Killings of Kaufman County district attorneys. Care to speculate?

Do they need to (you've obviously missed my point) come in with force, brandish weapons, detain customers, and make a show of carrying out the paperwork in rifle boxes in front of the press who they tipped off? Care to cover that? I am an American citizen and my rights go everywhere with me in the United States. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Can I "assume" when you say "brandish weapons" you mean weapons drawn ... ?

... personally, it would make sense if they were entering a room FULL OF WEAPONS with AMMUNITION ... they might want to have their own weapons readily available ... in the event that some idiot took exception to them just coming into the store any time they wished to check the paper work on the REGISTRATION and PURCHASING of FIREARMS and AMMUNITION.

LE has a "nasty" habit of assuring that all weapons in a building into which they are entering are "secure" and those persons in the building are separated from any potential threats to the LE officers ... contrary to popular TV ... citizens are not allowed to remain "free" to walk about in an environment in which LE are at risk. Live with it, or move to ...

... er ... uuuhhh ... where do you want to live with more rights?

"..my rights go everywhere with me in the United States..."

... including to the grave for being a "principled" fool!

My point was more to all these immoral drug laws,... Originally Posted by WTF

huh?

My point is that if the long arm of the law comes down on some and their perception is that it is unjust, then they feel they are justified in their Defense. I'm sure the Branch Dravidians thought so.


Mayye you can as EXTXOILMAN when he things it ok for the ''the citizenry to protect itself from the tyranny of government''? Originally Posted by WTF

The "principle" upon which have based your analysis has been morphed by you from "unjust" to "immoral" laws .... and you are on the edge of somehow justifying the killing of law ENFORCEMENT personnel who are obliged to ENFORCE "THE" LAW ....

...although I recognize you are not foolish enough to express that sentiment ...

I am "assuming" that the "tyranny of government" has to do with the ACTIONS of law enforcement that have NO BASIS IN THE LAW.

If we as a society start killing those who are tasked with ENFORCING the LAW because "we" do not believe in the law, think it unjust, or IMMORAL, then the response may well be the killing of those who believe the law is unjust or immoral BEFORE they kill those who ENFORCE THE LAW.

A "problem" with many posters on this board is they perceive themselves to be "outlaws" and law enforcement to be their enemy, so in some miserable and distorted mental gymnastics they conceive the notion that whatever evil befalls upon LE is deserving of them and LE brings it upon themselves .... AND NOW THEIR FAMILIES. So, the "idea" is even posted that if they "can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

While at the same time some of those same misguided malcontents recommend providers to call "the cops" over mistreatment by hobbyists (or even other providers), and the providers brag about their LE friends and contents who provide them with "special information."

So, it is "moral" to kill LE officials and officers who are enforcing "immoral" laws"?

Brandish means more than that just drawn weapons. I am a gun owner. I don't swoon like someone from England when I see a drawn weapon. A brandished weapon is one that is unnecessarily and aggressively displayed for the purpose of making a threat implied or otherwise.

Hope that clears it up.


Now we're getting into something interesting; "just" versus "unjust" versus "moral" versus "immoral". I think this deserves it's own thread so we can give Whatzup another opportunity to make himself look stupid.

Brandish means more than that just drawn weapons. I am a gun owner. I don't swoon like someone from England when I see a drawn weapon. A brandished weapon is one that is unnecessarily and aggressively displayed for the purpose of making a threat implied or otherwise.

Hope that clears it up.


Now we're getting into something interesting; "just" versus "unjust" versus "moral" versus "immoral". I think this deserves it's own thread so we can give Whatzup another opportunity to make himself look stupid. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

BRRRRRT wrong if someone gives you crap and you pull your CC you have brandished a weapon. You get a F on that ...

BRRRRRT wrong if someone gives you crap and you pull your CC you have brandished a weapon. You get a F on that ... Originally Posted by i'va biggen

May be not in "JDB Expert Firearm Owner's Manual"!

Brandish means more than that just drawn weapons. I am a gun owner. I don't swoon like someone from England when I see a drawn weapon. A brandished weapon is one that is unnecessarily and aggressively displayed for the purpose of making a threat implied or otherwise.

Hope that clears it up. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

It clears it up for me, as far as your description of the "assault by "ATF"" on a gun store!

Apparently the "brandishing" worked on their "use of force continuum" ... because they didn't have to discharge their weapons at you to further "detain" you. After all you are posting today.

I'm happy for you that you adhered to their threat of force, ...

.... if they found more force than the threat of force necessary!

Lexus, you've made a mistake. I never said that the ATF "brandished" weapons at the gun store only at Waco. Though can you justify them hearding about eight customers into a smaller room for the duration of their little "raid"? This was before the wide spread use of cell phones so did they not want us to do or not want us to see/hear? Why not just open the door and ask/order us to leave? They never checked ID or searched anyone. They just detained us.



1bran·dish

transitive verb \ˈbran-dish\




Definition of BRANDISH

1
: to shake or wave (as a weapon) menacingly

2
: to exhibit in an ostentatious or aggressive manner

I will give Eva an imcomplete for not attending class.

[QUOTE=JD Barleycorn;1052651971]Lexus, you've made a mistake. I never said that the ATF "brandished" weapons at the gun store ......

.....They just detained us.[\QUOTE]

[QUOTE] "Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn
Do they need to (you've obviously missed my point) come in with force, brandish weapons, detain customers, and make a show of carrying out the paperwork in rifle boxes in front of the press who they tipped off? Care to cover that? I am an American citizen and my rights go everywhere with me in the United States." [\QUOTE]

Were you in the compound at Waco?

Were their "customers" at the Waco compound?

Were they "carrying out the paperwork in rifle boxes" at Waco?

Were your "rights" with you at Waco?

I made no mistake!

I ahave heard soldiers with more common sense that exhibited by the ATF in Waco. You loose the element of surprise, send in one man to ask how this is expected to end. You know, flag of truce.

Got caught in the middle of a ATF operation in Chalmette, LA. The press was tipped off as well. They raided a gun store operated by a reserve deputy. The customers (that's me) were herded to one side and not allowed to contact anyone. They admitted that they had no probably cause but needed the records to find out if there was an infraction. Ironically, this gun shop was a primary supplier for the ATF guys who were at Waco. They were on a first name basis. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Do they need to (you've obviously missed my point) come in with force, brandish weapons, detain customers, and make a show of carrying out the paperwork in rifle boxes in front of the press who they tipped off? Care to cover that? I am an American citizen and my rights go everywhere with me in the United States. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Put them together .... JDB!

THEN YOU POST:

[QUOTE=JD Barleycorn;1052651971]Lexus, you've made a mistake. I never said that the ATF "brandished" weapons at the gun store ......

.....They just detained us.[\QUOTE]

You are such a bad liar you can't remember from 5 minutes what you last lied about!

Don't try to sell. your bullshit about ATF "brandishing" weapons as they entered the compound in Waco .... saying it wasn't "necessary"???? Man (hate to use it addressing you), you are really lame, and sorry, in your bullshit.

Transparent bullshitters like you do the conservative movement a disservice ... You should really sit on the bench and stick to water hauling...only when requested.

I will admit to the subsequent post but you have been referring to the original (at least the way I read it) where I did not say that. The secondary post was made in frustration in the face of mounting and continuing ignorance. Let me guess...you're a member of law enforcement right? NO...my first enlistment was in the army (you'll have to go back over a year to find my posts) before I went navy. Guess what I was?


We are getting real far off topic which is the murder of the District Attorney and his wife by person or persons unknown. Want to take a bite out of that?

I will admit to the subsequent post but you have been referring to the original (at least the way I read it) where I did not say that. The secondary post was made in frustration in the face of mounting and continuing ignorance. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You mean when you didn't say it before you did say it.

The only mounting ignorance here is yours. Diversion is not one of your strong suits.

You are disgrace to the conservative intellectual movement, ......

... in which you seek prominence.

Any further posts of yours are of no value.

I suppose one of the best ways to figure out how well a plan was executed is to simply look at the results.

Waco was an absolute disaster. Period. Bad decisions on the part of the Dividians for following a maniac such as Koresh, and bad decisions by Law Enforcement for allowing a situation to escalate to the point where innocent children and Law Enforcement Personnel lost their lives.

Think back. How could it have possibly been any worse.

I do not like many of the laws that seem assinine, particuarilly drug laws and laws governing what consenting adults do in privacy.

But, that being said, I do not think that any State or Federal Law allows as a defense for a citizen to fire upon Law Enforcement Personnel when those persons are in the legal execution of their duties. You fire upon a legal Peace Officer, you just commited a first degree felony or Capitol Crime........period.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime...olent-gang.ece

"When Breanna Taylor was thought to have bad-mouthed the gang, members hooked her to a battery charger. They shocked, beat and sexually assaulted her for more than two hours at a Mesquite home.
When they were done, they washed her body with acid, entombed it in a concrete-filled tub and dumped it into Lake Ray Hubbard."


um..... these crazy fucks aren't someone you want to run into.

I do not like many of the laws that seem assinine, particuarilly drug laws and laws governing what consenting adults do in privacy.

But, that being said, I do not think that any State or Federal Law allows as a defense for a citizen to fire upon Law Enforcement Personnel when those persons are in the legal execution of their duties. Originally Posted by Jackie S

"A problem" is that some in our society, and apparently some posters on this board, "perceive" that LE "executing" the laws with which they disagree authorizes them to kill LE officers who are enforcing "the laws" as they currently exist.

Although we are prohibited from discussing the topic on this board, to connect the unmentionable with "what consenting adults do in privacy" is to compare apples and oranges ... unless the "unmentionables" are consumed by "consenting adults" in "privacy"!! Because an ISSUE with "unmentionables" is the crimes committed to feed the beast ... which often includes ... "what consenting adults do in privacy" ....

.. so justiable .. the legislatures and Congress can attack one to get at the other.

The "Coca" in Coca-Cola was orginally put there for a purpose ... addictive marketing. How many street hookers are feeding the beast, and how many pimps are "a source" of "feed" for the beast. How many providers could pass random testing on a regular, unannounced basis?

The "statistical" position on the number of persons incarcerated for "immoral drug laws" is not an argument "against" the laws, it is actually underscoring the epidemic scope of the PROBLEM. More often than not the possession was discovered from an arrest or "stop" for some other crime of a lesser magnitude ... like speeding! The lesser offense gets tossed in exchange for a plea to the "immoral drug law."

If one reads the entire article posted by JCM, above, it is apparent that a connection can and does exist. On the street and in the Court.