Comments by "Dirty Red" (@DirtyRedMuzik) on "" video.

  1.  @smokingjoe9864 What law says that you can beat up a couple of cops?
    11
  2.  @worldtraveler134 That hardly happens. Cool story tho.
    7
  3.  @duderdude4831 Only in blue cities do you find the most crime.
    2
  4.  @arnoldnicholson2165 Incorrect, he does not have immunity. Do some research.
    2
  5.  @chavonj4680 The problem is that they shouldn’t be here nor should they have been released due to the level of assault.
    2
  6.  @duderdude4831  No, why? Is it considered one of the most violent cities in the US?
    1
  7.  @chavonj4680  Where did I say that cops are more valuable than everybody else? It’s weird how you have no problem with people being assaulted. But seeing how you support illegals beating up Americans, I guess I can’t expect much from someone like you.
    1
  8.  @chavonj4680  Who said any of that?
    1
  9.  @chavonj4680  What laws? Please specifically state one.
    1
  10.  @smokingjoe9864  What if he has no complaints? More speculation? 😂
    1
  11.  @smokingjoe9864  Why can we not think the cops were beat for no reason? I can understand questions but why not question everything and everyone? If they were justified why did the one they didn’t release flip off everyone when outside the courthouse? That doesn’t seem like a gesture from someone that is innocent. Since then the rest have fled to California. You can’t ask questions when you let the majority of the suspects leave the state.
    1
  12.  @chavonj4680  The 2nd Amendment is not a law, it’s a constitutional right afforded to US citizens only. And no where does it state that you can beat up police, or anyone for that matter.
    1
  13.  @chavonj4680  Again, it is not a law, it is a right afforded only to US citizens. Laws are created in accordance to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Learn the difference between a law and a right. Noncitizens are not able to legally obtain firearms. Therefore the 2nd Amendment does not apply to them. The 2nd Amendment never mentions tyranny. It mentions in the prefatory clause the right of forming and maintaining militias, being necessary to a free state, and in the operative clause it states the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Noncitizens are not “the People”. Do some research because you’re completely wrong. Police officers are not a government, however they are employed through local governments. But that does not give someone the right to be a vigilante on corrupt or tyrannical police. The opinions of you or some random people (most Americans, as you label them) do not matter. The text is clear and SCOTUS has interpreted and ruled on the matter. If I am wrong, please show me the text from the Constitution that states otherwise. I’ll wait.
    1
  14.  @chavonj4680  Again, it is not a law, it is a right afforded only to US citizens. Laws are created in accordance to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Learn the difference between a law and a right. Noncitizens are not able to legally obtain firearms. Therefore the 2nd Amendment does not apply to them. The 2nd Amendment never mentions tyranny. It mentions in the prefatory clause the right of forming and maintaining militias, being necessary to a free state, and in the operative clause it states the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Noncitizens are not “the People”. Do some research because you’re completely wrong. Police officers are not a government, however they are employed through local governments. But that does not give someone the right to be a vigilante on corrupt or tyrannical police. The opinions of you or some random people (most Americans, as you label them) do not matter. The text is clear and SCOTUS has interpreted and ruled on the matter. If I am wrong, please show me the text from the Constitution that states otherwise. I’ll wait.
    1
  15.  @chavonj4680  Again, it is not a law, it is a right afforded only to US citizens. Laws are created in accordance to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Learn the difference between a law and a right. Noncitizens are not able to legally obtain firearms. Therefore the 2nd Amendment does not apply to them. The 2nd Amendment never mentions tyranny. It mentions in the prefatory clause the right of forming and maintaining militias, being necessary to a free state, and in the operative clause it states the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Noncitizens are not “the People”. Do some research because you’re completely wrong. Police officers are not a government, however they are employed through local governments. But that does not give someone the right to be a vigilante on corrupt or tyrannical police. The opinions of you or some random people (most Americans, as you label them) do not matter. The text is clear and SCOTUS has interpreted and ruled on the matter. If I am wrong, please show me the text from the Constitution that states otherwise. I’ll wait.
    1
  16.  @chavonj4680  Again, it is not a law, it is a right afforded only to US citizens. Laws are created in accordance to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Learn the difference between a law and a right. Noncitizens are not able to legally obtain firearms. Therefore the 2nd Amendment does not apply to them. The 2nd Amendment never mentions tyranny. It mentions in the prefatory clause the right of forming and maintaining militias, being necessary to a free state, and in the operative clause it states the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Noncitizens are not “the People”. Do some research because you’re completely wrong. Police officers are not a government, however they are employed through local governments. But that does not give someone the right to be a vigilante on corrupt or tyrannical police. The opinions of you or some random people (most Americans, as you label them) do not matter. The text is clear and SCOTUS has interpreted and ruled on the matter. If I am wrong, please show me the text from the Constitution that states otherwise. I’ll wait…
    1
  17.  @chavonj4680  Again, it is not a law, it is a right afforded only to US citizens. Laws are created in accordance to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Learn the difference between a law and a right. Noncitizens are not able to legally obtain firearms. Therefore the 2nd Amendment does not apply to them. The 2nd Amendment never mentions tyranny. It mentions in the prefatory clause the right of forming and maintaining militias, being necessary to a free state, and in the operative clause it states the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Noncitizens are not “the People”. Do some research because you’re completely wrong. Police officers are not a government, however they are employed through local governments. But that does not give someone the right to be a vigilante on corrupt or tyrannical police. The opinions of you or some random people (most Americans, as you label them) do not matter. The text is clear and SCOTUS has interpreted and ruled on the matter. If I am wrong, please show me the text from the Constitution that states otherwise. I’ll wait…
    1
  18.  @chavonj4680  Again, it is not a law, it is a right afforded only to US citizens. Laws are created in accordance to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Learn the difference between a law and a right. Immigrants are not able to legally obtain firearms. Therefore the 2nd Amendment does not apply to them. The 2nd Amendment never mentions tyranny. It mentions in the prefatory clause the right of forming and maintaining militias, being necessary to a free state, and in the operative clause it states the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Immigrants are not “the People”. Do some research because you’re completely wrong. Police officers are not a government, however they are employed through local governments. But that does not give someone the right to be a vigilante on corrupt or tyrannical police. The opinions of you or some random people (most Americans, as you label them) do not matter. The text is clear and SCOTUS has interpreted and ruled on the matter. If I am wrong, please show me the text from the Constitution that states otherwise. I’ll wait…
    1
  19. Again, it is not a law, it is a right afforded only to US citizens. Laws are created in accordance to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Learn the difference between a law and a right. Noncitizens are not able to legally obtain firearms. Therefore the 2nd Amendment does not apply to them. The 2nd Amendment never mentions tyranny. It mentions in the prefatory clause the right of forming and maintaining militias, being necessary to a free state, and in the operative clause it states the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Noncitizens are not “the People”. Do some research because you’re completely wrong. Police officers are not a government, however they are employed through local governments. But that does not give someone the right to be a vigilante on corrupt or tyrannical police. The opinions of you or some random people (most Americans, as you label them) do not matter. The text is clear and SCOTUS has interpreted and ruled on the matter. If I am wrong, please show me the text from the Constitution that states otherwise. I’ll wait…
    1
  20.  @chavonj4680  Sorry but only citizens and permanent residents can purchase firearms legally in the US. Look it up! I would ask you to provide evidence but you can’t. “The right of the people to keep bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Why would you exclude “the people”? You foreigners crack me up! 😂 “The people” in the Constitution means the citizens of the US. You can look up what it means, in general, it means “people that constitute a nation”. Under United States v. Flores “the Second Amendment does not apply to unlawfully present aliens” because they aren't “the people” to whom the Amendment refers. We have a federal law banning unauthorized immigrants and nonimmigrant visa holders from possessing firearms, as well. The 14th Amendment provides all citizens equal protection under the law. I suggest you learn what “citizen” means. Is English not your first language? I never said police weren’t agents of the government, I said they are not the government. With Heller, the Supreme Court held that the "Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” It’s not in the Constitution but SCOTUS interpreted that the Constitution affords us that right. But then again we can look at certain states that have placed heavy restrictions so it’s virtually impossible to defend yourself; NY and California are great examples. I am still waiting for the text that says you can beat up police officers…
    1
  21.  @chavonj4680  I don’t see a second comment. To be fair I had to repost my previous response 10 times before YT wouldn’t remove it.
    1
  22.  @chavonj4680  Sorry but only citizens and permanent residents can purchase firearms legally in the US. Look it up! I would ask you to provide evidence but you can’t. “The right of the people to keep bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Why would you exclude “the people”? You foreigners crack me up! 😂 “The people” in the Constitution means the citizens of the US. You can look up what it means, in general, it means “people that constitute a nation”. Under United States v. Flores “the Second Amendment does not apply to unlawfully present aliens” because they aren't “the people” to whom the Amendment refers. We have a federal law banning unauthorized immigrants and nonimmigrant visa holders from possessing firearms, as well. The 14th Amendment provides all citizens equal protection under the law. I suggest you learn what “citizen” means. Is English not your first language? I never said police weren’t agents of the government, I said they are not the government. With Heller, the Supreme Court held that the "Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” It’s not in the Constitution but SCOTUS interpreted that the Constitution affords us that right. But then again we can look at certain states that have placed heavy restrictions so it’s virtually impossible to defend yourself; NY and California are great examples. I am still waiting for the text that says you can beat up police officers…
    1
  23.  @chavonj4680  Sorry but only citizens and permanent residents can purchase firearms legally in the US. Look it up! I would ask you to provide evidence but you can’t. “The right of the people to keep bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Why would you exclude “the people”? You foreigners crack me up! 😂 “The people” in the Constitution means the citizens of the US. You can look up what it means, in general, it means “people that constitute a nation”. Under United States v. Flores “the Second Amendment does not apply to unlawfully present aliens” because they aren't “the people” to whom the Amendment refers. We have a federal law banning unauthorized immigrants and nonimmigrant visa holders from possessing firearms, as well. The 14th Amendment provides all citizens equal protection under the law. I suggest you learn what “citizen” means. Is English not your first language? I never said police weren’t agents of the government, I said they are not the government. With Heller, the Supreme Court held that the "Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” It’s not in the Constitution but SCOTUS interpreted that the Constitution affords us that right. But then again we can look at certain states that have placed heavy restrictions so it’s virtually impossible to defend yourself; NY and California are great examples. I am still waiting for the text that says you can beat up police officers…
    1
  24.  @chavonj4680  Sorry but only citizens and permanent residents can purchase firearms legally in the US. Look it up! I would ask you to provide evidence but you can’t. “The right of the people to keep bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Why would you exclude “the people”? You foreigners crack me up! 😂 “The people” in the Constitution means the citizens of the US. You can look up what it means, in general, it means “people that constitute a nation”. Under United States v. Flores “the Second Amendment does not apply to unlawfully present aliens” because they aren't “the people” to whom the Amendment refers. We have a federal law banning unauthorized immigrants and nonimmigrant visa holders from possessing firearms, as well. The 14th Amendment provides all citizens equal protection under the law. I suggest you learn what “citizen” means. Is English not your first language? I never said police weren’t agents of the government, I said they are not the government. With Heller, the Supreme Court held that the "Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” It’s not in the Constitution but SCOTUS interpreted that the Constitution affords us that right. But then again we can look at certain states that have placed heavy restrictions so it’s virtually impossible to defend yourself; NY and California are great examples. I am still waiting for the text that says you can beat up police officers…
    1
  25.  @chavonj4680  Sorry but only citizens and permanent residents can purchase firearms legally in the US. Look it up! I would ask you to provide evidence but you can’t. “The right of the people to keep bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Why would you exclude “the people”? You foreigners crack me up! 😂 “The people” in the Constitution means the citizens of the US. You can look up what it means, in general, it means “people that constitute a nation”. Under United States v. Flores “the Second Amendment does not apply to unlawfully present aliens” because they aren't “the people” to whom the Amendment refers. We have a federal law banning unauthorized immigrants and nonimmigrant visa holders from possessing firearms, as well. The 14th Amendment provides all citizens equal protection under the law. I suggest you learn what “citizen” means. Is English not your first language? I never said police weren’t agents of the government, I said they are not the government. With Heller, the Supreme Court held that the "Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” It’s not in the Constitution but SCOTUS interpreted that the Constitution affords us that right. But then again we can look at certain states that have placed heavy restrictions so it’s virtually impossible to defend yourself; NY and California are great examples. I am still waiting for the text that says you can beat up police officers…
    1
  26.  @chavonj4680  Permanent residents are not noncitizens. I suggest investing in a dictionary. Is English not your first language? My grandmother is Navajo. Again, the Second Amendment is not a law, it is a right afforded to citizens. Equal protection under the law isn’t talking about that. Show the text from the 14A that states as much.
    1
  27.  @chavonj4680  “People” and “the people” mean two entirely different things. Again, dictionary.
    1
  28.  @chavonj4680  I don’t believe in religion or cultish behavior. I’ll stick to the Constitution.
    1
  29.  @chavonj4680  Are noncitizens allowed to vote? Nope! Next…
    1
  30.  @chavonj4680  What is the text? I ask and you fail to provide any.
    1
  31.  @chavonj4680  People is an indefinite plural so it refers to all people everywhere. The people is a definite plural, it refers to all of a specific group of people.
    1
  32.  @chavonj4680  “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof…”, please reread that carefully. If rights are naturally occurring and self evident, then why do we need a Constitution to guarantee them? Literally because of the Bill of Rights, we have the rights that were provided to us, aka afforded to us. While green card holders can live and work in the United States, and enjoy most of the same benefits as a U.S. citizen, permanent residents are not U.S. citizens and because of this do not have the full rights of a citizen. Limitations include: Green card holders do not have the right to vote. The subject of the video is about people that aren’t even green card holders. They lack even more rights because of that. Who our ancestors were doesn’t make a difference about today. I’m not sure what you won, but congratulations.
    1
  33.  @chavonj4680  How do I subscribe to religion or cultish behavior? I have special rights because I was born in a country, a country where the founding fathers gave us these special rights. I could care less on who is or isn’t religious.
    1
  34.  @chavonj4680  The Declaration of Independence declares that “whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness], it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government.” The 2A does not say that. However, it does give us the ability. But with “gun control” that ability is being chipped away. When it comes to a group of men beating up two police officers, I don’t see how you can say it’s people fighting against tyranny. First the tyranny must be proven. Can you prove it? If we decide that we can beat cops because we think they are violating our rights then we open the door to anarchy. Personally I am not a fan of police or the government for many reasons, but I also see the danger in what you’re arguing.
    1
  35.  @chavonj4680  If someone is breaking into my home or trying to kidnap me I don’t care if I’m allowed to defend myself and family, I will regardless of local law.
    1
  36.  @chavonj4680  If you’re unsure of the English language and vocabulary used in the late 1700’s, I suggest you do more research. Also, most people writing a formal paper tend to use synonyms as to not be so repetitive.
    1
  37.  @chavonj4680  Mentioning “the people” is significant because it means something different than people or persons. It’s basic English.
    1
  38.  @chavonj4680  I’m not switching anything. You lack the ability to comprehend basic English and the documents that formed this country. Your whole argument was that the criminals that attacked cops were justified because of speculative tyranny. Afterwards you went off on a tangent that had nothing to do with those shitbags and the incident. Do better!
    1
  39.  @chavonj4680  That’s me following my rights, and they shall not be infringed.
    1
  40.  @chavonj4680  I haven’t switched anything. You tried to justify the scum that beat those police through speculative tyranny. You followed that up with a tangent and proved that you are unable to comprehend basic English words. Do better!
    1
  41.  @chavonj4680  Yes I can violate unconstitutional law and not be violent, and yes, someone can not just fight the police because they believe their rights are being violated. And the reason why I say that is because one is a violent action while the other is a nonviolent action.
    1
  42.  @chavonj4680  Not only citizens have rights, but citizens have a few extra rights because they are citizens. Remember, voting is a great example, same as being eligible for being president.
    1
  43.  @chavonj4680  Gun restriction is unconstitutional, again, “shall not be infringed”. The point I am making is that what I am doing is nonviolent, what they did isn’t. What is the point of your question involving someone breaking in? I don’t see the relevance.
    1
  44.  @chavonj4680  Hmm, I figured with those different amendments, voting is a right… You’re right, to be president, one of the qualifications is being born here. I wonder why.
    1
  45.  @chavonj4680  Don’t worry, they arrested most of them at a bus station in Arizona last night.
    1
  46.  @chavonj4680  Who is being kidnapped?
    1
  47.  @chavonj4680  You’re not making any sense. Nobody in this video was being kidnapped, just violent young male immigrants beating up two police officers.
    1
  48.  @chavonj4680  But yet nobody can prove that it was unlawful. You’re just speculating which doesn’t help anything.
    1
  49.  @chavonj4680  I never made that argument, you keep confusing “the people” with “people”.
    1
  50.  @smokingjoe9864  Humanitarian rights… 😂
    1
  51.  @chavonj4680  Where did you get that info from? I have yet to hear that they were trying to arrest them for standing on a public sidewalk.
    1
  52.  @chavonj4680  Now you’re just being disingenuous. When I was referring to synonyms and redundancy I didn’t mention “the people”. It was in reference to people and persons.
    1
  53.  @chavonj4680  Yep, they belong in prison.
    1
  54.  @chavonj4680  Why are you still confused on the difference between “the people” and “people”/“persons”? I’ve explained it several times. I suggest to look it up yourself now or stop trolling. “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” It’s pretty self explanatory. Yes, the people, have “special” rights. The 1st, 2nd, 4th and 9th are specifically for the people.
    1
  55.  @chavonj4680  There is no right that says people can congregate on a sidewalk. Those laws are determined by local officials. They were blocking movement on the sidewalk which is why the police intervened.
    1
  56.  @chavonj4680  Again, I’m shocked that I have to repeat this, but laws and rights are two different things.
    1
  57.  @chavonj4680  I suggest instead of conversing on US politics maybe you should learn about it first…
    1
  58.  @chavonj4680  The part of the Constitution that provides rights is the Bill of Rights.
    1
  59.  @chavonj4680  Why does a citizen need to verify that he/she is a citizen?
    1
  60.  @chavonj4680  The 14th does not give all rights to everyone. Please reread it. Why do you think I don’t know about the first?
    1
  61.  @chavonj4680  “Equal protection of the laws” is self explanatory.
    1
  62.  @chavonj4680  You answered your own question. If they violate your rights then your rights were violated. That is why we have a court system.
    1
  63.  @chavonj4680  The Bill of Rights is a literal provision of rights. The Bill of Rights provides us with our rights. This is getting boring and going nowhere. I suggest you take an American history course. I can only give you the answers so many times. I honestly believe you don’t want the truth and would rather waste someone’s time.
    1
  64.  @chavonj4680  The Bill of Rights does provide our rights, without it, we wouldn’t have them. Your “educators” have failed you. I suggest using Google to get the answers you need. You’ll find they are the same as mine.
    1
  65.  @chavonj4680  The “right of privacy” was determined to be part of the 14th amendment by the court. That is called an interpretation.
    1
  66.  @chavonj4680  Just a heads up, the guys you felt were justified are members of a deadly gang responsible for murder. 👍🏻
    1
  67.  @cosmo2852 I think he means the people that tend to commit violence the most even though they are a small percentage of the population…
    1
  68.  @xkaiokenx10  Last year, 1,135 people were fatally shot by police, 213 were black. There were over 7 million arrests. That is quite a large discrepancy for you to consider it happening a lot. Over 50% of all violent crime is committed by a demographic that consists of 6% of the population.
    1
  69.  @xkaiokenx10  1,135 people were fatally shot by police last year, 215 were black. 6% of our population commits more than 50% of all violent crime. There were over 700k arrests. Is there a bias or do the stats show that certain demographics commit more crime, therefore have more police interactions, therefore having a higher probability of being arrested or shot when resisting?
    1
  70.  @xkaiokenx10  Have you ever looked at statistics involving crime and demographics?
    1