An unhinged mob

[Crossless2.0]

So, you're saying if they are violent, it's then okay to be violent, which is exactly what I said. I said it's NOT okay to be violent first, which is what you initially negated, so I have no idea what you're going on about.

My point is by example 

Let's say the proud boys are going to hold a hate rally and preach violence against minorities and make a ruckus .I'm saying we have the right to disrupt it and beat the snot out of them because there a bunch of bigot thugs . Technically were starting the physical violence even though their preaching threatening and condoning violence and lastly i'm saying you can no more reason with their kind then you can a fanatical cult thus violence is justified

You have a right to peacefully counter-protest the Proud Boys. You have a right to allow them to make complete asses of themselves for the whole world to see. You have a right to defend yourself if attacked by them, or by anyone else.

You also have a right to legal representation and a fair trial after you've been arrested for attacking them, if that's your choice.

A few questions:

1) Given the victim narrative the right is peddling (complete with violent left-wing "mobs"), why would you take actions that lend credibility to their claims? Even if it's true, as you say, that "their kind" can't be reasoned with, isn't there a larger PR struggle that demands discipline on the part of those who oppose the Proud Boys and similar groups? Isn't it possible to uphold First Amendment rights and speak out forcefully against anti-democratic elements without resorting to the very thing you seem to oppose?

2) Would you be willing to pay the price (fines, jail time, civil suits) for your act of violence, or would you seriously try to argue in court that your actions were legally justified? And if justified, on what would you base your claim?