Has anyone here been personally affected by the "Floyd" riots - Page 11 - 1911Forum
1911Forum
Advertise Here
Forum   Reviews   Rules   Legal   Site Supporters & Donations   Advertise


Go Back   1911Forum > >

Notices


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #251  
Old 06-01-2020, 07:04 PM
subscriber subscriber is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 5,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by magazineman View Post
And NO, I'm not a "lefty" for suggest this instead of a Ma Deuce....
Machine-gunning crowds is stupid. It is indiscriminate. Lots of collateral damage.

Rather use a precision rifle to shoot molotov coctails from the hands of firebombers, as soon as they are lit. Thus only the fire bombers are addressed. Alternately, shoot the firebombers center of mass. Anyone close to fire bombers will get and spread the message.

Ditto for rock throwers, but only when they are close enough to actually injure someone. A window broken by a rock will not end a business, or kill people inside, while a firebomb has much greater potential to do just that.
__________________
You can't reason people out of a position they didn't reason their way into...

Last edited by subscriber; 06-01-2020 at 07:41 PM.
  #252  
Old 06-01-2020, 07:10 PM
Vos Parate Vos Parate is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Heartland, USA
Age: 63
Posts: 2,594
I firmly believe that large children should not own firearms. You know who you are.
__________________
Vos Parate!
Proud NRA Patron Life Member
Never slap a man while he is chewing tobacco.
  #253  
Old 06-01-2020, 07:39 PM
bradsvette bradsvette is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: South
Posts: 2,954
If I was a liberal on a Conservative Forum, I'd be found out and admit it. I say: "Hey you liberals, just own it." Have the courage of your convictions. (User-name(s) deleted), maintains that if you don't agree with his mushy, left of mainstream position, your intellect is lacking. Another says that Donald Trump was 100% wrong before he was sworn in and able to conduct one second of business. They hate Trump and rationalize any action designed to hurt him. They rationalize the riots and the arson and the looting, and therefore tacitly support it.

Oh yeah, they are the party of tolerance. And so the riots and arson and looting are justifiable. Guess what, they are the ones who will inherit the 1911 Forum and other conservative websites, venues, and causes. Public and private education is doing everything in their power to erase conservative thinking. Social media has altered common sense. Our liberal members' views represent the new common sense. Gentlemen we are screwed.
  #254  
Old 06-01-2020, 07:52 PM
Striker2237 Striker2237 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 7,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradsvette View Post
If I was a liberal on a Conservative Forum, I'd be found out and admit it. I say: "Hey you liberals, just own it." Have the courage of your convictions. (User-name(s) deleted), maintains that if you don't agree with his mushy, left of mainstream position, your intellect is lacking. Another says that Donald Trump was 100% wrong before he was sworn in and able to conduct one second of business. They hate Trump and rationalize any action designed to hurt him. They rationalize the riots and the arson and the looting, and therefore tacitly support it.

Oh yeah, they are the party of tolerance. And so the riots and arson and looting are justifiable. Guess what, they are the ones who will inherit the 1911 Forum and other conservative websites, venues, and causes. Public and private education is doing everything in their power to erase conservative thinking. Social media has altered common sense. Our liberal members' views represent the new common sense. Gentlemen we are screwed.
DING! We have a winner, only a matter of time and the time is looking shorter and shorter these days.
__________________
Carry gun:Wilson Carry Comp Custom .45S Pocket carry:on loan Other 1911s:WC Supergrade Accucomp .38, WC BW Opticomp, WC CQB Compact, WC CQB Professional, WC Super Sentinel, WC CQB Elite 9mm, WC EDC X9, WC X9S, Ed Brown SR, NHC Predator II Opticomp, NHC T3 Hardchrome, Kimber Ultra, ATI Tactical, RIA Tactical 10mm, Kimber Ultra Diamond 9mm, Detonics Combat Master MKVI, Colt Centennial .460 Roland
  #255  
Old 06-01-2020, 07:53 PM
magazineman magazineman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,314
bradsvette----------- I'm not 100% anything. That's the whole point. I think people who are 100% ANY party are rubes.

I'm for what I think is good & against what I think is bad. I don't assign ideas to a Republican Or Democrat label to determine my opinion.

So yes, YOU will assign some things I say to the Lib side. Sure, have fun with that if it makes it easier for yourself to avoid nuance.

Now you just said I was 100% ------- ONE HUNDRED PERCENT-------- Liberal even though I've written a few very non-liberal opinions in this very thread.

Such as that for purposes of self defense law, a business owner should enjoy the same rights to use deadly force as a homeowner. Is THAT "liberal" in your opinion? Or is it simply RIGHT?? I say it's RIGHT and JUST. No category needed beyond that.

I also said that the rioters we are discussing should be gassed, tazed, beaten with batons, arrested & jailed. I don't think that's "liberal" nor do I care. That's your game, not mine.

I'm also Pro 2A, Will vote Trump again, have a CCW License / carry daily, and have railed against recreational marijuana laws, assault rifle laws, mag capacity limits, & a host of other "liberal" positions.

Again------- not based on any party affiliation. Those things HAPPEN to lean conservative but that's not by design.
  #256  
Old 06-01-2020, 08:01 PM
toofew1911s toofew1911s is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by wccountryboy View Post
Still haven't heard anyone offer a realistc, viable plan to control and contain the ongoing terrorism.....
I don't call it terrorism - terrorism is a term created to deal with foreign violent intervention by smaller groups rather than an entire country. To my thinking, there is no such thing as domestic terrorism because we have laws to deal with violence done by our own citizens in our own country.

We have laws against arson, breaking and entering, vandalism, battery, etc. These people aren't doing anything we don't have laws against. Just arrest them the same as police would any other day in any other circumstance. Not enough Police to be everywhere? Bring in more the the outlying areas that don't have the riots going on and national guard if still not enough.

Secondly, you allow people to defend their own businesses just as they would their home. Shelter in place in a riot, and if someone breaks into your domicile, lethal force is allowed. Even the police didn't feel safe defending their own precinct in Minneapolis and were ordered to desert it and leave it for the rioters. Police wouldn't even defend their own precinct. That shows something is wrong right there. The result was their precinct building was burned to the ground. If police won't defend their own precinct, what chance do you have of them protecting your place of business? This whole thing is as much about bad policy and bad laws as it is anything else.
  #257  
Old 06-01-2020, 08:02 PM
magazineman magazineman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,314
I also think that any crime committed during a riot should be treated & punished in the same manner as it would be on a regular day.

If you are going to throw a molotov at a cop on any regular day, you might get, justifiably, shot. It being during a riot does not change that.
  #258  
Old 06-01-2020, 08:03 PM
magazineman magazineman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,314
toofew1911's ------agreed! You posted while I was typing.
  #259  
Old 06-01-2020, 08:11 PM
1jester 1jester is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 42
Scottsdale Arizona police chief was nowhere to be found in the mall that was rioting and damaged. He said he only has 64 officers, there but none to be found. My friend who has the most expensive jewelry shop in Scottsdale boarded up his place and four of them slept inside. Incidentally he is a class IIIFFL.The chief said on television that he couldn’t protect the stores. You know damn well he can’t protect your house.
  #260  
Old 06-01-2020, 08:17 PM
subscriber subscriber is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 5,192
What should the rules of engagement be here? https://districtherald.com/rochester...ct-their-home/
__________________
You can't reason people out of a position they didn't reason their way into...
  #261  
Old 06-01-2020, 08:19 PM
wccountryboy wccountryboy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 11,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by toofew1911s View Post
I don't call it terrorism - terrorism is a term created to deal with foreign violent intervention by smaller groups rather than an entire country. To my thinking, there is no such thing as domestic terrorism because we have laws to deal with violence done by our own citizens in our own country.

We have laws against arson, breaking and entering, vandalism, battery, etc. These people aren't doing anything we don't have laws against. Just arrest them the same as police would any other day in any other circumstance. Not enough Police to be everywhere? Bring in more the the outlying areas that don't have the riots going on and national guard if still not enough.

Secondly, you allow people to defend their own businesses just as they would their home. Shelter in place in a riot, and if someone breaks into your domicile, lethal force is allowed. Even the police didn't feel safe defending their own precinct in Minneapolis and were ordered to desert it and leave it for the rioters. Police wouldn't even defend their own precinct. That shows something is wrong right there. The result was their precinct building was burned to the ground. If police won't defend their own precinct, what chance do you have of them protecting your place of business? This whole thing is as much about bad policy and bad laws as it is anything else.
Regardless of what you may think, USC Title 18, Section 2331 defines both international and domestic terrorism as Federal crimes. The elements of these crimes are fairly clearly articulated.
My assertion that anyone with a brick or a firebomb in their hand, as part of a mob or riot event, is a terrorist is spot on, letter of the law accurate.
__________________
I must study politics and war, that our sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. Our sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history and naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry and porcelain. ~ John Adams
  #262  
Old 06-01-2020, 08:19 PM
toofew1911s toofew1911s is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,260
Private business owners should be able to hire private armed security to defend their property just as if they owned it themselves. We saw lots of this going on during the L.A. riots. We don't need to police to be everywhere - we just need to freedom to defend ourselves and our own homes and businesses. During the L.A. riots, police wouldn't even go into the hot zone - for days on end. People were left to fend for themselves.
  #263  
Old 06-01-2020, 08:24 PM
subscriber subscriber is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 5,192
The rioting and arson are intended to bait Trump voters into overreacting. That would sway the undecided masses away from voting for Trump in November, and for massive gun bans.

Find your inner teddy-bear: "Speak softly, but carry a big stick":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presid...Foreign_policy
__________________
You can't reason people out of a position they didn't reason their way into...
  #264  
Old 06-01-2020, 08:54 PM
subscriber subscriber is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 5,192
Another perspective, spotted somewhere else. A bit broad-brush, but if you can see that there is a faction that is trying to unseat Trump via unconstitutional methods, they also fit this bill:

Quote:
The powers that be want civil unrest so they can bring in martial law. Order Out of Chaos. The Government is creating mass chaos so they can enforce Martial Law and impose the New World Order with public approval.
__________________
You can't reason people out of a position they didn't reason their way into...

Last edited by subscriber; 06-01-2020 at 09:37 PM.
  #265  
Old 06-01-2020, 08:58 PM
toofew1911s toofew1911s is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by wccountryboy View Post
Regardless of what you may think, USC Title 18, Section 2331 defines both international and domestic terrorism as Federal crimes. The elements of these crimes are fairly clearly articulated.
My assertion that anyone with a brick or a firebomb in their hand, as part of a mob or riot event, is a terrorist is spot on, letter of the law accurate.
I wasn't entirely clear....my fault. I have no reason to doubt that what you are saying is true - it is rather my contention that current domestic terrorism laws are redundant and unnecessary. In fact, they can even be unconstitutional if they deprive a citizen of the United States without the same legal protections afforded by simply being arrested for the same crime listed under state and federal laws.

Terrorism is such a broad brush. An argument can be made that anything that causes actual "terror" can be housed under that tent - if not now, then amended to include it at a later date. One can even argue that the 2nd amendment people showing up with AR's at the seat of the state congress can be viewed by some as "terrorists" because the mere sight of a black rifle sends many antigun folks into a state of complete and total "terror". What other purpose can these people have for "brandishing" their weaponry other than to create fear and terror in those about them. At least that is some peoples view. Just my way of pointing out that terrorism is a slippery slope and one man's terrorist is not another's.
  #266  
Old 06-01-2020, 09:16 PM
wccountryboy wccountryboy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 11,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by toofew1911s View Post
I wasn't entirely clear....my fault. I have no reason to doubt that what you are saying is true - it is rather my contention that current domestic terrorism laws are redundant and unnecessary. In fact, they can even be unconstitutional if they deprive a citizen of the United States without the same legal protections afforded by simply being arrested for the same crime listed under state and federal laws.

Terrorism is such a broad brush. An argument can be made that anything that causes actual "terror" can be housed under that tent - if not now, then amended to include it at a later date. One can even argue that the 2nd amendment people showing up with AR's at the seat of the state congress can be viewed by some as "terrorists" because the mere sight of a black rifle sends many antigun folks into a state of complete and total "terror". What other purpose can these people have for "brandishing" their weaponry other than to create fear and terror in those about them. At least that is some peoples view. Just my way of pointing out that terrorism is a slippery slope and one man's terrorist is not another's.
I understand your perspective... but the statute is quit clear and specific:

(5)the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A)
involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B)appear to be intended—
(i)
to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii)
to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii)
to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C)
occur primarily within the territorial*boundaries of the United States.


Open carry, IAW State law, does not meet this definition. The act has to be both dangerous to human life AND a violation of State or Federal law...
__________________
I must study politics and war, that our sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. Our sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history and naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry and porcelain. ~ John Adams
  #267  
Old 06-01-2020, 09:38 PM
toofew1911s toofew1911s is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,260
Others contend that it does meet that definition. While open carry of long arms is legal now, I don't expect it to remain so. Just look at what happened in California when the Black Panthers showed up on the government steps with riot shotguns and such. Wasn't a problem before, so no law needed. But they didn't like what they saw with a bunch of armed intimidating black people at the doors of their government buildings and that law got changed lickety-split. The reaction from state congress leaders and the much of the public would indicate that open carry of AR's, at least on government property, is soon to be a thing of the past. If they choose, they could also include in nationally rather than by state under "intimidate or coerce a civilian population" or influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion". The shoe fits. All they need the the numbers in congress to pass it and it will become a part of the "domestic terrorism" playbook.
  #268  
Old 06-01-2020, 09:51 PM
wccountryboy wccountryboy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 11,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by toofew1911s View Post
Others contend that it does meet that definition. While open carry of long arms is legal now, I don't expect it to remain so. Just look at what happened in California when the Black Panthers showed up on the government steps with riot shotguns and such. Wasn't a problem before, so no law needed. But they didn't like what they saw with a bunch of armed intimidating black people at the doors of their government buildings and that law got changed lickety-split. The reaction from state congress leaders and the much of the public would indicate that open carry of AR's, at least on government property, is soon to be a thing of the past. If they choose, they could also include in nationally rather than by state under "intimidate or coerce a civilian population" or influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion". The shoe fits. All they need the the numbers in congress to pass it and it will become a part of the "domestic terrorism" playbook.
You really can't use CA , 50+ years ago, as a benchmark. As of now, there is no effort, at any level of government, to restrict OC that I'm aware of. No State or Federal legislation proposed or pending.
OC, where lawful, is, by definition, not "intimidation" or "coercion". The act also has tobe "dangerous to human life" to fit within the current definition. One can, to some degree, interpret "intent". One needs to look at the action holistically, the totality of circumstances.
For example, walking down the street, by yourself, a month ago, carrying a brick- there's no reasonable reason to infer criminal intent. Doing so tonight, as part of a mob of 500, who are raising hell- it becomes reasonable to infer intent to do harm.

Could the statute change? Sure. But there's been no effort to do so, and no reason to expect it to become a significant issu any time soon.
__________________
I must study politics and war, that our sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. Our sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history and naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry and porcelain. ~ John Adams
  #269  
Old 06-01-2020, 10:13 PM
shooter59 shooter59 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Rocky mountain area
Posts: 687
Quote:
Originally Posted by wccountryboy View Post
Still haven't heard anyone offer a realistc, viable plan to control and contain the ongoing terrorism.....
You first....
  #270  
Old 06-02-2020, 12:01 AM
Dddrees Dddrees is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 2,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plantar5 View Post
What you call a “cheap carnival act “, actually accomplished many things besides running a successful business, long before he entered politics.
Unlike your preferences who couldn’t run anything, haven’t accomplished anything and only take advantage of their position within the government to no ones advantage but their own and their own families. You make it sound like the only people who vote for trump, go to his rallies. Talk about flawed logic... By all means, enlighten me with any liberal comparison of yours. As usual, the Trump haters can only name call and criticize vs have any credible solution to a problem or situation.
Of course you"ll want to include all of the bankruptcies, you know I'm pretty sure New Jersey really Luvs him. The foundation the court shutdown and the Trump University scam he settled out of court. Kind of have a dislike for people that scam little old lady's even if they are dim witted. Oh, and probably because he funneled money from the old man illegaly so he skipped paying taxes, do kind of hate that as well. Yeah, I'll give him credit for licensing his name so others might manage where he can not. Heck I'll even give him credit for the Reality TV Show I never watched. Do have a problem giving him any credit for scamming Deutches Bank out of money although others might think that's savy, cause I pretty much just think he's a crook. Did I miss anything?

Oh yeah, that whole Marilogo membership increase after becoming President. Typical Trump, I'm so great I'll donate my little 450,000 salary because I'm such a nice guy but turns around and cashes in by raising his membership by about a 100 grand or so per member. But yeah, Trump is a real benevolent fellow alright. I mean, he did tell you that didn't he? LOL


But please, do couch your responses rather generically because when it comes to Trump the actual details really aren't all that pretty or even that favorable. He gives you what you want, you might want to just stick with that.

Last edited by Dddrees; 06-02-2020 at 12:27 AM.
  #271  
Old 06-02-2020, 12:55 AM
toofew1911s toofew1911s is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,260
Well, after this discussion on why don't the police fire on the rioters, its seems they finally did. Of course they only managed to shoot an innocent bystander and neglected to turn on their body cameras as per department instructions.

Seems this country isn't capable of doing much of anything correctly these days, from riot control to plain policing to pandemic information and policy or getting financial help and stimulus out to the right people. Right now simply staying at home is starting to look good to me.
  #272  
Old 06-02-2020, 01:20 AM
oak1971 oak1971 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Peoples Rebublic of Wisconsin
Age: 49
Posts: 3,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRSOtto View Post
Nonsense. There's a massive difference. However acknowledgement of that difference doesn't fit your narrative. If what you say is true, sell all your guns and fill your gun safe with rocks, empty longnecks and a gallon of Sunocos finest.

I'm pretty sure if the Taliban was armed with rocks and Molotov cocktails instead of AK's .....we'da been out of Afghanistan about a week after our guys got off the planes.
Pretty much.
__________________
Harrison-Baer Custom
Dan Wesson Valor (2009) Valor #46 Cotep #184
Springfield TRP 10mm 6" RMR

Last edited by oak1971; 06-02-2020 at 01:24 AM.
  #273  
Old 06-02-2020, 01:27 AM
oak1971 oak1971 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Peoples Rebublic of Wisconsin
Age: 49
Posts: 3,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRSOtto View Post
Of course not. Provide a link to an instance in all of these protests where someone's family was burned alive.

We're talking about arresting looters and rock throwers, giving them a speedy and fair trial as guaranteed by the Constitution, vs shooting them on sight as some here have advocated.
Speedy trial? In what Universe? Justice delayed is justice denied.
__________________
Harrison-Baer Custom
Dan Wesson Valor (2009) Valor #46 Cotep #184
Springfield TRP 10mm 6" RMR
  #274  
Old 06-02-2020, 01:33 AM
Dddrees Dddrees is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 2,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by toofew1911s View Post
Well, after this discussion on why don't the police fire on the rioters, its seems they finally did. Of course they only managed to shoot an innocent bystander and neglected to turn on their body cameras as per department instructions.

Seems this country isn't capable of doing much of anything correctly these days, from riot control to plain policing to pandemic information and policy or getting financial help and stimulus out to the right people. Right now simply staying at home is starting to look good to me.
Once they decided to shoot into a crowd this is the risk they took upon themselves. If they didn't give it ample consideration that firing into a crowd would be risky then they simply weren't thinking. Not surprising, but extremely unfortunate.

Just one of many examples I would use to try and convince someone I love not to attend something of this nature. I really don't need any more examples, I've already been sold.

Last edited by Dddrees; 06-02-2020 at 01:36 AM.
  #275  
Old 06-02-2020, 03:17 AM
Andy Andy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,808
What we have here is the age-old conflict between Good and Evil, both of which are determined by Society. Used to be that slavery was acceptable and openly practiced universally until about 150 years ago. The Emancipation Proclamation only applied to the states of the Confederacy, a small detail conveniently glossed over in revisionist history. Murder has always been unacceptable, but it is now acceptable to have millions of abortions on demand per year so that society is not burdened with "unwanted" (inconvenient) dependents. Society is a reflection of the population's values and mores. What are we seeing?
__________________
"Generally, to make any particular shot, the most difficult distance to master is that between one's ears." - AA
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:53 AM.


NOTICE TO USERS OF THIS SITE: By continuing to use this site, you certify that you have read and agree to abide by the Legal Terms of Use. All information, data, text or other materials ("Content") posted to this site by any users are the sole responsibility of those users. 1911Forum does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity, or quality of such Content.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 2015 1911Forum.com, LLC. All Rights Reserved