Four Minneapolis officers fired after death of black man

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Status
    Not open for further replies.

    chipbennett

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2014
    11,103
    113
    Avon
    I can't tell - are you saying, "using unjustified force to infringe upon others' freedom to exercise their rights." is what Trump and others are calling for with this "send in the military" clarion call?
    Are we on the same side of this argument?


    The right wing has butthurt that protestors/occupiers have a flag that's offensive - doesn't matter what it says or means.
    Butthurt is not a valid reason to get medieval on their collective asses.

    So much straw man.

    It's not that the flag is offensive; rather, it is that the flag communicates an intent to infringe upon the rights of others. (Functionally, the flag's message "We Will Tread" is no different from "I'm going to kill you".) I'm not offended by that flag, at all. It merely states their intent. By all means; let them try. Molon Labe, mother ****ers.

    And to be very clear: no, the military should not be sent in merely because a flag is flown. But if those who carry the flag act in such a way to corresponds to their communicated intent (which, again, is to infringe upon the rights of others), then a response is warranted. The scale of that response should be commensurate with the scale of their action. So, there could be a degree of action that warrants a military response - and there could be a degree of action that warrants a lesser use of force.
     

    chipbennett

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2014
    11,103
    113
    Avon
    They may be children pretending to be adults, but they're doing it. They're in control of that area right now. It needs to be taken back and order restored.

    Indeed. They are using force to hold an area as an "autonomous zone". As such, they are by definition committing insurrection. Their actions thus warrant being dealt with as insurrection.
     

    smokingman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Nov 11, 2008
    10,081
    149
    Indiana
    These chaz clowns are not a foreign entity. They are simply a bunch of law breaking Americans, as far as I know. They should be handled by the city. If the city does not handle it, they look stupid, which is fine since that is what they are. If the city does not handle it after a while then the state should step in. If the state does not handle it, then they look stupid, which is fine since that is what they are.
    I don't think this whole thing rises to the level where bringing in the active military is called for. Besides it would be a political disaster. Let the city and state look stupid for as long as they want.

    How would you like to live there?
    If someone came to your area and set up road blocks. Declared it an independent state,and that they where the law(assume they have more numbers and guns as in this case) and oh you needed to pay a protection fee. Not to mention here are the 18 people your home must now shelter and feed. Home owner rights(all rights) are now what ever the lead warlord says they are.

    Would you want the military to come in and restore order?
    \
    Because that is the reality of living in CHAZ.

    Not to mention the first leader being forced out after raping two other "protesters".
     

    chipbennett

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2014
    11,103
    113
    Avon
    If you can't tell that the First Amendment covers all speech...



    If their flag bothers you so much, go design your own - maybe a Trumpy Bear mauling a pierced, purple-haired SJW... let's see what you can create.

    Still with the straw men.

    There is clearly no prior restraint in effect here. They are flying their flag. Thus, there is no first amendment issue or question.

    The first amendment doesn't protect one from the consequences of one's speech. Threatening speech is not protected. It has nothing to do with being offended by the message, but rather the message being a clear intent to commit unlawful, likely violent, acts.

    I suggest you follow PrintCraft's advice regarding cranial-rectal extraction.
     

    OakRiver

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 12, 2014
    15,013
    77
    IN
    The Babylon Bee moves beyond parody

    Sont8NS.jpg
     

    OakRiver

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 12, 2014
    15,013
    77
    IN
    I haven't see this on INGO, doesn't show up in search. Google search looks like not a single national news organization except for Fox has covered it. Only city/local level news, and the ABA Journal. Happened a week ago:

    Criminal defense attorney "protestor" shoots driver of pick up in head in Alamosa Colorado. Driver is on life support. Attorney facing attempted murder and several other charges. KRDO video shows incident from a local security camera.

    https://krdo.com/news/2020/06/06/video-shows-moments-surrounding-alamosa-protest-shooting/

    [video=youtube;5AMqJ2C4K4g]https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=89&v=5AMqJ2C4K4g&feature=emb_l ogo[/video]

    Hmm. Between this and the two lawyers in NY throwing petrol bombs at police cars there seem to be quite a few lawyers getting caught up in this.
     

    OakRiver

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 12, 2014
    15,013
    77
    IN
    I wonder how he got caught... https://www.startribune.com/man-cha...hird-precinct-station/571115042/?refresh=true

    "A former Menards store security guard was charged Monday with arson that damaged the Minneapolis Police Department’s Third Precinct building. . . When he was arrested, Wolfe was wearing body armor and a police-issued duty belt and carrying a baton. The belt had handcuffs and a knife, and his name was written in duct tape on the back of the body armor, the complaint says.

    Law enforcement later recovered from Wolfe’s apartment additional items belonging to the Minneapolis Police Department, including a riot helmet, a 9mm pistol magazine, a police radio and a police-issued overdose kit."
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.
    Top Bottom