Luca
Master Statesman
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by Luca on Aug 5, 2020 12:22:31 GMT -8
I think what he is saying is that by escorting them away at gunpoint they were guaranteeing that there wouldn't be any similar rioting in their neighborhood.
Why do suppose the guy was wearing a mask?.............................Luca
|
|
thefrog
Eminence Grise
Posts: 1,819
|
Post by thefrog on Aug 5, 2020 12:32:54 GMT -8
Believe all protestors!
|
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorFate on Aug 5, 2020 14:57:20 GMT -8
So by pointing a gun at the protesters and escorting them away at gunpoint they were guaranteeing the protesters right to peaceably assemble? Is that your argument? #1 The video does not show the weapon in any other position than the ready position. #2 Like the St. Louis case, the road was private, according to the comment section. #3 There is no right to "peacefully assemble" on someone else's private property. |
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorFate on Aug 5, 2020 15:45:06 GMT -8
Here's how we in Colorado suburbs deal with these naive commie pinkos.
|
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Aug 6, 2020 4:40:24 GMT -8
I think what he is saying is that by escorting them away at gunpoint they were guaranteeing that there wouldn't be any similar rioting in their neighborhood. Why do suppose the guy was wearing a mask?.............................Luca So what the heck does this mean: 2A guarantees 1A.? I think you're just making excuses for Credo. |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Aug 6, 2020 4:42:18 GMT -8
So by pointing a gun at the protesters and escorting them away at gunpoint they were guaranteeing the protesters right to peaceably assemble? Is that your argument? #1 The video does not show the weapon in any other position than the ready position. #2 Like the St. Louis case, the road was private, according to the comment section. #3 There is no right to "peacefully assemble" on someone else's private property. Thank you for your irrelevant observations....any ideas what Credo was talking about? |
|
thefrog
Eminence Grise
Posts: 1,819
|
Post by thefrog on Aug 6, 2020 6:18:07 GMT -8
#1 The video does not show the weapon in any other position than the ready position. #2 Like the St. Louis case, the road was private, according to the comment section. #3 There is no right to "peacefully assemble" on someone else's private property. Thank you for your irrelevant observations....any ideas what Credo was talking about? All three points are relevant to the current “discussion.” Objection overruled, you may proceed Professor. |
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,286
|
Post by RSM789 on Aug 6, 2020 9:05:53 GMT -8
So what the heck does this mean: 2A guarantees 1A.? The 2nd amendment guarantees the 1st amendment. Without the ability to defend ones self & property, the ability to speak freely or express oneself would get run over by others or authorities. |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Aug 6, 2020 12:53:11 GMT -8
So what the heck does this mean: 2A guarantees 1A.? The 2nd amendment guarantees the 1st amendment. Without the ability to defend ones self & property, the ability to speak freely or express oneself would get run over by others or authorities. Yeah,,,I was hoping you could comment about the case in question... |
|
Luca
Master Statesman
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by Luca on Aug 6, 2020 13:07:58 GMT -8
So what the heck does this mean: 2A guarantees 1A.? I think you're just making excuses for Credo. I'm confused as to whether the episode in Louisiana or the episode in the video that Credo just provided is the topic under discussion. They're pretty similar. Both involve groups trespassing with what a reasonable individual could conclude was malicious intent. My understanding is that that's all you need as a civilian to justify intervening. If the intervention is proportional I don't think any law is violated. It's the same rationale as if you see someone charging you with what justifiably appears to be an intent to harm. You don't have to wait until his fist makes contact with your eye to take the appropriate response. I'm not sure what "2A guarantees 1A" has to do with it. ................................Luca |
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorFate on Aug 6, 2020 15:14:43 GMT -8
Demonstrating to the basement kids that what they get away with in "progressive" cities doesn't play anywhere else, has to be a shock to these delinquents. It has to be discouraging to many of them, who have lived in a bubble in school, and in their mommy's basement, and who probably thought their views were mainstream. I suspect that the 2nd amendment will lead to fewer attempts to stifle the Amendment 1 rights of the majority. It also is a reminder that there are no rubber bullets outside the cities.  |
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on Aug 6, 2020 21:37:09 GMT -8
So what the heck does this mean: 2A guarantees 1A.? The 2nd amendment guarantees the 1st amendment. Without the ability to defend ones self & property, the ability to speak freely or express oneself would get run over by others or authorities. EXACTLY. An armed people is a free people. thefederalist.com/2018/03/22/how-the-second-amendment-prevents-tyranny/ |
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on Aug 7, 2020 13:24:35 GMT -8
Surprised no one else mentioned this: New York Attorney General Letitia James announced that her office filed a lawsuit seeking to dissolve the National Rifle Association. James accused the organization of “a culture of self-dealing” and overcompensating top officers. The NRA countersued James, stating that the NRA is abiding by state nonprofit law and that the attorney general is targeting the group because of its political positions.
www.foxnews.com/politics/new-york-ag-dissolve-nra-lawsuitWhile this may play well with her far-Left base, you can't imagine how this is going to backfire politically in November in swing states like PA, MI, WI, FL, and NC. She just created a new Trump campaign ad all by herself. |
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,286
|
Post by RSM789 on Aug 7, 2020 13:40:32 GMT -8
When you have a lawsuit, by definition you have an accused and a victim. If the accused, the NRA officials did indeed misuse funds, then the victims are the millions of NRA members. So it is NYAG James responsibility to represent the victims. Therefore, how in the world is James representing the victims by dissolving an organization they have voluntarily paid monies to construct? You don't bring justice to victims by taking away what they paid to build. Frog, doesn't her action fall under some kind of malicious or incompetent prosecution statute? If not, can you create such a statute and get it implemented please...  |
|
|
|
