[@Penny]

Martial law is reserved and designed for scenarios wherein the entire system has collapsed. A reasonable execution of armed action to stand up the fallen government would be in an extreme such as in the event of terror employing a weapon of mass destruction. Why? Because the local, tribal and or state government, have mostly if not completely have failed and there is anarchy among the populace. The police are unable to effectively respond, emergency medical treatment is at levels almost exclusive to triage if at all, fire control is dedicated to critical infrastructure, engineering projects - like nuclear reactors which are national assets - are under threat because of becoming derelict. The execution of such an order would be to recapture and recover the affected areas and restore order.

Mobilizing the National Guard to step in, in place of the police who are forced to stand down, is how you maintain discipline and enforce the law. If the police are being [i]forced[/i], as they are in some of these cases, to disobey their code and being prevented from carrying out their role in society, no less their occupation for which they are paid, by someone who is morally and politically compromised and allowing the public to skirmish amongst itself, there is a pretty distinct failure to uphold the law.

The American public is not aware that the largest intrusions that happen to them still occur daily out of sight and out of mind, at times in areas of actual and legitimate questionability in law. This is one of the reasons the populace was [i]so[/i] reactive to the National Security Agency and Homeland Security Agency electronic monitoring, among others, because while it was and is critical to countering threats, it has in some cases - as we have seen - proven to be unlawful in of itself. 

The argument of police checkpoints appearing every few weeks at random, or in specific static locations, is a "police state" is hollow in comparison and contrast to other, historically well known police states. For the moment I will refer you to Venezuela as an excellent example of an actual police state, where the government arranged a specific policing force to seize command and control of privately owned resources, then redistributed them as it saw fit under the new law. No less, the police then turned on its own populace and behaves as a means of oppression rather than protection. It has no other greater purpose at the moment than to control the population; law enforcement is a distant secondary objective, if that.

[@Vilageidiotx]

You would be correct we do not have a "major" problem of terrorism in the United States, but it is essential that efforts be made to become proactive over reactive. Coming from an element of counter terror, it was much easier to defeat terror its low level, lone wolf lanings when it focused so heavily on improvised explosives yet incidents like the Boston Marathon Bombing prove that it is still possible. Today, knife attacks and vehicle ramming attacks have become, and will continue to rise as, the new standard, owing to the reality that they are cheaper and easier to execute, significantly more difficult to detect and hard to prevent; although the former is more readily defeated by a populace that is allowed to better exercise their right of arms. The latter is unfortunately, almost impossible to efficiently protect against.

I specifically prefaced my statement by saying "I would say." because [i]I[/i] do, just as I disagree that "America is what we make it."; I contrarily believe that America has some fundamentals that cannot be compromised, especially not in the name of socialism and its foundations in social justice. 

You can however, entirely rationally argue that my advocating for elevated security across the board might lead down a slippery slope to a police state. That I would agree with for if it was not implemented properly and in conjunction with other critical concepts such as dual electronic authorization when making a purchase (both a driver's license or similar identification [i]and[/i] a credit card, or at minimum being carded if you are buying with cash), it is ripe for potential abuse. [i]That[/i] is an argument I can believe and empathize with. Despite this note, I will never concede communism as anything less than an [i]actual[/i], not hypothetical, enemy of the free world, namely the United States.

To the next topic, I do not believe there is any issue in semantics. A natural bell curve exists in that the further you get from what is considered "centrist" the more you become an extreme by that virtue. If the center right is "Republican" and the center left is "Democrat" that reasonably moves the Right Wing, "Alt-Right" and Alt-Right to the fringes in that order, just as it does in mirror with the left. Political motives become deeper and stronger the further you go to either side and the reasonability of violence to achieve those wants becomes [i]more[/i] likely. The extremes of the left are made up of everything from communists to anarchists who have and do advocate violence; they are the more recent propagators. The real Alt-Right is [i]notorious[/i] for this too because they so strongly cling to the ability to maintain arms - it is a cliché of their faction that they are all supposedly skin headed and surrounded by "assault rifles".

Again I will repeat that they are not automatically rendered all violent by association, but that they have the ability to sympathize with or accidentally allow a dangerous extremist into their movement. Because of their more consolidated, condensed and heightened motives, it makes it [i]more likely[/i] they will provide assistance to them in that regard. It is the same reason that sympathetic moderates of any movement can become knowing bystanders to a violent movement; they have the power to avert harm, yet instead do not act on it because they are compromised and unwilling to betray those they view as their friends or at least their allies.

[quote=Vilageidiotx]Personally I think gendered bathrooms is kinda silly, but I pretty much keep quiet about it because I figure as a guy I am getting me some juicy privilege by keeping bathrooms gendered, since, like, have you ever seen the line for a womans bathroom at a major event?[/quote]
I do not believe in the notion of privilege, be it the now cringe worthy "CIS White Male" stereotype to the Alt-Right's counter stereotype that minorities receive privilege just because they are [i]always[/i] somehow made out to be the downtrodden.

The cost in this circumstance is the comfort of the remaining 99.7% of the regular populace, a noteworthy portion being roughly half of which disagrees with the concept, or that a law needs to enforce it. It is not the duty of the populace to bow to or cater to a minority, especially an extremely small minority. It is the duty of that minority to integrate and become part of the rest of the population and explain to those who are misinformed on it. Here there is no misinformation, as this is a largely out of proportion issue, just as the "Women's Rights" argument that somehow women in America are not equal to their male counterparts; they're both Americans.

Again, while I find the notion of "helping make people more functional" to be a nice one and what I would want to see in any circumstance, I do not believe they are obligated to, especially not by law. Hypothetically, if I owned a company and found that to be an issue - let us say the fluorescent lighting - I would purchase and maintain an alternative to it. I as the owner made that choice to accommodate people; I was not forced by the government to do so. No less, as a tax payer, even one who falls into these categories that are considered other than normal, I do not agree with paying taxes to front or enforce these changes or policies, even if they would specifically benefit me; it isn't my job or my business to do so and certainly not the average American's. It is my job as a representative of my minorities to adapt and overcome my personal difficulties.

To the other topic, there [i]are[/i] those who are flying Nazi flags, but then there are those across the line - who you [i]actually[/i] consistently see - flying the Hammer and Sickle unironically; both massacred and murdered their populace and those that they held dominion over and both are the symbols of the worst of humanity. No less, the former is extremely uncommon to the point that from everything I have seen in these riots, there has not been [i]one[/i] flown.

I disagree that Bike-Lock Guy is somehow not a representative of the Black Bloc, of which promotes violence and allowed him to execute it; no less against a person who was [i]trying[/i] to prevent violence as a whole between the two groups. It was not as though he attacked an antagonizer. No less, hitting one person with a bike-lock, while it is assault with a deadly weapon, is not the same as actually murdering a group of people as Dylan Roof did; the two are beyond comparison. My point being that there are more notable cases of the Far Left promoting and acting on the opportunity to commit violence.