Ferguson, MO: Might as well start the ball rolling...

Lets get the particulars; 18 year-old Michael Brown was killed by a policeman in the middle of the day. A witness says tht he and Brown were running away from the belligerent officer when he started firing at them. The witness also says that one shot hit Brown who turned around with his hands up. The officer fired several more shots killing Brown. The officer (who is unnamed at this time) says that Brown and the witness tried to take the officer's gun from inside his cruiser. The six year veteran fired in self defense. Those are the stories.

Peaceful protests broke out along with rioting. Stores were burned and looted. ATM machines were pulled up and stolen. This last night stones were being thrown at cars on I-270 by thugs.

Okay, we don't know what happened but the blame whitey crowd is showing up in St. Louis; Al Sharpton and the lawyer for Trayvon Martin's family leading the charge.

Nothing that happened gives anyone the right to endanger lives by stone throwing, looting, burning, and thuggery.

Well I tend to disagree with you. What you are seeing is people that are lashing out at the government in a manner of social disrespect. Is this really no different than the oppression of our government against our very own citizens? I dont care if the victim was black, white, or brown or if the cop was any color. The cop shooting an unarmed man is just symbolic of a government gone awry.

Do you think for a minute that our nation will ever be restored without the people standing up against what our government has become. We should be in the streets everywhere in this nation protesting and fighting against what this government has become. Maybe we should take a note from the hate whitey crowd as it seems to work well for them.

Well I tend to disagree with you. What you are seeing is people that are lashing out at the government in a manner of social disrespect. Is this really no different than the oppression of our government against our very own citizens? I dont care if the victim was black, white, or brown or if the cop was any color. The cop shooting an unarmed man is just symbolic of a government gone awry.

Do you think for a minute that our nation will ever be restored without the people standing up against what our government has become. We should be in the streets everywhere in this nation protesting and fighting against what this government has become. Maybe we should take a note from the hate whitey crowd as it seems to work well for them. Originally Posted by The2Dogs

Sorry Dog but HATE isn't going to get much of anything. The hate whitey crowd hasn't accomplished much except making government worse. I think the facts need to play out. In the Martin case, prosecutors didn't have much of a case and they lost. In the O.J. case, he had one heck of a lawyer. I think in the end justice was served. O.J. IS a violent man. He is now in prison anyway and he has lost a civil suit which means he won't be enriched by the criminal verdict. Ghandi stood up against government gone awry. MLK did the same. In both cases, they did not preach hatred. Rioting, and destruction of property is not the solution. In their quest for peace, both MLK and Ghandi were shot and killed. That is what HATE does.

Well I tend to disagree with you. What you are seeing is people that are lashing out at the government in a manner of social disrespect. Is this really no different than the oppression of our government against our very own citizens? I dont care if the victim was black, white, or brown or if the cop was any color. The cop shooting an unarmed man is just symbolic of a government gone awry.

Do you think for a minute that our nation will ever be restored without the people standing up against what our government has become. We should be in the streets everywhere in this nation protesting and fighting against what this government has become. Maybe we should take a note from the hate whitey crowd as it seems to work well for them. Originally Posted by The2Dogs

Getting lots of people to agree that the status quo needs changing is the easy part.

Getting them to agree on the dire tion of change is the hard part.

I can almost agree that the government is a problem but what if someone announced that a random policeman was be killed as payback? Would you support that? I don't think so. So why is it acceptable to some that a mob can attack private businesses or toss rocks onto interstate highways while people are on them? Protest is one thing but the second you raise your hand you've lost credibility and are just a criminal. The only possible exception would be self defense and that is iffy.

I can almost agree that the government is a problem but what if someone announced that a random policeman was be killed as payback? Would you support that? I don't think so. So why is it acceptable to some that a mob can attack private businesses or toss rocks onto interstate highways while people are on them? Protest is one thing but the second you raise your hand you've lost credibility and are just a criminal. The only possible exception would be self defense and that is iffy. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Good thing you weren't around in 1776...

I put this is in a separate box.

Unfortunately, they were not prepared the first night (I assume that they were afraid of being called racists is they assumed riots would break out) and stores were looted and burned. Now they are protecting their businesses with guns. That is important because that is something that the left is trying to take away slowly but surely. I hope Speedie sees this. He will probably argue that this has nothing to do with Assault weapons but I think it has everything to do with "assault" weapons. I put that in quotes because Speedie and I (and the US military) have a differenced of opinion on what an assault weapon is. Whatever makes you feel like you can do what is necessary to protect yourself is okay. Now Speedie will jump to some radical conclusion about rocket launchers and tanks but they are not really good for protection. They are good for offensive operations pretty much. I mean think about it, how does it work to shoot off $50,000 rockets to protect your grocery store? Only someone who does not have to worry about the price (like the government) could afford to do so.

Anyway, this is very good illustration why the RIGHT to keep and bear arms is necessary.

Anyway, this is very good illustration why the RIGHT to keep and bear arms is necessary. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

No shit....had the 18 year old had a gun, he could have fought back from government harassment!

You ever think about that JD?

I put this is in a separate box.

Unfortunately, they were not prepared the first night (I assume that they were afraid of being called racists is they assumed riots would break out) and stores were looted and burned. Now they are protecting their businesses with guns. That is important because that is something that the left is trying to take away slowly but surely. I hope Speedie sees this. He will probably argue that this has nothing to do with Assault weapons but I think it has everything to do with "assault" weapons. I put that in quotes because Speedie and I (and the US military) have a differenced of opinion on what an assault weapon is. Whatever makes you feel like you can do what is necessary to protect yourself is okay. Now Speedie will jump to some radical conclusion about rocket launchers and tanks but they are not really good for protection. They are good for offensive operations pretty much. I mean think about it, how does it work to shoot off $50,000 rockets to protect your grocery store? Only someone who does not have to worry about the price (like the government) could afford to do so.

Anyway, this is very good illustration why the RIGHT to keep and bear arms is necessary. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

We can't have a difference of opinion as to what is or is not an assault weapon because I have no real idea what is or is not an assault weapon. If you think that sometime in the past I've defined what is or is not an assault weapon let me know. I may have said something like an assault weapon is a weapon that fires continuously while you have your finger on the trigger. That was a total uneducated guess.
I'll let the "experts" come up with a definition. I have not even looked at the list of weapons on the proposed list that came out after the Newtown killings because I wouldn't know what they are. I have said many times, my knowledge of handguns and other similar weapons is minimal. Any discussions we've had in the past are independent of what is or is not an assault weapon.

If I am reading your statements correctly, you believe the store owners need more firepower to protect their stores than is currently legally available to them today. You would have to tell me what that additional firepower would consist of. An M-16? Then the people in power who determine if giving all citizens the right to purchase M-16s would do more good than harm or more harm than good would have to make that decision. IMHO, there are times when owning an M-16 or similar weapon would be advantageous, such as in the scenario you presented. And how often does such a scenario occur? Do the politicians in charge of the decision-making base decisions on a single incident?

The right to bear arms? Look at the results of your poll. Only one person voted to ban guns. Everyone else supports the right to bear arms, although in varying degrees.

As far as my mentioning weapons beyond handguns and rifles, the only times I have done so is when I remind people who define 2nd Amendment rights as the right for anyone to carry any weapon at any time in any place, then a bazooka, machine gun, or rocket launcher would fall under "any weapon". Scary thought to me but that is what they support.

I have no clue to the facts of what actually happened and neither do any of the rest of you, yet.

The real issue is that there are people that will not hesitate to demonstrate social disobedience when they feel strongly about soothsaying such as what they perceive to be official oppression.
This is a very scary thing tho those that do not believe in true freedom and liberty. The idea that a society can demonstrate in a violent manner scares those that fear the loss of control over "people".

Do I believe that they are pursuing the correct path to voice their concern; in a word, no.
What I do believe is that there are those that are truly angry and fighting back and there are those that are just criminals using this event as an excuse to ply their trade.

I suppose for some, civil disobedience is off the table, but for others it is very much a course of action. Maybe it all depends on how much you really care about what the government is doing to you.

First off, this was another black thug who got what he deserved. You NEVER go after a cop's weapon. That is a death wish. To be fair, the idiot race car driver who got out of his car and tried to confront Tony Stewart while Tony Stewart was driving a 2,000 pound sprint car got what he deserved as well. There's no cure for stupid.

As for social disobedience, there is a time and a place for it. Also, it doesn't take the form of tossing bricks off a bridge onto an interstate. Those fools should have been shot on the spot. BTW, the government it totally to blame for this and I'm not talking about the locals. I'm talking about the failed policies from mostly democrats who have essentially re-enslaved a vast preponderance of the black community by making them dependent on handouts (bribes).

Lets get the particulars; 18 year-old Michael Brown was killed by a policeman in the middle of the day. A witness says tht he and Brown were running away from the belligerent officer when he started firing at them. The witness also says that one shot hit Brown who turned around with his hands up. The officer fired several more shots killing Brown. The officer (who is unnamed at this time) says that Brown and the witness tried to take the officer's gun from inside his cruiser. The six year veteran fired in self defense. Those are the stories.

Peaceful protests broke out along with rioting. Stores were burned and looted. ATM machines were pulled up and stolen. This last night stones were being thrown at cars on I-270 by thugs.

Okay, we don't know what happened but the blame whitey crowd is showing up in St. Louis; Al Sharpton and the lawyer for Trayvon Martin's family leading the charge.

Nothing that happened gives anyone the right to endanger lives by stone throwing, looting, burning, and thuggery. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Oh that's wonderful Al not so Sharpton is showing up to kick off his usual brand of bullshit.

Jim

First off, this was another black thug who got what he deserved. Originally Posted by Cpalmson

Quoted...for hilarity...

JDIdiot... The first asshole in the pile when it's time to prove h's "not" a racist!

That's what I call TRANSPARENCY!

We can't have a difference of opinion as to what is or is not an assault weapon because I have no real idea what is or is not an assault weapon. If you think that sometime in the past I've defined what is or is not an assault weapon let me know. I may have said something like an assault weapon is a weapon that fires continuously while you have your finger on the trigger. That was a total uneducated guess.
I'll let the "experts" come up with a definition. I have not even looked at the list of weapons on the proposed list that came out after the Newtown killings because I wouldn't know what they are. I have said many times, my knowledge of handguns and other similar weapons is minimal. Any discussions we've had in the past are independent of what is or is not an assault weapon.

Okay, you'll let the experts decide. The US military has defined them but the democratic party has other ideas. I'll let you decide who the expert is of those two. You admit that you don't understand what is what but you support their laws when it is obvious that they don't either. Why do you support ignorantly thought out laws.

If I am reading your statements correctly, you believe the store owners need more firepower to protect their stores than is currently legally available to them today. You would have to tell me what that additional firepower would consist of. An M-16? Then the people in power who determine if giving all citizens the right to purchase M-16s would do more good than harm or more harm than good would have to make that decision. IMHO, there are times when owning an M-16 or similar weapon would be advantageous, such as in the scenario you presented. And how often does such a scenario occur? Do the politicians in charge of the decision-making base decisions on a single incident?

Well I don't specificially recommend an M-16 or any other assault weapon (the real ones) but I believe that every citizen has the right to make that choice. For some it is a double barrel shotgun (ala Joe Biden), for others it could be the Colt Peace Maker (Wyatt Earp), and for some it could be a military style rifle with multiple magazines that hold 30 rounds a piece. Let the people decide.

As far as my mentioning weapons beyond handguns and rifles, the only times I have done so is when I remind people who define 2nd Amendment rights as the right for anyone to carry any weapon at any time in any place, then a bazooka, machine gun, or rocket launcher would fall under "any weapon". Scary thought to me but that is what they support.

I don't know of anyone (if you really ask them to be specific) that advocates rocket launchers, bazookas (those went out of style 40 years ago), or most machine guns. Many people talk in general terms but they don't really support those things. Of course some on your side try to advance their arguments by lying about what people support.