It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: CantStandIt
a reply to: KingIcarus A simple protest isn't necessarily a violation of rights, but if the protest denies access to public thoroughfare or causes property damage, then it does. The law gives priority to those who would pursue lawful behavior, protesters don't have a right to deny movement or access in their pursuit of addressing a grievance.
More than 3,000 police officers are being investigated for alleged assault – with black and Asian people significantly more likely than white people to complain of police brutality, according to an Independent investigation.
Almost all of the officers under investigation for alleged violence against members of the public are still on the beat, with just 2 per cent suspended or put on restricted duties.
A group of New Black Panthers armed with rifles faced off with sheriff’s deputies Wednesday outside the Texas jail where Sandra Bland died, where a leader of the protesters shouted an apparent threat to law enforcement.
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
originally posted by: spav5
If they are there to protect property, against unarmed people, then they are cowards for arming themselves.
Spoken like a true ideologue.
This scenario doesn't make anyone a coward, it makes them intelligent. Protecting someone else's property isn't worth losing one's life over because a bunch of immature future Darwin award winners want to take what isn't theirs. However, if these looters want to put their own life in danger for doing something illegal, that's their own choice, and that's what we call Natural Selection.
originally posted by: CantStandIt
a reply to: spav5 That's one of the beautiful things about the Constitution, it protects lawful behavior without regard for others not being able to understand it. You are free to make those decisions for you, not for everyone. In that some unknown number of " protesters " are armed, these Oath Keepers are armed in their defense. The difference being that the Oath Keepers aren't trying to hide that fact. Sadly, the appearance of a firearm frightens some folks, whereas they aren't frightened when others conceal them. Out of sight, out of mind. I consider that concept a weakness.
originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: spav5
They'll SHOOT if the have to.
They are loaded.
Sorry how the world hurts your feelings...get better.
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: spav5
It's about protecting the freedom to own said property. We have a right to be secure in our property, and nearly every state has laws that allow for deadly force during an invasion of your property where you fear for your life (and it happening during non-peaceful protests or riots would certainly fall under that fear).
The thing for which you seem to fail to account is that when property is taken, often life is as well, and not by the person who owns the property. You can have your views all that you want, but the law is on the side of those protecting their property--and keep in mind, not every time someone has a firearm and is prepared to protect their property does someone get shot and killed. Most thieves are opportunistic and run scared at the sign of aggression against them.
Someone willing to take what isn't theirs are heartless, greedy, subhuman, barbaric, and remedial. It's disappointing that you can't (or refuse to) see that reality.
But feel free to just berate the people protecting what is theirs (or helping to protect someone else's property), as that's much easier than dealing with the personal responsibility that these criminals need to start accepting.
originally posted by: spav5
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: spav5
It's about protecting the freedom to own said property. We have a right to be secure in our property, and nearly every state has laws that allow for deadly force during an invasion of your property where you fear for your life (and it happening during non-peaceful protests or riots would certainly fall under that fear).
The thing for which you seem to fail to account is that when property is taken, often life is as well, and not by the person who owns the property. You can have your views all that you want, but the law is on the side of those protecting their property--and keep in mind, not every time someone has a firearm and is prepared to protect their property does someone get shot and killed. Most thieves are opportunistic and run scared at the sign of aggression against them.
Someone willing to take what isn't theirs are heartless, greedy, subhuman, barbaric, and remedial. It's disappointing that you can't (or refuse to) see that reality.
But feel free to just berate the people protecting what is theirs (or helping to protect someone else's property), as that's much easier than dealing with the personal responsibility that these criminals need to start accepting.
I am not thinking about the law because I am not talking about the law. I think that anyone who would shoot another unarmed person for the sole purpose of protecting property..is a coward.
The simple concept of equal rights eliminates all confusion. In your country, you believe the ruling class should have extra rights, but we don't. What I'm confused about is why you think an Oathkeeper with an assault rifle is dangerous. How many people have been killed by Oathkeepers?
originally posted by: chewi
a reply to: ~Lucidity
Are these allowed to do this and if this isn't an advert for banning firearms then what is. Why do you Americans want to keep your firearms. Hunting, Defence or control. I am really confused as to the argument for firearms.
originally posted by: yuppa
originally posted by: spav5
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: spav5
It's about protecting the freedom to own said property. We have a right to be secure in our property, and nearly every state has laws that allow for deadly force during an invasion of your property where you fear for your life (and it happening during non-peaceful protests or riots would certainly fall under that fear).
The thing for which you seem to fail to account is that when property is taken, often life is as well, and not by the person who owns the property. You can have your views all that you want, but the law is on the side of those protecting their property--and keep in mind, not every time someone has a firearm and is prepared to protect their property does someone get shot and killed. Most thieves are opportunistic and run scared at the sign of aggression against them.
Someone willing to take what isn't theirs are heartless, greedy, subhuman, barbaric, and remedial. It's disappointing that you can't (or refuse to) see that reality.
But feel free to just berate the people protecting what is theirs (or helping to protect someone else's property), as that's much easier than dealing with the personal responsibility that these criminals need to start accepting.
I am not thinking about the law because I am not talking about the law. I think that anyone who would shoot another unarmed person for the sole purpose of protecting property..is a coward.
A coward is someone afraid to fight for whats theirs. SO i take it the patriots in the Revolutionary war fighting for freedom and their land were cowards huh? The Indians too apparently they were also cowards huh? What about the soldiers in WW2 fighting to protect their homelands? According to you they were all cowards too huh?
originally posted by: spav5
originally posted by: yuppa
originally posted by: spav5
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: spav5
It's about protecting the freedom to own said property. We have a right to be secure in our property, and nearly every state has laws that allow for deadly force during an invasion of your property where you fear for your life (and it happening during non-peaceful protests or riots would certainly fall under that fear).
The thing for which you seem to fail to account is that when property is taken, often life is as well, and not by the person who owns the property. You can have your views all that you want, but the law is on the side of those protecting their property--and keep in mind, not every time someone has a firearm and is prepared to protect their property does someone get shot and killed. Most thieves are opportunistic and run scared at the sign of aggression against them.
Someone willing to take what isn't theirs are heartless, greedy, subhuman, barbaric, and remedial. It's disappointing that you can't (or refuse to) see that reality.
But feel free to just berate the people protecting what is theirs (or helping to protect someone else's property), as that's much easier than dealing with the personal responsibility that these criminals need to start accepting.
I am not thinking about the law because I am not talking about the law. I think that anyone who would shoot another unarmed person for the sole purpose of protecting property..is a coward.
A coward is someone afraid to fight for whats theirs. SO i take it the patriots in the Revolutionary war fighting for freedom and their land were cowards huh? The Indians too apparently they were also cowards huh? What about the soldiers in WW2 fighting to protect their homelands? According to you they were all cowards too huh?
Sorry, I did not read all of what you wrote (as so far you have not been the least convincing) reading your reply will take more time than I am willing to give. Perhaps you need to become more familiar with the reasons for the revolutionary war.
I guess on this topic we will just have to agree to disagree.