America coming apart at the seams?

[papafarang]

‘Light em up!’ WATCH National Guard patrol residential area in Minneapolis & shoot paint at people on their OWN FRONT PORCHES

https://www.rt.com/usa/490283-minneapol ... int-shots/

and then click on the twitter link, talk about PoliceStates put the Gestapo to shame

Bloody hell , it's a madhouse

[RLTrader]

https://twitter.com/bubbaprog/status/12 ... 4821206016

[RLTrader]

RLT

The Sheriff Chris Swanson actually is a Democrat What difference that makes when it comes to enforcing the laws I have no idea

So I was a Democrat, til I walked away, and it also does not mean he voted for the Witch. Only he knows and maybe his wife. And who TF is talking about

enforcing the laws

I have no idea.

[semperfiguy]

Trump is winning as he operates divided I rule scenario, his tweet regarding shooting looters has been linked to a previous playbook of a Police Chief following looting, enraged the public then as now .

Khun Paul, as always I appreciate your comments, but with all due respect we have to make sure that we don't make the same mistake as the mass media and twist the President's words to fit their agenda to destroy his Presidency. Trump is not dumb enough to suggest that the police or the military might open fire on looters. I think they all learned that lesson from Kent State during the Vietnam War protests when the National Guard opened fire on protesting college students. That didn't go over very well back then, and it would be totally unacceptable in today's volatile political environment. There's no doubt he was referring to legally armed civilians using their weapons to protect their life and property. With Trump "what you see if what you get" and he doesn't hold back his words for a staged and politically correct delivery. He's raw and he's blunt, and he's not a silver-tongued devil like our previous President who says one thing and means another. God bless you Paul!

[jackspratt]

https://twitter.com/tkerssen/status/1266921821653385225

Let's follow the "logic" here.

Minnesota, from what I can gather, allows for the possession of certain automatic weapons, which fits the narrative of the 2nd amendment.

According to the gun nuts, this is so "The People" can resist the force of the state, when they are acting oppressively, or illegally.

The National Guard (the State) shown in this video were apparently acting without legal authority, in "ordering" these citizens back inside their house. But they shot at them anyway (with paint balls).

The logical conclusion (based on the gun nuts) is what happens if the people shoot back (with automatic, or any other weapons)?

They should be in the clear.

sfg seems to support my position.

[cjd01]

https://twitter.com/tkerssen/status/1266921821653385225

Let's follow the "logic" here.

Minnesota, from what I can gather, allows for the possession of certain automatic weapons, which fits the narrative of the 2nd amendment.

According to the gun nuts, this is so "The People" can resist the force of the state, when they are acting oppressively, or illegally.

The National Guard (the State) shown in this video were apparently acting without legal authority, in "ordering" these citizens back inside their house. But they shot at them anyway (with paint balls).

The logical conclusion (based on the gun nuts) is what happens if the people shoot back (with automatic, or any other weapons)?

They should be in the clear.

sfg seems to support my position.

Your such an articulate twerp
people exercising their 2nd amendment rights become "gun nuts' Why?
Yes Trump he made them do it.
Jack get back in the corner.
Oh here

[tamada]

The whole world is coming apart at the seams right now . Thanks to China and its lies a deception .

And that's EXACTLY the reaction that the CCP engineered.

Thanks for playing.

[Whistler]

the 2nd amendment covered well organised militias protecting the nation. It did not cover using semi-automatic armed vigilantes.

[tamada]

https://twitter.com/tkerssen/status/1266921821653385225

Let's follow the "logic" here.

Minnesota, from what I can gather, allows for the possession of certain automatic weapons, which fits the narrative of the 2nd amendment.

According to the gun nuts, this is so "The People" can resist the force of the state, when they are acting oppressively, or illegally.

The National Guard (the State) shown in this video were apparently acting without legal authority, in "ordering" these citizens back inside their house. But they shot at them anyway (with paint balls).

The logical conclusion (based on the gun nuts) is what happens if the people shoot back (with automatic, or any other weapons)?

They should be in the clear.

sfg seems to support my position.

Your such an articulate twerp
people exercising their 2nd amendment rights become "gun nuts' Why?
Yes Trump he made them do it.
Jack get back in the corner.
Oh here

Maybe you should focus on your own articulation?

Who knows, the aura of you being this forum's most shouty, boorish bore may diminish?

(but I'm not holding my breath)

[tamada]

the 2nd amendment covered well organised militias protecting the nation. It did not cover using semi-automatic armed vigilantes.

Depends on which interpretation of the 2nd Amendment one subscribes to, no?

[semperfiguy]

https://twitter.com/tkerssen/status/1266921821653385225

Let's follow the "logic" here.

Minnesota, from what I can gather, allows for the possession of certain automatic weapons, which fits the narrative of the 2nd amendment.

According to the gun nuts, this is so "The People" can resist the force of the state, when they are acting oppressively, or illegally.

The National Guard (the State) shown in this video were apparently acting without legal authority, in "ordering" these citizens back inside their house. But they shot at them anyway (with paint balls).

The logical conclusion (based on the gun nuts) is what happens if the people shoot back (with automatic, or any other weapons)?

They should be in the clear.

sfg seems to support my position.

Jackspratt, I can't speak to your scenario because I don't think either of us knows if the National Guard in this case was acting with or without legal authority. My comment to Khun Paul's statement was referring to looters destroying private property and endangering the lives of owners of that property. I recall an incident years ago during some of the riots in California when an Asian man stood outside his store with a rifle and fired on looters who were trying to destroy his property and endanger his life. If I'm not mistaken he was hailed as a hero. I'm pretty sure if you or I were in his predicament we would do the same thing and it would be totally legal. We must remember that rioting is taking place all across American and I would be at al loss to tell you the gun laws in all States, but I think it would be safe to say that it would be perfectly legal to protect one's life and property. I would certainly shoot first and let the law sort it all out later if I were being attacked and my business burned to the ground and there was no law enforcement in sight.

[jackspratt]

Your* such an articulate twerp

Thank you - that would be in direct contrast to your primary school level discourse.

*you're.

[tamada]

Trump is winning as he operates divided I rule scenario, his tweet regarding shooting looters has been linked to a previous playbook of a Police Chief following looting, enraged the public then as now .

Khun Paul, as always I appreciate your comments, but with all due respect we have to make sure that we don't make the same mistake as the mass media and twist the President's words to fit their agenda to destroy his Presidency. Trump is not dumb enough to suggest that the police or the military might open fire on looters. I think they all learned that lesson from Kent State during the Vietnam War protests when the National Guard opened fire on protesting college students. That didn't go over very well back then, and it would be totally unacceptable in today's volatile political environment. There's no doubt he was referring to legally armed civilians using their weapons to protect their life and property. With Trump "what you see if what you get" and he doesn't hold back his words for a staged and politically correct delivery. He's raw and he's blunt, and he's not a silver-tongued devil like our previous President who says one thing and means another. God bless you Paul!

Then why did Trump, apparently out of his own volition, tweet about how he was unaware that his earlier "lootin 'n' shootin'" tweet had such unsavory origins?

Exactly what lessons were learned from the Kent State incident? Beyond not going "over very well" I mean?

Excuse me while I blink.

[tamada]

Your* such an articulate twerp

Thank you - that would be in direct contrast to your primary school level discourse.

*you're.

Oh no jack!!!

You're so much better than a forum grammar and spelling policeman.

I agree that it clearly signals that sometimes we do need to a stoop to the same levels as those with whom we engage here but please don't tease them with such easy, low-brow "wins".

[cjd01]

yes I'm not articulate
never claimed to be
didn't stop me from being successful in life.
must mean I can't post on here luckily have a mentor (you) to correct my grammar etc.
but I'm glad you've formed the Larry, Curly an Mo alliance
you need each other sort of like a crutch
2.5 brains are better than none

[tamada]

^ lame

[cjd01]

Your* such an articulate twerp

Thank you - that would be in direct contrast to your primary school level discourse.

*you're.

Oh no jack!!!

You're so much better than a forum grammar and spelling policeman.

I agree that it clearly signals that sometimes we do need to a stoop to the same levels as those with whom we engage here but please don't tease them with such easy, low-brow "wins".

Little biscuit
you should enjoy any win you can get
looks to a low brow like me you don't get many

[jackspratt]

Jackspratt, I can't speak to your scenario because I don't think either of us knows if the National Guard in this case was acting with or without legal authority.

According to the terms of the curfew order (from what I have read in several sources), they (national Guard) weren't acting with legal authority.

People were entitled to be within their own properties, and still complying with the curfew.

But that is not my point. It is more about the madness of allowing Joe-Bob and Mary-Lou to be allowed to possess semi-automatic weapons, ostensibly to use against the overwhelming power of the state.

Except when the state (as in this case) is acting illegally, apparently.

[tamada]

^^^ Post reviewed.

Very lame.

[cjd01]

Jackspratt, I can't speak to your scenario because I don't think either of us knows if the National Guard in this case was acting with or without legal authority.

According to the terms of the curfew order (from what I have read in several sources), they (national Guard) weren't acting with legal authority.

People were entitled to be within their own properties, and still complying with the curfew.

But that is not my point. It is more about the madness of allowing Joe-Bob and Mary-Lou to be allowed to possess semi-automatic weapons, ostensibly to use against the overwhelming power of the state.

Except when the state (as in this case) is acting illegally, apparently.

Jack
That may all be true but why the need to demean by calling then "gun nuts"