Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The only reason not to take it to the mayor's office or the city council is intimidation. It is bullying, and for the life of me I cannot understand why the "protesters" cannot understand that it is self defeating. It will not garner sympathy for their cause and will not advance the changes in policy that they want. Taking it to either the mayor's office or the city council would short circuit the problem of looters and violence, and I think we know the problem with getting law enforcement to respond in the current climate.
Not that simple. There are likely to be all sorts of logistics and customs that are involved. You like many see things vastly more cleanly than is rational. And the reason for taking it to the Mayor's home can be much broader than intimidation. In general government officials can be weill protected by their police force.
And taking it to the office or city council may also have all sorts of limitations that prevent significant impact. When you do a protest you want to have impact.
There were no looters or violence associated with this protest. Even the purported damage to a gate has been shown to be untrue at least with respect to the protesters who entered during the active gun phase.
Not that simple. There are likely to be all sorts of logistics and customs that are involved. You like many see things vastly more cleanly than is rational. And the reason for taking it to the Mayor's home can be much broader than intimidation. In general government officials can be weill protected by their police force.
And taking it to the office or city council may also have all sorts of limitations that prevent significant impact. When you do a protest you want to have impact.
There were no looters or violence associated with this protest. Even the purported damage to a gate has been shown to be untrue at least with respect to the protesters who entered during the active gun phase.
Yes, it is that simple. Take it to the place where the changes that you want to see can be implemented. That is the rational thing to do. If you want me to change something I am doing, do not bring hundreds of people to my home. That is just likely to make me even less inclined to do what you want me to. Since my DH is a combat veteran and former Ranger instructor, that mob (and that is what it is) would probably be met with a firearm in his hands - and he does know how to use it.
Should the mayor have to have police posted at her home 24/7? How many of her constituents would object to the cost?
The damage to the gate is visible. The absence of video showing the protesters doing it is not evidence that they did not do it. There is no way that the McCloskeys could know that there were not people among those hundreds who were ready and able to do physical harm to them or their property.
The protesters do not require my permission or yours to determine how they wish to proceed. And there may well be all sorts of reasons why they do not want to do the office or meeting bit.
I do not necessarily approve of their choices but I doubt they care.
And the appearance of looters in the midst of peaceful protests is not the problem of the peaceful protesters. It is a matter the police or other enforcement agencies need to deal with.
And the homeowners don't need your permission either. That you don't like how they handled hundreds of "protesters" barging into a private community is utterly irrelevant.
And the homeowners don't need your permission either. That you don't like how they handled hundreds of "protesters" barging into a private community is utterly irrelevant.
The homeowners perform a criminal act in public. That is a problem for us all.
The homeowners perform a criminal act in public. That is a problem for us all.
Are you a lawyer now too in addition to being a RE broker? My my are you a jack of all trades.
Edit - I have no problem with what they did other than their obvious need for additional firearms training. And it seems many in this thread don't either so stop talking for others.
Are you a lawyer now too in addition to being a RE broker? My my are you a jack of all trades.
Edit - I have no problem with what they did other than their obvious need for additional firearms training. And it seems many in this thread don't either so stop talking for others.
I understand the simple basics of the law. Most citizens should. Apparently you do not. Too bad.
I understand the simple basics of the law. Most citizens should. Apparently you do not. Too bad.
Yeah. All those years I spent enforcing it and additional years ensuring judges sentenced appropriately according to statute doesn't qualify me as much as your RE license. We're done here because you are too stupid to know how much you don't know, and I don't have the time or crayons for you any longer.
They need more training and are representative of so many gun owners. They aren't responsible.
Being responsible is knowing how to use your gun and what NOT to do.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
