Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    6:04 PM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: The NRA's idea does not work. Back to Topics
Michiganian

Champion Author
Michigan

Posts:6,258
Points:1,278,745
Joined:Jun 2004
Message Posted: Dec 21, 2012 4:11:46 PM

Just ask the survivors at Columbine HS, Fort Hood and Virginia Tech.
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:17,518
Points:583,205
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Dec 18, 2014 1:52:13 PM

"Kaarma set a trap in an attempt to lure burglars into his garage. Once he saw movement, he opened the door from the house to the garage and sprayed gunfire indiscriminately, saying that he didn’t even see what he was shooting at until Pflager turned on the lights. By then, the exchange student, Diren Dede, was on the ground, dying"

That is just plain ignorant... Good grief.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,798
Points:1,597,050
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 18, 2014 11:38:14 AM

For all those who whine about the 'justice system' not working - it worked just fine here. The person committing a crime was found guilty.
.
.
>>>I’m only surprised that it took a jury more than a few minutes to reach a guilty verdict.

A Montana man accused of setting a trap for burglars in his garage, and then shooting a German foreign exchange student who entered, was found guilty of deliberate homicide, a jury decided Wednesday.

Markus Hendrick Kaarma, 29, of Missoula, had been burglarized twice in two weeks before the April 27 shooting, and investigators painted him as a man spoiling for confrontation.

Kaarma and his partner, Janelle Pflager, set up surveillance equipment in the garage and left out a purse, with the garage door partially open, as bait.

Kaarma set a trap in an attempt to lure burglars into his garage. Once he saw movement, he opened the door from the house to the garage and sprayed gunfire indiscriminately, saying that he didn’t even see what he was shooting at until Pflager turned on the lights. By then, the exchange student, Diren Dede, was on the ground, dying.<<<

Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:17,518
Points:583,205
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Dec 17, 2014 8:31:09 AM

"Your side invented it, we just barrow it sometimes."

'My side'?

Unfortunately for your assumption, I am not a Liberal. To a Moderate, it seems as though both sides engage in that futile activity 50/50...
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,818
Points:334,850
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Dec 17, 2014 2:41:56 AM

People who frequent MSNBC doesn't even believe in gun free zones and gun control any more.

Liberals: read this and cry me an ocean

" then it's all we want is. . . . . . . ."
To ban guns that look evil, even when they are used in very few crimes.

[Edited by: oilpan4 at 12/17/2014 2:43:32 AM EST]
Profile Pic
Cirdan
Champion Author Nevada

Posts:2,617
Points:141,365
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Dec 17, 2014 1:00:14 AM

"Polls show that most Americans disagree with NRA and want more gun control".

'That is the number 1 liberal tactic of all time; repeat a lie often enough it becomes truth. '

No, the #1 lie is "All we want is. . ."

First it's all we want is more background checks, then it's all we want is to ban large capacity magazines, then it's all we want is. . . . . . . .

Second biggest lie is 40% of gun sales don't have a background check. Even the Washington Post gave that one 4 Pinocchios.
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,818
Points:334,850
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Dec 16, 2014 7:51:40 PM

Your side invented it, we just barrow it sometimes.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:17,518
Points:583,205
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Dec 16, 2014 3:44:31 PM

"That is the number 1 liberal tactic of all time; repeat a lie often enough it becomes truth."

Seems as though that is the #1 tactic of political extremists, regardless of ideology... I love it though when people think a certain 'tactic' is only used by one 'side', makes it easy to dismiss most of their comments as irrelevant.

[Edited by: Weaslespit at 12/16/2014 3:47:13 PM EST]
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,818
Points:334,850
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Dec 16, 2014 3:07:36 PM

"Polls show that most Americans disagree with NRA and want more gun control".

That is the number 1 liberal tactic of all time; repeat a lie often enough it becomes truth.

Proof people dont want more gun control
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,798
Points:1,597,050
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 16, 2014 12:58:43 PM

Here is a link specifically for Semisteve adn a fun one to rattle Marty with
.
.
>>>Myth 1: The NRA represents gun manufacturers.
One of the most pervasive myths about NRA is that it represents firearm manufacturers. It doesn’t. It represents firearm owners. Firearm manufacturers are represented by the National Shooting Sports Foundation.
.
Myth 2: The NRA’s power rests in how much money it gives out to candidates.
Many gun-control advocates seem to have trouble believing that someone would disagree with them on a subject like gun control and that, if someone does, it must be the result of greed. The truth is that the NRA’s power comes not from distributing cash, but from producing votes. NRA members are politically informed and engaged, and vote in extremely high numbers.
.
Myth 3: The NRA’s influence is grossly disproportionate to its membership numbers.
This miscalculation is based on the actual number of paid NRA memberships. It fails to consider the practical realities of non-profit advocacy.
.
Myth 4: Polls show that most Americans disagree with NRA and want more gun control.
The mainstream press often cites polls showing Americans support gun control. Don’t believe them. First of all, many of these polls are conducted immediately following highly publicized mass shootings, when people respond emotionally. Also, you have to know how the poll was conducted and how questions were posed. If asked, simply “Are you in favor of gun control?” a person on the street may say yes. However, if you pose the question “Do you favor more gun control legislation or the enforcement of existing laws?” that same person may favor the latter.
We also must consider whether we really want Constitutional rights determined via polling. The Bill of Rights protects the individual from “the tyranny of the majority.” The Second Amendment doesn’t say “Good poll numbers being essential to good public policy, the right of the people … .” Are we forbidden from practicing a certain religion because it’s not trending well? Do we give up the right to read a good book because it’s fallen into disfavor among the majority?<<<

Keep smiling guys......
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,818
Points:334,850
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Dec 6, 2014 2:16:32 AM

The job of the police isn't to protect individuals, but to protect society as a whole.
Nether is being accomplished in MO.

"had his car surrounded and a window broken out he flashed a gun and the crowd backed off"

To me that's an attempted car jacking and someone will get ran over, shot or both.

"attacked by the protestors"
If they are attacking they are not protestors. I say they fall some where between unlawful combatants and criminals.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,798
Points:1,597,050
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 5, 2014 10:47:41 PM

You are absolutely right Johnny - someone is going to get killed and these protestors will go bugnutz over it and demand "justice".

Justice for who - the person who was attacked by the protestors?
Profile Pic
johnnyg1200
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:8,895
Points:1,322,050
Joined:May 2011
Message Posted: Dec 5, 2014 7:39:40 PM

This is one of the things the second amendment was meant for. 'Oath Keepers' return to Ferguson rooftops With plenty of warning that the riots were coming the government failed to provide protection for the local businesses , failed utterly. Now we have private citizens providing protection for the businesses in Ferguson.

Here is another example of the police failing to protect people's rights and safety. this was just a day or two after a Bosnian was killed after a group of teen jumped on his car and beat him with hammers. This time the person was armed.

The problem I have is the police are letting the protesters have their way and not enforcing the law. They are letting the thugs block streets and highways. They are letting the thugs surround people in their cars and in unlawfully detain them. If the police/government continue to let these protesters break the law this is going to escalate until we have a fatality. We had a tractor trailer trapped by the protesters who tried to climb onto his truck. He gunned the engine and pumped the clutch causing the truck to lurch forward. Basically he was telling them if they got on his truck he was going through them. The protesters backed down. When the man in the CEW had his car surrounded and a window broken out he flashed a gun and the crowd backed off. At some point someone is going to push things to the point where no one backs down.

I have my CCW but did not carry because it is against company policy to carry at work. In Missouri your car is an extension of your home. You don't technically need a permit to carry if your gun is in your car and the castle doctrine extends to your car. After the beating of the Bosnian and the CWE incident I have started to carry. I just leave it locked in my car at work.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,056
Points:2,877,415
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 5, 2014 2:51:32 PM

SemiSteve - "I'm not claiming the NRA exclusively represents gun-makers."

Maybe you're not, but it seems many of those promoting stricter gun control are claiming just that. As demonstrated by your quote: "These connections have fueled the theory among some gun-control advocates that the NRA is just another corporate front."

Another quote: "The industry needs a veneer of respectability," he said. "

Only in the eyes of those who think guns, and those who manufacture them, are inherently evil, like the VPC. To rational people, the industry is just as respectable as any other industry.

"Despite the fact that your average Joe Six-Shooter THINKS it does."

So you don't think that reasonable concealed carry laws, and the availability of practical firearms for CHL holders, benefits "Joe Six-Shooter"?

"How about it just be something simple like: 'Political advertising is illegal. The maximum amount of money or other other instrument of equal value which can be spent directly or indirectly on politics, elections, campaigns, legislators, lobbying, Congress or government regulatory agencies in any calendar year by any individual or organization shall be no greater than ten times the national hourly minimum wage.'"

Not sure I'd go as far as making political advertising illegal. I would support linking campaign contributions to voting by making it illegal to make contributions to any campaign that you can't vote in. Your spending limitation might come in handy as a limitation on what PACs could spend in such campaigns.

[Edited by: rjhenn at 12/5/2014 2:52:39 PM EST]
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,828
Points:457,025
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 5, 2014 2:45:28 PM

Good idea, Tim.
Profile Pic
teacher_tim
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,819
Points:840,470
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Dec 5, 2014 12:40:53 PM

Steve, Does that count "News Announcements" by incumbents? The reason so few incumbents lose elections is that they have a huge advantage in advertising dollars with free franking priveleges to send out their "News" political ads. Would that include equal time for each opposition candidate when the President or a Congressperson gives a TV speech or appearance?
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,828
Points:457,025
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 5, 2014 12:29:00 PM

I would actually be fine with a new Constitutional amendment which prohibited unions from having any direct or even indirect involvement at all with politics, elections, campaigns, legislators, lobbying, Congress or government regulatory agencies.

Just as long as it prevents corporations from doing the same thing.

How about it just be something simple like: 'Political advertising is illegal. The maximum amount of money or other other instrument of equal value which can be spent directly or indirectly on politics, elections, campaigns, legislators, lobbying, Congress or government regulatory agencies in any calendar year by any individual or organization shall be no greater than ten times the national hourly minimum wage.'

That would certainly change things!
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,798
Points:1,597,050
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2014 4:56:39 PM

So Steve someone shows you that only 3-10% of their funds come from corporations and you still trot out the tired old song of the BIGEVILCORPORATION.

What is it with your phobia on that subject anyway? So according to your thinking any organizations or other entity that has the least contact with a corporation is forever tainted and a pariah?

Why does it surprise you that gun makers support an organization that advocats for the selling and ownership of what they build?

What the heck is wrong with that anyway??????

Using your thinking we should outlaw unions from ever getting involved in any way shape, fashion, or form from ever getting involved in politics. After all they have a position and not everyone agrees with that position they take.

[Edited by: flyboyUT at 12/4/2014 4:58:11 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:17,518
Points:583,205
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2014 4:36:52 PM

"Because stopping them from harming others, either directly or by destroying property, is the whole point."

If you know there is a possibility for rioting, the best way to protect yourself is to stay home.

The best way to put yourself in harm's way is to go looking for trouble. Quite often, it will find you...
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,828
Points:457,025
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2014 4:29:24 PM

Umm, don't misunderstand my point, rjh.

I'm not claiming the NRA exclusively represents gun-makers. But it does appear they get more than their share of representation. Of course, the bottom line is that this is not simply a gun-owners group. That unburdened air of cleanliness vanished years ago when they began taking corporate money.

Reading more carefully we see:...

"These connections have fueled the theory among some gun-control advocates that the NRA is just another corporate front. That might theoretically explain why the group has opposed politically popular measures such as requiring background checks at gun shows and banning sales to people on the terrorist watch list, proposals that even its own members have been found to support. For gun makers, the fewer rules, the better.

"They translate the industry's needs into less crass, less economically interested language -- into defending the home, into defending the country," Tom Diaz, the Violence Policy Center's senior policy analyst, told me in an interview. One example, he said, was concealed carry laws, which the NRA promotes as self-defense measures. As Diaz explained, letting private citizens carry their handguns in public also just happened to allow firearms manufacturers to make and market new, smaller weapons with higher calibers.

"The industry needs a veneer of respectability," he said. "

"So who does the NRA speak for, again? The answer is: lots of people. Hard-core gun-devotees, frightened conservatives, its own well-paid leaders, gun makers, and ammo retailers all play into the mix. It would be reductive to call it a mere corporate lobbyist. But in any event, it's clear the NRA isn't just representing your average Joe Six-Shooter."

Despite the fact that your average Joe Six-Shooter THINKS it does.

[Edited by: SemiSteve at 12/4/2014 4:30:03 PM EST]
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,056
Points:2,877,415
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2014 4:00:52 PM

SemiSteve - " In 2010, it received $71 million in contributions, up from $46.3 million in 2004. Some of that money came from small-time donors, who've received a barrage of fundraising appeals warning of President Obama's imminent plot to gut the Second Amendment and confiscate Americans' firearms. But around 2005, the group began systematically reaching out to its richest members for bigger checks through its "Ring of Freedom" program, which also sought to corral corporate donors. Between then and 2011, the Violence Policy Center estimates that the firearms industry donated as much as $38.9 million to the NRA's coffers. The givers include 22 different gun makers, including famous names like Smith & Wesson, Beretta USA, SIGARMS, and Sturm, Ruger & Co. that also manufacture so-called assault weapons."

Steve, you really need to read a bit more carefully. For example: "According to its public tax returns, the group raked in $228 million worth of revenue in 2010." That's almost 6 times what the VPC claims they got from the firearms industry over a 6 year period. So you're claiming that roughly 3% of their income, or roughly 10% of their annual donations, controls their positions?

Methinks the VPC is jealous. Or desperate.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,056
Points:2,877,415
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2014 3:51:50 PM

Weaslespit - "Why are we deflecting back to those who are, as you say, willfully breaking the law?"

Because stopping them from harming others, either directly or by destroying property, is the whole point.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:17,518
Points:583,205
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2014 3:07:43 PM

"...by looting or burning down a business."

That still doesn't justify vigilante justice...
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,828
Points:457,025
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2014 2:34:57 PM

" In 2010, it received $71 million in contributions, up from $46.3 million in 2004. Some of that money came from small-time donors, who've received a barrage of fundraising appeals warning of President Obama's imminent plot to gut the Second Amendment and confiscate Americans' firearms. But around 2005, the group began systematically reaching out to its richest members for bigger checks through its "Ring of Freedom" program, which also sought to corral corporate donors. Between then and 2011, the Violence Policy Center estimates that the firearms industry donated as much as $38.9 million to the NRA's coffers. The givers include 22 different gun makers, including famous names like Smith & Wesson, Beretta USA, SIGARMS, and Sturm, Ruger & Co. that also manufacture so-called assault weapons.

Some of that funding has given the NRA a direct stake in gun and ammo sales."

NRA Is Repping Gun Profiteers
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,828
Points:457,025
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2014 1:32:19 PM

That is how they began. And that respectful status was maintained for a very long time. But that is no longer the whole story; even though that is what they would have you believe. After all, they still want all that money from individual memberships to keep coming in.

But the sad fact is they have become a corporate shill.

The agenda is to keep those corporate profits growing.
Profile Pic
PopcornPirate
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:5,662
Points:1,563,970
Joined:Nov 2006
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2014 9:22:14 AM

"SemiSteve - "NRA: National Gun Profiteers Association"
Why do you think they get so many donations & members to pay dues?
They are protecting gun rights for all in the US as per the 2nd amendment
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,828
Points:457,025
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2014 9:07:50 AM

Sorry to spill the beans, rjh.

It is true.

Ignoring it will not change it.

They totally take corporate money and they have corporate executives on the board. They are repping the profiteers.
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,284
Points:23,480
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2014 8:29:45 AM

"Speaking of our country's founding principle's, who are we to judge when to violate somebody's right to Due Process by going out and looking for trouble?"

...by looting or burning down a business.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:17,518
Points:583,205
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2014 8:23:09 AM

"Why would you think the folks saying that looters and arsonists be shot on sight in times of social breakdown are not Christian."

WWJD?

"At least those engaged in looting and arson know they are breaking the law and are doing it willingly."

Why are we deflecting back to those who are, as you say, willfully breaking the law?

"I rather strongly suggest you look up just what the Militia really is and what the framers of the Constitution said it was."

Lol, tell ya what - why don't you try an experiment; get a militia together, go to Ferguson and shoot looters on-site. I wouldn't want to bet my freedom that the book wouldn't be thrown at me for that action...

Speaking of our country's founding principle's, who are we to judge when to violate somebody's right to Due Process by going out and looking for trouble? Defending your life in your home is one thing, going out and looking for trouble is another matter, IMO.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,056
Points:2,877,415
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2014 1:01:44 AM

SemiSteve - "NRA: National Gun Profiteers Association"

Steve, I think you need to find better sources. This is pure propaganda.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,798
Points:1,597,050
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2014 5:52:58 PM

Weasle - I rather strongly suggest you look up just what the Militia really is and what the framers of the Constitution said it was. I think your idea is not correct.

Why would you think the folks saying that looters and arsonists be shot on sight in times of social breakdown are not Christian. They are more Christian than those who cal themselves Christian and advocate for the flat out murder of an innocent child who has done nothing to warrant the murder. At least those engaged in looting and arson know they are breaking the law and are doing it willingly.

I think those who are willing to defend their property are very much Christians. You may disagree but that is your choice.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,828
Points:457,025
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2014 5:49:39 PM

NRA: National Gun Profiteers Association

This used to be a gun owners group. But it has been taken over by the greedy who value profits over lives.

Which is why we see such ridiculous things as a gun for children being marketed.

I suppose all the riches made selling guns to adults are not enough for them.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:17,518
Points:583,205
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2014 4:43:40 PM

"Naturally, I was talking about defending my own store or home."

Home, yes, I would defend it. Store? No, the risks far outweigh the benefits. That is what insurance is for. Plus that means I am not defending my home...
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:17,518
Points:583,205
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2014 4:42:05 PM

"Weasle you might look up just what is the Militia and what constitutes 'public danger'."

I don't think you can just form your own 'militia' not recognized by the government and expect not to be sanctioned when your actions are vetted - I would call that a 'posse'.

"...but if people try to loot and rob and burn down others property they just might be placing themselves in grave danger of dying of terminal stupidity."

Certainly true. I'm just wondering if those that are calling for looters to be shot on sight are Christian...

[Edited by: Weaslespit at 12/3/2014 4:46:21 PM EST]
Profile Pic
teacher_tim
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,819
Points:840,470
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2014 3:46:46 PM

Naturally, I was talking about defending my own store or home. It would be a fatal mistake to enter my home with criminal intent. Considering what happened to the Bosnian immigrant in Ferguson, I'll take my chances with the judicial system after the fact. It's much harder to defend yourself from a coffin.

Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,798
Points:1,597,050
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2014 3:41:01 PM

"or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;"

Weasle you might look up just what is the Militia and what constitutes 'public danger'.

As far as being a Christian - your free to call others whatever you wish but if people try to loot and rob and burn down others property they just might be placing themselves in grave danger of dying of terminal stupidity.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:17,518
Points:583,205
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2014 2:52:14 PM

"Does the 5th apply to stopping a crime in progress? Particularly when the authorities are outnumbered?"

Putting yourself in harm's way does not give one justification to take lethal action.

I can't see any Court upholding that seeking out looters to shoot on site is not a violation of the 5th Amendment.

"Given Jesus' behavior in the temple, I'm not sure that he would disapprove of using violence to stop destructive rioting."

Violence, or lethal force?

"Though I am sure that He would try to prevent such in the first place."

Probably.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,056
Points:2,877,415
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2014 1:28:59 PM

Weaslespit - "Then you are at odds with the 5th Amendment..."

Does the 5th apply to stopping a crime in progress? Particularly when the authorities are outnumbered?

"Those of you posting in favor of 'shooting to kill' (be it Police or civilians - do you consider yourselves to be Christians?"

Given Jesus' behavior in the temple, I'm not sure that he would disapprove of using violence to stop destructive rioting.

Though I am sure that He would try to prevent such in the first place.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:17,518
Points:583,205
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2014 12:08:50 PM

"I have absolutely NO problem with Daley's order."

Then you are at odds with the 5th Amendment...

Those of you posting in favor of 'shooting to kill' (be it Police or civilians - do you consider yourselves to be Christians?
Profile Pic
teacher_tim
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,819
Points:840,470
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2014 6:54:02 AM

In the 1968 riots in Baltimore, Little Italy was not touched, although the police were nowhere to be found. There was a line of Italian men armed with rifles, shotguns and pistols along President Street who simply said, "You cross this street, we shoot you."

I have absolutely NO problem with Daley's order. Just think how many criminals would no longer be on the streets. A shotgun blast to the knees tends to keep them from running away until they're apprehended, too. The permanent damage would also slow them from running very quickly from future crimes as well. Naturally, they would be ineligible for any government disability. Actions have consequences, and I don't care HOW tough you had it growing up. You knew what you were doing when you went out to burn and loot.
Profile Pic
SE3.5
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:24,661
Points:3,852,340
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Dec 2, 2014 8:59:30 PM

Shooting looters works for me. Boom, boom, boom.
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,284
Points:23,480
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Dec 2, 2014 5:52:19 PM

"Um, you can't just go around shooting looters... "

Mayor Daley issued a shoot to kill order, during the 1968 Democratic convention riots. According to Wikipedia: "Mayor Richard J. Daley gave police the authority "to shoot to kill any arsonist or anyone with a Molotov cocktail in his hand ... and ... to shoot to maim or cripple anyone looting any stores in our city."[5]"

That, apparently, slowed the arson and looting. I see nothing wrong with that policy.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,798
Points:1,597,050
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 2, 2014 5:39:56 PM

Why not weasle - the instance of looting and arson would drop to almost nothing.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:17,518
Points:583,205
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Dec 2, 2014 1:29:11 PM

"Why are Looters not shot on sight???
Or is that not Politically Correct???"

Um, you can't just go around shooting looters...

SMH
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,798
Points:1,597,050
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 2, 2014 1:28:56 PM

A guy who dislikes cops and many other laws gets hoist on his own petard. Sorry about the language he uses though. But the irony is too rich to pass up.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,798
Points:1,597,050
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 2, 2014 9:51:43 AM

PP- the reason is that the political figure that would have to make the decision to tell the police and Nat Guard to do so dont have the 'intestinal fortitude' to do what is right.
Profile Pic
PopcornPirate
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:5,662
Points:1,563,970
Joined:Nov 2006
Message Posted: Dec 2, 2014 9:37:56 AM

Why are Looters not shot on sight???
Or is that not Politically Correct???
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,798
Points:1,597,050
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Nov 30, 2014 4:54:10 PM

Here is a good one for Marty and those who share his ideas.
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,818
Points:334,850
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Nov 29, 2014 3:18:43 PM

This is why when I got the job offer to work in one of St. Louis's nuclear reactor control rooms I laughed at the guy. $30 and hour starting pay, HA! Yeah right.

That area is going to be the next Detroit or Compton.
The 1960s showed us that when there are riots like that, everyone in the area with money and means will leave.
Profile Pic
RAB2010
All-Star Author Kalamazoo

Posts:689
Points:85,750
Joined:Mar 2010
Message Posted: Nov 29, 2014 11:53:17 AM

Let's give credit where credit is due. Obama has taken credit for everything else, so it seems that he should be given credit for this, too. Thus the new reference "Obama Riots."

All of this creates quite a quandary for law-abiding people living in the States. Knowing that the Obama rioteers are waiting in the wings; knowing that the police can not be everywhere at once; knowing that the malls prohibit the exercise of the right to carry arms concealed, does one simply forgo gift shopping and give it up to the Grinch Obama?

Or does one shop armed, out of necessity, as these Obama rioteers have shown themselves to be violent, murderous, and without scruples?
Profile Pic
Cirdan
Champion Author Nevada

Posts:2,617
Points:141,365
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Nov 29, 2014 11:34:49 AM

Ferguson - welcome to Detroit. Hell on earth, and you made this.
Post a reply Back to Topics