, believe me, I truly do.
(Glad the law is immoral.)

Statist #3: I love trolls….
(Getting that show he was hoping for from OP Statist. Again, yay team statist!)

Statist #4: Well, not to be a poop:

Mr. AnCap submitted the theory that Garner died following a hit by organized crime, which is the first I’ve heard of it. He then alleged that the citizenry of the US is Hebrew; I was also unaware of this.

OP Statist asked if the US Constitution was a document of the National Socialists.

Mr. AnCap then paid OP Statist a deep compliment about how well he wears his age as a potential signatory to that document.

OP Statist returns the favor.

Mr. AnCap links a site which does not reference the Constitution except in URL, but has a splattering of court case references; as well as posting the argument that the Constitution doesn’t really matter. Shortly afterwards, he declares himself a king. Things nerble (sp?) about for a bit, and then he posts something about abolishing criminal law.
(l like. Oh, cool he’s doing commentary too. Too bad he’s missing the whole point.)

Statist #4: The Constitution is brought up, and Mr. AnCap argues that it doesn’t apply.

Law is brought up and Mr. AnCap argues we should be rid of it.

The only thing you seem to like is that National Socialist bunch that were apparently undefeated.
(1 like for calling Mr. AnCap a holocaust denier.)

Mr AnCap: Well socialism is government granted monopolies, and he is employed in a service that has the government granted monopoly on said service, monopoly on initiation of force, monopoly on law, monopoly on judges, monopoly on courts, monopoly on open carry, monopoly on “assault weapons”, monopoly on full capacity magazines, monopoly of NFA items. And his paycheck is paid for by theft (taxation) and theft of private property (asset forfeiture)
Yeah he is most defiantly a socialist.
(Found need to define terms and apply it to law.)

OP Statist: 🙂
(Proud to be a national socialist, where at least I think I’m free.)

Statist #4: Mr. AnCap WORKS FOR CONGRESS?

Oh shit. 🙁
(1 like, for labeling Mr. AnCap the opposite of what he stands for.)

Mr. AnCap: ” The Constitution is brought up, and Mr. AnCap argues that it doesn’t apply.”

Its a contract you never signed. And it has been powerless to restrain government power. Obama care is constitutional because a piece of paper said we are allowed to rod you (taxation).

“Law is brought up and Mr. AnCap argues we should be rid of it.”

No get rid of monopoly on law, and allow competition to supply the better service via supply and demand.
(Quotes douchey misquotes, and then reiterates argument.)

Statist #4: I never signed Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle or NLOC; and yet, I still find them intertwined with my general life and existence.

Your second point argues in the same manner as saying that Leibnizian Monadology could carry forward with the same elan as Newton’s did, to the next level of operation. This is disagreeable.
(1 like. Actually talks about laws of physics to insult Mr. AnCap.)

OP Statist: Statist #4, I like you (in a non Navy way).
You can be my friend.

Oh wait, you already are my friend. 🙂
(Assumes people in the Navy are homosexual, and hints at Mr. AnCap being out of place.)

Mr. AnCap: “The you are conflating edicts of a king to laws of nature ? You realize that is giving a human the power of a god right ?”
(Takes their sarcasm seriously to prove a point.)

Statist #4: Thank you Pat; and the same back at you. 🙂
(Statist bros foreva! *air guitar*)

Mr. AnCap: I have the right to kill you, because of general relativity.
(Continues to take sarcasm seriously to prove a point)

Mr. AnCap: slavery is ok, because of theory of evolution
(Point made, social darwinism.)

Statist #4: Well, you wrote, “No, I am sovereign…” stressing that it was a descriptor but not title. Per the dictionary: Sovereign (adj): “possessing supreme or ultimate power.”

I thought you’d already claimed the power of a god, frankly; which combined with your self-description of being on the dole is what lead me to out you as a Congressperson.
(1 like for making semantic arguments about law outside of context)

Innocent Bystander: This is the most bewildering thing I have read in weeks. Even Statist #4’s cliff notes are confusing.
(4 likes for not knowing what is happening and not posting on the thread again.)

Mr. AnCap: When did i say i was on the dole?

Sovereign as in i own myself and no other authority owns me.

Self-ownership (or sovereignty of the individual, individual sovereignty or individual autonomy) is the concept of property in one’s own person, expressed as the moral or natural right of a person to have bodily integrity, and be the exclusive controller of his own body and life. According to G. A. Cohen, the concept of self-ownership is that “each person enjoys, over himself and his powers, full and exclusive rights of control and use, and therefore owes no service or product to anyone else that he has not contracted to supply.”
(Took the bait of semantic argument, and worked his way out of it.)

OP Statist: Mr. AnCap- a suggestion. If you ever even consider that you want to take hostages to further your anarchy, don’t.

You have so many buttons to push… 🙂
(2 likes, insists that Mr. AnCap advocates for violence, and that he is too stupid to pull off said violence.)

Statist #4: After I described you in the third-person, you returned the favor with:

“Well socialism is government granted monopolies, and he is employed in a service that has the government granted monopoly on said service, monopoly on initiation of force, monopoly on law, monopoly on judges, monopoly on courts, monopoly on open carry, monopoly on “assault weapons”, monopoly on full capacity magazines, monopoly of NFA items. And his paycheck is paid for by theft (taxation) and theft of private property (asset forfeiture)
Yeah he is most defiantly a socialist.”

Hence: you be on the dole, good sir.
(1 like. Continues to make semantic argument to troll Mr. AnCap. Misspells definitely, but Mr. AnCap would make a rather defiant socialist if put in the position. Unlike you, statist.)

Mr. AnCap: Thats was a reply to OP Statist “Wait, isn’t Bratton a nahsi? I get confused.” comment.
(Wants to be taken seriously)

OP Statist: Continuity.
It works…
(Doesn’t want to take Mr. AnCap seriously.)

Mr. AnCap: Sorry, Statist #4, i missed a lot of your comments because i never got a notification for them.
(Actually thought Statist #4 had something important to say, still wants to be taken seriously.)

Statist #4: It’s cool, we won’t tell your voters. If I may ask, though; House’o’Reps or Senate?
(Continues to not take Mr. AnCap seriously.)

Mr. AnCap: “Mr. AnCap submitted the theory that Garner died following a hit by organized crime, which is the first I’ve heard of it.”

He didn’t pay his protection money (taxation) or get approval to set up shop from the state (mafia). If you have never heard of the State and Mafia similarities, maybe you should read more. The only difference between the two is who has the law on its side.

“Mr. AnCap then paid OP Statist a deep compliment about how well he wears his age as a potential signatory to that document.”

Can i sign a contract and make all my decedents bound to that contract? (constitution) Can i put my unborn child as a co-signer on a loan? (national debt)

“Mr. AnCap links a site which does not reference the Constitution except in URL, but has a splattering of court case references”

OP Statist didn’t ask for a constitutional reference for the right to resist a unlawful arrest. If he did that would be under the second amendment, which the Shall Not Be infringed has been so well protected… What are NYC gun laws again?

“as well as posting the argument that the Constitution doesn’t really matter.”

Its a contract you never signed. its only was binding to those who signed it. Which would explain why it has done little to keep the smallest gov’t from becoming the largest.

“Shortly afterwards, he declares himself a king. ”

Only declared that i own my body, that it is my property.

“Things nerble (sp?) about for a bit, and then he posts something about abolishing criminal law.”

Abolishing Criminal law and sticking only with tort law. Maybe instead of just reading the titles, you watch them.
see when OP Statist posted the article i didn’t just read the head line. i read the article and formed a argument on what it said. that way you know how to form a argument on what was said and not what you think it says.
(0 likes, makes point and creates commentary of past comments. Thanks again for posting a link from Liberate RVA.)

OP Statist: Meds.

Take them. Now.
(2 likes for continuing to call Mr. AnCap crazy.)

Mr. AnCap: Passive aggressive comments are not arguments.
(Wants to have honest debate.)

Statist #4: I find it interesting that only now are you responding to the points made by others; albeit in a generally Confucian manner paired with unrelated tangents. As is common with this sort, you desire that I sacrifice an unreasonable amount of time, reading, and listening; which historically has no return other then the formation of neural hemorrhoids. Mea culpa, but I must demur on that experience.

Were you to address the points made, earlier in this conversation; then this exchange might have gone differently. Yet, you advocate murder, assault, slavery, the stripping of every significant legally recognized right, and the end of a lawful society. How did you expect any of this to end?

I’m afraid you’ve mistaken the tone of things, if you think that OP Statist is being passive aggressive.
(1 like. Completely skips over Mr. AnCap’s point and starts condescending.)

OP Statist: It wasn’t a comment Mr Billy.
It was a strong suggestion.
(3 likes for continuing to call Mr. AnCap crazy.)

Mr. AnCap: Responding because i didn’t see your past comment. next time if i don’t see a comment ill just ignore it.

“Yet, you advocate murder, assault, slavery, the stripping of every significant legally recognized right, and the end of a lawful society. How did you expect any of this to end?”

Please show me where i advocated any of those thing.
(Mad that he isn’t being taken seriously and wants them to understand what it is they are advocating for.)

Mr. AnCap: Comment, suggestion. still not a argument.
(Still insists on having a civil discussion.)

Statist #4: Now you’re just being unkind. Be nice.

You want to dump the Constitution: y\n?
(1 like for condescending with nationalist question.)

Mr. AnCap: And telling someone you don’t agree with that they need medication is being nice?

Yes, Because it’s a contract where the only people who were bound to it are long dead. You as a person can’t enforce a contract onto other people when they never consented to it, and that what the signers did. Enforcing a contract on to million of people who weren’t even born.
If you think thats ok, ill go take out a loan and put you down as a co-signer.

And it has done nothing to guard against government encroachments. It gives a class of people the legal right to steal.

How well has the second amendment been protected? Your right to self defense with arms not being infringed? Again what are NYC gun laws? I guess we don’t have a standing army right?, Where is the amendment authorizing the drug war? Was alcohol prohibition ok because the constitution said so? Right to keep the products of your labor? well the constitution says you owe the state a percentage of your income so that makes it ok.
Was slavery ok even when the constitutions said it was ok and wrong when it said it was wrong or was it wrong the whole time?
Legality does not equate morality.

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”

“A man’s natural rights are his own, against the whole world; and any infringement of them is equally a crime; whether committed by one man, or by millions; whether committed by one man, calling himself a robber, or by millions calling themselves a government.”
(Finally a like, AnCap powers activate.)

Trollish Observer: This is some funny shit!
(2 likes for AnCap trolling, and never posts again.)

Statist #4: Well, you are advocating the aforementioned murder\assault\slavery\etc… on *his* FB wall. You came here, rather then vice versa. Therefore; be nice.

You have your monologue, which is presented regardless of the stimulus we provide you; but it does not engender dialogue.

You still haven’t said what sort of politician you are. 🙂

I am still bound in contract to HUP; sorrow, sorrow!
(1 like for trolling Mr. AnCap and making him feel out of place.)

Mr. AnCap: You know you’re not making a argument right?

Dont tell me i advocate murder, assault and slavery, show me where i advocated it.

I hold no public office.

If physics are contracts show me your signature.
(Failed to recognize trolling, reiterates position.)

OP Statist: @Trollish Observer -it sure is!! The epitome of a train wreck. 🙂
(1 like for trolling)

Mr. AnCap: Contracts are a voluntary agreement between 2 or more people for mutual benefit. that consists of, intent, offer, meeting of minds, the voluntary acceptance, and the exchange of service. Physics meets none of these requirements.
(Reiterates dismantling semantic argument.)

OP Statist: It just gets better, and better
(Happy Mr. AnCap didn’t realize semantic argument was an effort at trolling.)

Statist #4: I know…? I don’t know a lot, frankly. What I am making, as is usual for this hour, are sewn goods (there may be more pictures loaded tonight, OP Statist).

Show me my signature, in this day and age of identity theft? Nein!

You could voluntarily abrogate your relationship with NLoM, but they might not abrogate their relationship with you. 🙂
(1 like, trolling social contract theory)

Random Guy on Phone:
sp meme
(4 likes for phone’s screen shot.)

Statist #7: I’m not sure what just happened. Quite the entertainment for what was shaping up to be a typical Wed nite.

Most importantly, OP Statist – I’ll see you at COC @ EVTC in Oct. I’ve put in my leave. It’ll be good to take a break from these darn FEMA camps. Ssshhhhhh. Dont tell Mr. AnCap.
(3 likes for trolling Mr. AnCap as conspiracy theorist.)

Mr. AnCap: Never bought up fema camps.
The Right is all for privatization till you say privatize they socialism the support. Then you advocate murder, assault and slavery.
(Not taking this lightly by calling out right-wingers as unethical.)

OP Statist: Roger, just don’t wear that blue helmet. You never know who is watching…
(4 likes. That one was pretty funny, I’m surprised these guys are up-to-date on conspiracy theories, but still just trolling.)

OP Statist: There he goes again- advocating murder, assault and slavery. 2x today.
(2 likes for flipping the argument around again on Mr. AnCap.)

Mr. AnCap: And yet when i ask to show me were i advocated such things no one does.
(Cause they trolling hard.)

Statist #7: Can I wear the MOPP suit? I dont want to get contaminated when the drones sprinkle the contrails. If I can find a warrior-sized one, I’ll bring it for you.
(3 likes, trolling with conspiracy theory)

Statist #4: The thirteenth amendment to that shindig you want to trash just can’t get a break today, can it? 🙁

Herr Neitz: “I have the right to kill you, because of general relativity.”
and: “slavery is ok, because of theory of evolution”

I’m still lost about the whole “all Americans are jews” point you were trying to make at the beginning.
(Takes worst quotes out of context to troll.)

OP Statist: Nah, my Vertyx is impervious. Besides, I need to look somewhat cool.
Still… 🙂
(Camo joke.)

Statist #7: Billy since you insist the Constitution doesnt apply to you (since you didnt personally sign it), might I request that you stop utilizing and relying upon the 1st Amendment and STFU?
(2 likes for silencing dissent.)

Statist Sadist: So Mr. AnCap- I’m late to this conversation. And I’m hoping you can “educate” lil ol’ me.

So I saw you say a couple of times that the constitution is a “contract” between two or more people and that if your name isn’t on it, it doesn’t apply.
Golly. That completely blows everything I’ve been taught about “Ratification” right out the window. Tell me, since ratification of the constitution is a moot point, And you say it’s only applicable to the parties who signed it, then who does…. say…. The right to protection against warrantless search and seizure. .. apply to? It obviously doesn’t apply to you, per your claimed constitutional expertise.

I will be waiting with breathless anticipation for your response.
(1 like, makes conflicting argument contradicting civil liberties from within the Bill of Rights.)

OP Statist: Careful Statist Sadist, you are making sense.
He may have to channel that spoonerd anarchist to engage you .. 🙂
(0 likes. Trolling by making fun of Lysander Spooner, but I don’t think the other statists get it.)

Statist Sadist: Golly, Pat…I’m just an innocent little, no nothing chick from the midwest. I’m sure Mr. AnCap can “inspire” me with an education about the Constitution that he seems to think is far more vast than my own…**bats eyelashes innocently**

And I hope he has the nads to bring it on soon. He’s one mouse this cat is going to enjoy toying with.
(2 likes for implied sadism.)

OP Statist: Why, you sure are feeling sporty tonight Statist Sadist….
(1 like for the appreciation of sadism.)

Mr. AnCap: Was slavery wrong before the 13th amendment said it was wrong or was it only wrong because the the amendment said so?

I have the right to freedom of speech whether there is a first amendment or not. Just like Slavery was wrong when the constitution said it was ok

warrantless search and seizure are illegal? Better let the NSA and TSA know. Be sure to let the NYPD know stop and frisk is a violation of the 4th amendment too.
(Solid rebuttal to the question posed by Statist Sadist.)

Mr. AnCap: Is theft wrong? can me and a few of my friends get together and call it taxation is it ok then?
(Makes moral plea.)

OP Statist: Actually, the stop and frisk is very legal, Terry v Ohio.
Of course, let’s not have facts interfere with your suppositions.
(Beings up factoid to marginalize Mr. AnCap, and doesn’t respect personal property.)

Statist #4: Slavery was wrong before the 13th Ammendment; but it was scarcely protected against, until afterwards. 🙂

I feel that you have a large amount of information to share with the aforementioned organizations; have you considered writing them, and helping to guide them away from the error of their ways? 😮
(1 like for patronizing condescension.)

Random Guy on Phone: Post hoc ergo propter hoc?
(2 likes, therefore because you whatever.)

This is a really long thread (and still active) so I am sorry to stop here without getting to the worst part of what Statist Sadist has to say. She pretty much just fantasized about watching someone rape Mr. AnCap, and instead of stopping the rape happening right in front of her she would cheer it on. She says the following…

Mr. AnCap, the 2A is doing great. More and more people are against stricter gun control every day. The Bloomberg socialists have driven more and more people to our side.

Too bad the 2A doesn’t apply to you, per your own admission. But I promise to respect your views on constitutional rights if I ever see you being raped anally by a 280 lb guy in an alleyway. I promise not to unhoster my legally carried firearm to defend you. I will instead, call 911, pull up a lawn chair, and cheer you on to dodge your assailant for the 20 minutes it will take for the police to arrive….

Then to reiterate:

Damn. That’s right. I forgot. Well hells bells. That takes some of the fun out of it. Can I at least still pull up a lawn chair and cheer him on while he is getting the super sized cavity drilled into his nether regions and offer him words of encouragement about criminal laws not applying to his attacker? Please?

Finally saying…
Touched a nerve with the post on my wall, did I? Cool. That was my intention. Just exercising my “freedom of speech” through your definition, Mr. AnCap. You don’t approve? I’m sad.

Next…make up your mind. My name isn’t on the Constitution. Therefore, per you, I have no right to keep and bear arms. Why on earth would I defend you *illegally* if that’s the case? Wouldn’t that fly in the face of what you’re saying about the Constitution?

Nope. Much better if your attacker receive what you want. Freeddom from criminal laws.

Now…if someone who actually believed in, supported and were proud of our country and constitution needed my help? Damn straight I would be there for them.
(I hope she isn’t a cop.)


Send me an email if you have a thread you want me to transcribe and provide commentary for at 10706ty@gmail.com.
If you choose to subscribe to Liberty.me, please use discount code TYLERLL
to save yourself some money.