2nd Amendment fan! Your fantasy is coming true!

[protectionist]

Richard Rogers, A,Erica songwriter, said in the musical South Pacific, "You've got to be carefully taught". Perhaps it's time for you to listen to that song.

Not interested in your song. i f you have a point to make, make it.

 

[protectionist]

Tell that to the Black American families who have planned funerals.

There are more white families having funerals. Point is, what has happened to those blacks is not because they're black. It happens to ALL people.

 

[protectionist]

The fake news that police are attacking large numbers of unarmed blacks is JUST that FAKE NEWS. It isn't happening.

And in most of the cases where police shot unarmed, black guys, they did it JUSTIFIABLY (in self defense).

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If you see the protesters as looters and rioters, do you also see the cause they are marching for as illegitimate?

I do. It is a hyped up, media sensationalized event, blown waaay ot of proportion. While the killing of Floyd was bad and unfortunate, i highly doubt Chauvin INTENDED to kill Floyd.

In contrast, White people are being killed by police and criminals, WITH CRIMINAL INTENT, and the media doesn't report it. Seen any TV news reports about the murder of Cody Holte, lately ? (which happened on the same day as the death of George Floyd).

Do you understand the differing degrees of a murder charge? Do you understand the anxiety among minority communities concerning brutal police tactics? Do you see a disturbing pattern of excessive force by police toward unarmed Black people? Do you see Blackmpeople as your equal? Are all men created equal?

The fake news that police are attacking large numbers of unarmed blacks is JUST that FAKE NEWS. It isn't happening.

Tell that to the Black American families who have planned funerals.

More whites are killed by cops then blacks and I think it was like 10 blacks killed in a year. So go cry a river somewhere else. 99 percent of the cops are just fine and obey the law. there will always be bad apples.

 

[Aletheia4u]

Gun lovers are fond of saying they need assault weapons to stave off the aggressions of a tyrannical government. Well, if combat troops occupy your town and attack protesters, would you see that as the tyranny you are prepared to fight? If you care about the 2nd amendment, you must also care about the 1st. Or are you going to tell us that ALL PROTESTERS are violent rioters? Or is it the issue they are protesting one you happen to go along with, it's okay for cops to kill suspects.

Or is it your Ramboesque fantasy of fighting "tyranny" just a childish cinematic fantasy?

The 1st amendment says a peaceful protest. It doesn't says anything about terrorizing. But the Constitution does says to insure domestic tranquility.
But the Constitution was made to prevent a tyrannical government. Because during the time of the revolutionary war. The United States was under the control of England. It didn't became independent until after the war was ended. And the reason for the 2nd amendment was to make sure that if the people is being oppressed. That it is allowing them to revolt if their liberty is being taken away. And so let the best man win.
And so it doesn't allows a certain group to revolt while the other sit still.
And if a certain groups feels if they are being oppressed. Then they will be willing to die for justice. But these rioters don't want to die for it because they are being paid.
And so revolting comes with consequences. But the constitution is making sure that each groups are equal in power. That no one is above another.
And these George Floyd's post should be moved to the Conspiracies section. It is because they are calling a officer who one of them is a Asian, and the other is married to an Asian, a racist. And so it must be some other reason why this cop killed the Black man.
But they are not going to move it to the Conspiracies section because they are helping to spread this fake propaganda like they allowed Russia collusion narratives to be spread without any facts or proof.
All of this is just plain ol' gossip.

What Does Insure Domestic Tranquility Mean?

The phrase, 'insure domestic tranquility', appears in the Preamble, and simply put, it means to ensure that peace, calm, and law and order coexist in the country. This Historyplex post tries to understand what insure domestic tranquility means.

historyplex.com

Chinese Slavery in America - Wikisource, the free online library

en.wikisource.org

 

[Leo123]

If you see the protesters as looters and rioters, do you also see the cause they are marching for as illegitimate?

I do. It is a hyped up, media sensationalized event, blown waaay ot of proportion. While the killing of Floyd was bad and unfortunate, i highly doubt Chauvin INTENDED to kill Floyd.

In contrast, White people are being killed by police and criminals, WITH CRIMINAL INTENT, and the media doesn't report it. Seen any TV news reports about the murder of Cody Holte, lately ? (which happened on the same day as the death of George Floyd).

Do you understand the differing degrees of a murder charge? Do you understand the anxiety among minority communities concerning brutal police tactics? Do you see a disturbing pattern of excessive force by police toward unarmed Black people? Do you see Blackmpeople as your equal? Are all men created equal?

The fake news that police are attacking large numbers of unarmed blacks is JUST that FAKE NEWS. It isn't happening.

Tell that to the Black American families who have planned funerals.

More whites are killed by cops then blacks and I think it was like 10 blacks killed in a year. So go cry a river somewhere else. 99 percent of the cops are just fine and obey the law. there will always be bad apples.

Yeah and most of those 10 killings were justified. You never hear about guys like Tony Timpa who was also killed in the SAME WAY as Floyd in 2016. No protests, no rioting, no nothing. Sorry, wrong color.

 

[Marion Morrison]

 

[flacaltenn]

Gun lovers are fond of saying they need assault weapons to stave off the aggressions of a tyrannical government. Well, if combat troops occupy your town and attack protesters, would you see that as the tyranny you are prepared to fight? If you care about the 2nd amendment, you must also care about the 1st. Or are you going to tell us that ALL PROTESTERS are violent rioters? Or is it the issue they are protesting one you happen to go along with, it's okay for cops to kill suspects.

Or is it your Ramboesque fantasy of fighting "tyranny" just a childish cinematic fantasy?

The "tyranny" that sponsors and ALLOWS all these "bad cop" issues is the local muni govt.. Blue cities SUCK at prioritizing primary public service or a "user friendly" interfaces with justice or the courts.. That's the ANGER that has pent up in those communities..

Now the 2nd amendment is about DEFENSE, not OFFENSE... So whatever your "call to arms" is -- it better be defending the law and Constitution... It's that's simple.. 2nd Amend USE is not "a feeling or emotion"... But you anti gun folks don't know that..

So matters not how you FEEL about the definition of Tyranny - you best be SURE it is..

Defense from violent looting and pillaging when civil order breaks down IS a 2nd Amend cause for action.. Even tho, we're ASTONISHED at how many leftists at the NYTimes and cable fake news try to say that LOOTING AND RIOTING AND DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY IS NOT VIOLENCE !!!!!

Do YOU believe it's not violence? And CHAOTIC, anarchic violence at that??

Sure -- there's a surprising number of dimmer USMB members who APPARENTLY cant tell the Diff between a 1st Amend. right to protest and LOOTING... Lost a lot of faith in people in the past few days,.. But I don't SEE a lot of citizen resistance to the violence, looting, and destruction -- so WTF is your point here?? You TRYING to provoke it????

 

[Nosmo King]

Gun lovers are fond of saying they need assault weapons to stave off the aggressions of a tyrannical government. Well, if combat troops occupy your town and attack protesters, would you see that as the tyranny you are prepared to fight? If you care about the 2nd amendment, you must also care about the 1st. Or are you going to tell us that ALL PROTESTERS are violent rioters? Or is it the issue they are protesting one you happen to go along with, it's okay for cops to kill suspects.

Or is it your Ramboesque fantasy of fighting "tyranny" just a childish cinematic fantasy?

The 1st amendment says a peaceful protest. It doesn't says anything about terrorizing. But the Constitution does says to insure domestic tranquility.
But the Constitution was made to prevent a tyrannical government. Because during the time of the revolutionary war. The United States was under the control of England. It didn't became independent until after the war was ended. And the reason for the 2nd amendment was to make sure that if the people is being oppressed. That it is allowing them to revolt if their liberty is being taken away. And so let the best man win.
And so it doesn't allows a certain group to revolt while the other sit still.
And if a certain groups feels if they are being oppressed. Then they will be willing to die for justice. But these rioters don't want to die for it because they are being paid.
And so revolting comes with consequences. But the constitution is making sure that each groups are equal in power. That no one is above another.
And these George Floyd's post should be moved to the Conspiracies section. It is because they are calling a officer who one of them is a Asian, and the other is married to an Asian, a racist. And so it must be some other reason why this cop killed the Black man.
But they are not going to move it to the Conspiracies section because they are helping to spread this fake propaganda like they allowed Russia collusion narratives to be spread without any facts or proof.
All of this is just plain ol' gossip.

What Does Insure Domestic Tranquility Mean?

The phrase, 'insure domestic tranquility', appears in the Preamble, and simply put, it means to ensure that peace, calm, and law and order coexist in the country. This Historyplex post tries to understand what insure domestic tranquility means.

historyplex.com

Chinese Slavery in America - Wikisource, the free online library

en.wikisource.org

Is redress of grievance a unanimous condition of the phrase? Just because you don't see a problem with police killing unarmed citizens, doesn't mean the problem is real.

The charges against the officers is murder in the 2nd degree, they are not being charged as racists. There is no charge of racism.

And why the deception of conspiracy? You are either too cynical to believe your own eyes, or feel that brutal police tactics are acceptable. Which is it?

 

[LuckyDuck]

Gun lovers are fond of saying they need assault weapons to stave off the aggressions of a tyrannical government. Well, if combat troops occupy your town and attack protesters, would you see that as the tyranny you are prepared to fight? If you care about the 2nd amendment, you must also care about the 1st. Or are you going to tell us that ALL PROTESTERS are violent rioters? Or is it the issue they are protesting one you happen to go along with, it's okay for cops to kill suspects.

Or is it your Ramboesque fantasy of fighting "tyranny" just a childish cinematic fantasy?

Let's put this to rest. In 1992, George H. W. Bush, implemented the "Insurrection Act," which allowed "actual" federal troops to quell the riots in Los Angeles. Tanks didn't blow up people and buildings, flamethrowers didn't burn up the public and rioters, jet aircraft didn't strafe blacks or bomb them and ground troops didn't bayonet rioters. Fast forward to now. The "governor" of Minnesota, displeased with the Mayor of Minneapolis' response to rioters and looters (which by the way, has nothing to do with protesting, just criminal behavior), so the "governor" sent in the National Guard. The federal government has used the National Guard for fighting overseas, but in this case, it was in internal strife which fell on the governor to resolve. Again, there were no tanks blowing up property and people, no flamethrowers burning up rioters and looters, no jet aircraft or Apache attack helicopters strafing citizens and no citizens being bayonetted to death. Just enough force was used to squelch the criminal activity that was needed. That's not a tyrannical government (and it was a leftist governor that activated the Guard, which isn't the same as the federal troops).
Washington, D.C., isn't your normal city, it is a city of the federal government. All major federal agencies stem from there. We have many "federal buildings and monuments," thus it fell under the jurisdiction of the federal government agencies to step in and protect the structures. Again, the National Guard was called in, plus other federal agents to assist in protecting federal properties.
None of this is tyrannical. It's just preventing looting and rioting on federal property. The good thing is that when caught, those same rioters and looters will be tried in a federal court and the sentences they will be given are stiffer than what they would get in state courts. If they are sentenced to five years of incarceration, unlike state prisons where they can get one day off for one day of good behavior in state prison, in federal prison, they serve the entire five years (or whatever sentence is handed down) regardless of their behavior. Love it.
The Second Amendment was created so that your private citizens could form regulated militias and fight for their freedoms, should a tyrannical government take over. The only looming tyrannical government that is a threat to our Constitution and the Bill of Rights is the leftist Marxist political party calling itself the Democrat party. They've already made it clear that they want to get rid of the Second Amendment, end the Freedom of Speech by declaring any speech they don't like as hate speech and end Due Process. So, we gun owners aren't going to interfere with the Republican government trying to preserve our rights. We'll interfere when the left gets into power and starts taking away our freedoms listed in the Bill of Rights.

 

[protectionist]

Is redress of grievance a unanimous condition of the phrase? Just because you don't see a problem with police killing unarmed citizens, doesn't mean the problem is real.

The charges against the officers is murder in the 2nd degree, they are not being charged as racists. There is no charge of racism.

And why the deception of conspiracy? You are either too cynical to believe your own eyes, or feel that brutal police tactics are acceptable. Which is it?

This post is an example of the result we get when liberal airheads take over our MISeducation and universities. The death of George Floyd could have been intentional by Derek Chauvin, but I highly doubt it. Chauvin had no interest in killing Floyd and every reason not to. Will be interesting to see how his trial proceeds along.

The criticism I have with your post however centers around your use of the words >> " police killing unarmed citizens" Just because someone (of any race) is "unarmed", that does not make a police shooting unjustified. There have been many shootings (and killings) of unarmed people by police (and gun-licensed civilians), that have been justifiable self-defense.

Gun clueless liberals in our schools, are failing to teach kids the very necessary things to know when in confrontations with police.

1. Keep your hands VISIBLE and EMPTY. An out of sight hand is an immediate call for an officer to shoot you. You must know that.
2. Do not resist arrest (even verbally) - with the slightest resistance to the officer, he/she start thinking about going for the gun in self-defense.

 

[fncceo]

Well, if combat troops occupy your town and attack protesters, would you see that as the tyranny you are prepared to fight?

They aren't attacking protesters, they're protecting property and lives from looters.

 

[protectionist]

Let's put this to rest. In 1992, George H. W. Bush, implemented the "Insurrection Act," which allowed "actual" federal troops to quell the riots in Los Angeles. Tanks didn't blow up people and buildings, flamethrowers didn't burn up the public and rioters, jet aircraft didn't strafe blacks or bomb them and ground troops didn't bayonet rioters. Fast forward to now. The "governor" of Minnesota, displeased with the Mayor of Minneapolis' response to rioters and looters (which by the way, has nothing to do with protesting, just criminal behavior), so the "governor" sent in the National Guard. The federal government has used the National Guard for fighting overseas, but in this case, it was in internal strife which fell on the governor to resolve. Again, there were no tanks blowing up property and people, no flamethrowers burning up rioters and looters, no jet aircraft or Apache attack helicopters strafing citizens and no citizens being bayonetted to death. Just enough force was used to squelch the criminal activity that was needed. That's not a tyrannical government (and it was a leftist governor that activated the Guard, which isn't the same as the federal troops).
Washington, D.C., isn't your normal city, it is a city of the federal government. All major federal agencies stem from there. We have many "federal buildings and monuments," thus it fell under the jurisdiction of the federal government agencies to step in and protect the structures. Again, the National Guard was called in, plus other federal agents to assist in protecting federal properties.
None of this is tyrannical. It's just preventing looting and rioting on federal property. The good thing is that when caught, those same rioters and looters will be tried in a federal court and the sentences they will be given are stiffer than what they would get in state courts. If they are sentenced to five years of incarceration, unlike state prisons where they can get one day off for one day of good behavior in state prison, in federal prison, they serve the entire five years (or whatever sentence is handed down) regardless of their behavior. Love it.
The Second Amendment was created so that your private citizens could form regulated militias and fight for their freedoms, should a tyrannical government take over. The only looming tyrannical government that is a threat to our Constitution and the Bill of Rights is the leftist Marxist political party calling itself the Democrat party. They've already made it clear that they want to get rid of the Second Amendment, end the Freedom of Speech by declaring any speech they don't like as hate speech and end Due Process. So, we gun owners aren't going to interfere with the Republican government trying to preserve our rights. We'll interfere when the left gets into power and starts taking away our freedoms listed in the Bill of Rights.

Very good post. You should post more often.

 

[JusticeHammer]

Gun lovers are fond of saying they need assault weapons to stave off the aggressions of a tyrannical government. Well, if combat troops occupy your town and attack protesters, would you see that as the tyranny you are prepared to fight? If you care about the 2nd amendment, you must also care about the 1st. Or are you going to tell us that ALL PROTESTERS are violent rioters? Or is it the issue they are protesting one you happen to go along with, it's okay for cops to kill suspects.

Or is it your Ramboesque fantasy of fighting "tyranny" just a childish cinematic fantasy?

You don't get it. Combat Troops will be sent to major American super-cities to protect the citizenry from the Rioters.

That's not legal. It's tyranny.

You're an idiot.

 

[JusticeHammer]

Gun lovers are fond of saying they need assault weapons to stave off the aggressions of a tyrannical government. Well, if combat troops occupy your town and attack protesters, would you see that as the tyranny you are prepared to fight? If you care about the 2nd amendment, you must also care about the 1st. Or are you going to tell us that ALL PROTESTERS are violent rioters? Or is it the issue they are protesting one you happen to go along with, it's okay for cops to kill suspects.

Or is it your Ramboesque fantasy of fighting "tyranny" just a childish cinematic fantasy?

If the military is attacking protesters they are fighting the same enemy I would fight. Looting and arson are not acts of free speech.

Protesters and looters are not the same. We're there looters in East Lansing? Are all protesters looters?

Yes. There were rioters in Lansing. No, protesters are not looters/rioters. Stop calling looters protesters

Clean up starts after night of destruction and tear gas - City Pulse

Most businesses that had windows shattered already had crews boarding up storefronts and assessing repairs. Others scrubbed graffiti like “Fuck 12” and “BLM” from brick walls. A car that was burned in the middle of Washington Avenue had already been towed.

lansingcitypulse.com

Stop calling protesters looters!

Stop calling looters protesters.

 

[LuckyDuck]

Is redress of grievance a unanimous condition of the phrase? Just because you don't see a problem with police killing unarmed citizens, doesn't mean the problem is real.

The charges against the officers is murder in the 2nd degree, they are not being charged as racists. There is no charge of racism.

And why the deception of conspiracy? You are either too cynical to believe your own eyes, or feel that brutal police tactics are acceptable. Which is it?

This post is an example of the result we get when liberal airheads take over our MISeducation and universities. The death of George Floyd could have been intentional by Derek Chauvin, but I highly doubt it. Chauvin had no interest in killing Floyd and every reason not to. Will be interesting to see how his trial proceeds along.

The criticism I have with your post however centers around your use of the words >> " police killing unarmed citizens" Just because someone (of any race) is "unarmed", that does not make a police shooting unjustified. There have been many shootings (and killings) of unarmed people by police (and gun-licensed civilians), that have been justifiable self-defense.

Gun clueless liberals in our schools, are failing to teach kids the very necessary things to know when in confrontations with police.

1. Keep your hands VISIBLE and EMPTY. An out of sight hand is an immediate call for an officer to shoot you. You must know that.
2. Do not resist arrest (even verbally) - with the slightest resistance to the officer, he/she start thinking about going for the gun in self-defense.

Well said. However, your #1 instruction for students is a bit off. An out of sight hand is not an immediate call for an officer to shoot you, BUT...he will immediately have his hand on his pistol and quickly advise you to keep your hands in plain sight, then, if you don't heed his order and keep rummaging around, that pistol will be drawn and pointed directly at you. The trigger gets pulled only if a weapon is presented.
Your #2 scenario of resistance, is the one that always escalates and I agree, gets people shot and let's face it, criminals like Floyd are going to resist. He cooperated up to the point when they tried to place him in the car. That's when he struggled.
We actually have idiot blacks calling for the officer that knelt on his neck to be tried for "first" degree murder. It's absurd. First degree murder occurs when the perpetrator actually plans out the murder in advance. Should Floyd have died? Most of society will say, no. Me, I am sick and tired of criminals being prosecuted and let go, or serving absolute minimal sentences, even for gun crimes and they criminals just laughing and going on their merry way, committing more crime. So to me, if a habitual criminal dies, even accidently at the hands of cops...it's good riddance. The inner-cities are a cesspool of crappy humans (that doesn't mean there aren't good ones, they're just outnumbered by the crappy ones) and with repeat offenders, they aren't worth saving.

 

[Aletheia4u]

Gun lovers are fond of saying they need assault weapons to stave off the aggressions of a tyrannical government. Well, if combat troops occupy your town and attack protesters, would you see that as the tyranny you are prepared to fight? If you care about the 2nd amendment, you must also care about the 1st. Or are you going to tell us that ALL PROTESTERS are violent rioters? Or is it the issue they are protesting one you happen to go along with, it's okay for cops to kill suspects.

Or is it your Ramboesque fantasy of fighting "tyranny" just a childish cinematic fantasy?

The 1st amendment says a peaceful protest. It doesn't says anything about terrorizing. But the Constitution does says to insure domestic tranquility.
But the Constitution was made to prevent a tyrannical government. Because during the time of the revolutionary war. The United States was under the control of England. It didn't became independent until after the war was ended. And the reason for the 2nd amendment was to make sure that if the people is being oppressed. That it is allowing them to revolt if their liberty is being taken away. And so let the best man win.
And so it doesn't allows a certain group to revolt while the other sit still.
And if a certain groups feels if they are being oppressed. Then they will be willing to die for justice. But these rioters don't want to die for it because they are being paid.
And so revolting comes with consequences. But the constitution is making sure that each groups are equal in power. That no one is above another.
And these George Floyd's post should be moved to the Conspiracies section. It is because they are calling a officer who one of them is a Asian, and the other is married to an Asian, a racist. And so it must be some other reason why this cop killed the Black man.
But they are not going to move it to the Conspiracies section because they are helping to spread this fake propaganda like they allowed Russia collusion narratives to be spread without any facts or proof.
All of this is just plain ol' gossip.

What Does Insure Domestic Tranquility Mean?

The phrase, 'insure domestic tranquility', appears in the Preamble, and simply put, it means to ensure that peace, calm, and law and order coexist in the country. This Historyplex post tries to understand what insure domestic tranquility means.

historyplex.com

Chinese Slavery in America - Wikisource, the free online library

en.wikisource.org

Is redress of grievance a unanimous condition of the phrase? Just because you don't see a problem with police killing unarmed citizens, doesn't mean the problem is real.

The charges against the officers is murder in the 2nd degree, they are not being charged as racists. There is no charge of racism.

And why the deception of conspiracy? You are either too cynical to believe your own eyes, or feel that brutal police tactics are acceptable. Which is it?

CNN and all the far leftist news media and some here are pushing the narrative that it was behind his race. But why the cop cannot be a demented serial killer? They act as if Whites has too much class to be serial killers.
Like Hillary Clinton. I don't accuse her of being a racist because she has Blacks on her list of body bag count. No, I just think that she is demented.
People needs to stop believing that Whites are superior beings that cannot have any defects.

 

[Aletheia4u]

Gun lovers are fond of saying they need assault weapons to stave off the aggressions of a tyrannical government. Well, if combat troops occupy your town and attack protesters, would you see that as the tyranny you are prepared to fight? If you care about the 2nd amendment, you must also care about the 1st. Or are you going to tell us that ALL PROTESTERS are violent rioters? Or is it the issue they are protesting one you happen to go along with, it's okay for cops to kill suspects.

Or is it your Ramboesque fantasy of fighting "tyranny" just a childish cinematic fantasy?

The 1st amendment says a peaceful protest. It doesn't says anything about terrorizing. But the Constitution does says to insure domestic tranquility.
But the Constitution was made to prevent a tyrannical government. Because during the time of the revolutionary war. The United States was under the control of England. It didn't became independent until after the war was ended. And the reason for the 2nd amendment was to make sure that if the people is being oppressed. That it is allowing them to revolt if their liberty is being taken away. And so let the best man win.
And so it doesn't allows a certain group to revolt while the other sit still.
And if a certain groups feels if they are being oppressed. Then they will be willing to die for justice. But these rioters don't want to die for it because they are being paid.
And so revolting comes with consequences. But the constitution is making sure that each groups are equal in power. That no one is above another.
And these George Floyd's post should be moved to the Conspiracies section. It is because they are calling a officer who one of them is a Asian, and the other is married to an Asian, a racist. And so it must be some other reason why this cop killed the Black man.
But they are not going to move it to the Conspiracies section because they are helping to spread this fake propaganda like they allowed Russia collusion narratives to be spread without any facts or proof.
All of this is just plain ol' gossip.

What Does Insure Domestic Tranquility Mean?

The phrase, 'insure domestic tranquility', appears in the Preamble, and simply put, it means to ensure that peace, calm, and law and order coexist in the country. This Historyplex post tries to understand what insure domestic tranquility means.

historyplex.com

Chinese Slavery in America - Wikisource, the free online library

en.wikisource.org

Is redress of grievance a unanimous condition of the phrase? Just because you don't see a problem with police killing unarmed citizens, doesn't mean the problem is real.

The charges against the officers is murder in the 2nd degree, they are not being charged as racists. There is no charge of racism.

And why the deception of conspiracy? You are either too cynical to believe your own eyes, or feel that brutal police tactics are acceptable. Which is it?

But watch this upcoming event about Mitt Romney is going to claim that Pres.Trump is a racist. Just watch him uses Mr Floyd's death to prove that pres.Trump is a racist

 

[protectionist]

Well said. However, your #1 instruction for students is a bit off. An out of sight hand is not an immediate call for an officer to shoot you, BUT...he will immediately have his hand on his pistol and quickly advise you to keep your hands in plain sight, then, if you don't heed his order and keep rummaging around, that pistol will be drawn and pointed directly at you. The trigger gets pulled only if a weapon is presented.
Your #2 scenario of resistance, is the one that always escalates and I agree, gets people shot and let's face it, criminals like Floyd are going to resist. He cooperated up to the point when they tried to place him in the car. That's when he struggled.
We actually have idiot blacks calling for the officer that knelt on his neck to be tried for "first" degree murder. It's absurd. First degree murder occurs when the perpetrator actually plans out the murder in advance. Should Floyd have died? Most of society will say, no. Me, I am sick and tired of criminals being prosecuted and let go, or serving absolute minimal sentences, even for gun crimes and they criminals just laughing and going on their merry way, committing more crime. So to me, if a habitual criminal dies, even accidently at the hands of cops...it's good riddance. The inner-cities are a cesspool of crappy humans (that doesn't mean there aren't good ones, they're just outnumbered by the crappy ones) and with repeat offenders, they aren't worth saving.

FALSE! Where you went VERY wrong here, is where you said >> "The trigger gets pulled only if a weapon is presented." In case after case, where UNarmed suspects were shot dead by police, police were acquitted of all charges. Why ? Because, the suspect allowed his hand(s) to disappear from the officer's view. Shooting the suspect in this circumstance, is standard police academy training all across the US.

This is CRITICAL INFORMATION for people to know, and you have just done a major disservice to everyone, by posting false information that can (and often does) get people killed.

Do you know why the academies teach cadets to shoot at the instant that the hands disappear ? It's because it takes about 1/2 second to pull out a hidden gun and fire it. The cop has zero chance to defend him/herself. So to not shoot under that circumstance, is to risk their life, while giving suspect the benefit of the doubt that he will not shoot the cop, instantaneously. It was decided a long time ago by the academies that once the suspect has been ordered to show his hands, if he does not, there is not sufficient reason for the cops to risk their lives, to give criminal suspects the benefit of the doubt.

See my new OP on this subject >>> Protesters Don't Know What They're Protesting About

 

[Dale Smith]

Gun lovers are fond of saying they need assault weapons to stave off the aggressions of a tyrannical government. Well, if combat troops occupy your town and attack protesters, would you see that as the tyranny you are prepared to fight? If you care about the 2nd amendment, you must also care about the 1st. Or are you going to tell us that ALL PROTESTERS are violent rioters? Or is it the issue they are protesting one you happen to go along with, it's okay for cops to kill suspects.

Or is it your Ramboesque fantasy of fighting "tyranny" just a childish cinematic fantasy?

Since leftard governors and mayors give "stand down orders that allow thugs to rape, pillage and plunder with impunity and those that might cross paths with them know that they are on their own when it comes to protection? Your lame attempt at shaming gun owners is hilarious. Commie fucks like you don't want non-commies to be able to shoot the disgusting POS commie-fucks....such as yourself. Rioters that beat store owners just trying to defend their property from being looted or passerbys that might be wearing attire that offends the sensibilities of a leftard is "fair game". Leftards don't hate guns or violence at all...they just want to be able to do without worrying that their victims might be armed and could fight back.