Why we need the 2nd Amendment

Thanks for the picture of the sign Frog, but posting a sign doesn't mean the street was private or that Mr. McCloskey had any right to limit public access to that street. As said by a lawyer from St. Louis:

Joining the discussion was William Freivogel, a journalism professor at Southern Illinois University Carbondale and lawyer; attorney Nicole Gorovsky of Gorovsky Law; and attorney Eric Banks of Banks Law.

Banks, also a former St. Louis city counselor, said residents cannot control which people enter the neighborhood, despite erecting gates and hiring private security.

“That is a myth that private street residents frequently want to put forth,” he said. “But you cannot act with impunity, come out of your house with an automatic weapon and point it in the direction of the people coming down the street. It’s just beyond the pale.”

news.stlpublicradio.org/post/st-louis-couple-points-guns-protesters-was-it-legal#stream/0

So again, Mr. McCloskey may like to say he lives on a private street but the legality of that statement is in question. We'll just have to wait and see I guess.

Wrong, wrong, wrong! You are refusing to see what doesn't fit your narrative. Look at the destroyed gate again. Notice that it is anchored into the ground by a rod which is secured by a padlock. The one side of the gate is undamaged, (although it also required a key to the latch in the middle). How did the top lock get opened. Was it unlocked? Unlikely, considering that the bottom is still locked even after the damage. The most likely scenario IMHO, is that the top lock was easy to pick or force the latch over, and then it was held open. However, there were too many people trying to squeeze through that one side, especially with many of them riding or walking bicycles, so they got impatient. They couldn't unlock that bottom lock so they got more impatient, and destroyed that side of the gate.

Look at it for yourself, Columbo. The bottom lock is still on it. And don't try to tell me that it was locked AFTER the damage shown in this photo...What would be the point of that?

www.stlouis-mo.gov/data/address-search/index.cfm?handle=14907010260

Not sure if I am linking this correctly, but it would appear a portion of Portland street is part of McCloskey’s property OR it could be an easement (seems that way)

The attorneys aren't particularly good people from what's being reported. I get that because they're attorneys, and to top it off, they're personal injury attorneys...successful ones apparently by looking at their house.

Essentially, that means they are very successful at extracting $$ for "victims". In my unfortunate experience, that means they're adept at exaggerated claims. That alone should give most everyone on this forum a reason to hold back unquestionable support for them. The "storming of the bastille" phrase the attys as to how the mob entered, is hyperbole.

None of that diminishes the fact the mob entered a clearly marked private gate. When the gate was ultimately broken is immaterial. I also think that given what's been going on in St Louis in the days leading up to the incident, it's reasonable to think a mob breaching a locked gate, is there to commit acts of violence.

With the current calls to defund police, coupled with the violence that is taking place across the country, in thinking more incidents like this will occur, except the trigger is going to get pulled sooner v later.

Yes we will. As more and more people get concealed carry permits there will be more opportunities for idiots to shoot each other.

I’m sure your asking Vile boy, but my answer is, in nearly every instance, those carrying concealed weapons (or openly carrying weapons), because of the training and background vetting they have to go through to buy and to get a license for their weapons, do not start anything, but are prepared to end it if the situation escalates to the point it becomes necessary.

I’m guessing very little.