Just curious if anyone here who partcipated in the spare magazine thread has rethought it after LA riots.

[03hemi]

Love the sheriff's comment in Florida about rioters, this should get their attention.

 

[ladder13]

Now the rioters will have another thing to “protest”.

 

[Jon651]

And some news sources believe it all milk and cookies. FACT. That’s just LIES 101

And I look out for those sources as well. It's never all one side or the other - in spite of what some may wish to believe.

 

[Jon651]

Just to be clear, the key point of your question is "rioters". Carrying a Confederate flag or any flag is just camouflage.

And the answer is jail.

And I completely agree. Rioters go to jail. That's not even remotely up for debate for me, but I refuse to accept the belief that all protesters are de facto rioters. If that were true then protesting wouldn't be protected under our Constitution - and I would live somewhere else.

As for flying a Mexico flag? Really, I couldn't care less if I took a pill for it. I personally don't like the Confederate flag, but for others it's a free pass - and I don't get to make the rules. The only things either are hurting are feelings, and the police don't enforce those.

 

[Puller]

The problem with the Confederate flag is some people think it symbolizes something it doesn't. Same as Aunt Jemima. Neither offend me in the least.

 

[biku324]

So; the first Federal Court has ruled there is no invasion and no rebellion in LA. The CA NG goes back to state control at noon tomorrow.

The legal discussion is fascinating and addresses every question anyone might have about what is and what is not an appropriate instance to Federalize state guards. I've attached it for everyone's reading pleasure.

 

[biku324]

Find the ignore feature?

Click on on your screen name, then look for 'ignoring' on the menu that pops up. It's easy to use and really improves your quality of life.

 

[Frailer]

The problem with the Confederate flag is some people think it symbolizes something it doesn't. Same as Aunt Jemima. Neither offend me in the least.

I think you’ll agree that a symbol can mean different things to different people.

I’d be willing to place a substantial bet that some people who have no issue with folks protesting while waving the Confederate flag have a significant problem with folks who are protesting while waving the Mexican flag. And vice versa. (FWIW, as a fervent supporter of the *whole* Bill of Rights I have no problem with either.)

I will say that the increase in social/political temperature of late has caused me to make one change in my daily carry: I now carry pepper spray in a weak side pocket.

I have reached the age where I am no longer interested in boxing or wrestling, and to paraphrase Chuck Haggard, I want to have a use-of-force option somewhere between harsh language and a gun.

 

[TaxPhd]

From a strictly legal definition I would say you are correct.

Like I said I don't claim to be a lawyer.

As I stated I will leave the labeling up to those dealing with it and I haven't heard it labeled a riot yet out of the mouths of LA officials.

If they label it a riot then I would tend to agree with them. But currently the situation appears contained to a limited area and the majority of folks participating have remained law abiding. That according to those on the ground.

Is torching vehicles, and throwing rocks at vehicles (among other actions “law abiding”? That’s a very strange position to take. . .

I am done here. As stated.we can agree to disagree but if you feel the need to ask me questions I won't be bothering to respond. Life is too short to have to keep repeating the same thing.

You suggested that the evidence that I presented was either incorrect, or incomplete, yet you refuse to explain why? I get why you won’t try to support your position - you can’t. It’s too bad that instead being willing to engage in a reasonable discussion, you instead get butt-hurt and refuse to try to support your position.

 

[TaxPhd]

I’m not sure what to consider them, they shouldn’t be following Trump like he’s a king or escalating protests/baiting protesters to become anything but peaceful. There are enough videos out there at this point to have many examples of unprovoked escalation. The hypocrisy of “arresting protesters with masks” while wearing a mask isn’t excusable either. There are bad actors on all sides but there are an alarming amount in power right now without proper checks and balances.

I feel bad for all of those in uniform being pushed against their neighbors and communities right now. A uniform or position in office shouldn’t put anyone above the law the rest of us are held to.

Just as protesters are exercising their 1st to peacefully protest I’m exercising mine to think/speak critically of those in positions of power and the oligarch puppeteers.

While some current protests are peaceful, the news is full of violent riots. Absolutely not “peaceful protests.” LEO’s and military being called out to stop such unlawful activity doesn’t make them rioters.

 

[TaxPhd]

When does civil unrest become a riot is the same as asking when does a brook become a stream and a stream a river. Depends on where it is who responds. You won't find a definitive answer.

Um. . . No. There are legal definitions of what constitutes a riot. It’s certainly not dependent on “who responds.”

 

[TaxPhd]

I’m asking if you have any stats on bad actors in uniform. That specific question claims nothing. I’m asking because I believe there are greater than zero in uniform that are bad actors in what’s happening just as there would be on any “side”. No “side” is pure, especially in the specifics of why the protests would be held. The theme I’m seeing is that protesters can be rioters even if they aren’t but anyone in uniform is doing the moral or legal thing just because of the uniform. The lines aren’t that clear.

If you have some evidence of some of those in uniform being bad actors, then by all means, share it with the rest of us.

 

[TaxPhd]

Took the words right out of my mouth.
Then: “No taxation without representation”
Now: “No deportation without representation”.

I’d include “arrest” without cause as well because I don’t believe my gardener - being undocumented- is cause for him (and his family) to be detained/arrested/deported for trying to have a better life. He’s caught in a “catch 22” situation. He’s been here for over 15 years, is law abiding, pays taxes, etc. His kids (U.S. citizens by constitutional law) are good students attending local grade and junior high schools. Is he the threat to America some are worried about? Or is he (again) caught in the middle of a political stunt. Go after the bad guys, not everyone in a sweep area.

To me this is like large net fishing. Catch everything with no regard for the consequences to the unwanted fish caught in the net.

We have, or had, the law enforcement investigative capabilities at all levels to do it correctly and within our existing laws to get the bad guys.

Oh, I grew up in the LA area and lived and worked (FD) through all the protests and riots. I drove through the turmoil to get to work as well as dealing with it while there - with my gov model on the seat next to me. No one carried while in the field to avoid becoming targets.

What’s happening in LA now is nothing like that. It’s akin to using a drone to kill a rat.

Well, that is a pretty outrageous false equivalency. . .

 

[TaxPhd]

So where would the rioters who were carrying CONFEDERATE flags during a past riot be deported to?

Asking for a friend...

You’re confusing illegal aliens with US citizens. . .

 

[Muddyboot]

This post is becoming too political and heated, shutdown time maybe.?

 

[biku324]

You’re confusing illegal aliens with US citizens. . .

5th Amendment - "...nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; ...".

14th Amendment, Section 1 - "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

 

[ladder13]

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Clear as day, not only for those who consider themselves special. Written by true patriots and upheld by the Supreme Court. Respected by those of us who don’t pick and choose what parts of the Constitution we follow

 

[Dave Haynes]

20 years ago my relative was involved in breaking up an armed robbery using his CC permitted handgun. The shots fired were into the perps (2) front tire and an AD when the crooks tried to run over him which slightly wounded one perp. Relative DID EVERYTHING RIGHT with the public safety as his first concern. Two victims were seriously hurt by the perps and I believe that at this time both have died. The newspaper completely got everything wrong and told a completely fabricated tale of what happened. My relative was handcuffed and just barely avoided going to prison only saved by a host of witnesses who threatened the DA with removal if he charged my relative.
So all this proves is that we have a Lawyer problem in America and DAs that support the criminal instead of the victim.

LA isn't a riot? Hundreds of illegals who would never leave America are doing millions of dollars worth of destruction, looting stores breaking sidewalks to make chunks of concrete to throw at police while waving a flag that they would never want to return to and burning the flag of the country the would never leave. This is a demonstration of how a large group of citizens can keep themselves blissfully ignorant by not looking at both sides of the same story. It is part of a plan and it isn't working anymore...

 

[TaxPhd]

5th Amendment - "...nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; ...".

14th Amendment, Section 1 - "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The poster that I was responding to was asking about the deportation of likely US citizens. We don’t deport US citizens; we do (or should) deport illegal aliens.

Re-read my post that you responded to, and you’ll note that I didn’t address the legal requirements for deportation, and I certainly made no claim that due process should be eliminated.

 

[McChemist]

Isn't that the truth, from another old man.

HOOAH! From another OF. Situational Awareness principles dictate avoiding likely trouble spots (Sun Tzu as well). It seems that the Brown Berets, a Marxist paramilitary group in CA, are active in LA. Hooah to Bondi, Patel, and Bongino going after the head of the snake.