Have any Liberals reconsidered their stance on the 2nd Amend since Militarized Police

[The2ndAmendment]

I've noticed an absolutely copious number of the Progressive websites discussing the danger of Militarized Police (whilst these same Progressive websites called Libertarians tin-foil hat crowd on the same issue for the past 10 years).

So, may I ask, now that Progressives are acknowledge the dangers of the Militarized Police State (while Republicans seem to like it????), have your ideas concerning the Second Amendment changed at all, or at the very least, are you doing any sort of ideological reconsideration?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I have the Poll set to Public because I don't want USMB Libertarians and conservatives skewing the poll numbers, Liberals/Progressives only.

 

[BlindBoo]

Absolutely, for the most part. I mean do you really think the intent of the founders was to give every Tom Dick and Harry the ability own unlimited numbers of weapons that can pop off hundreds of high powers rounds in a matter of minutes. Every weapon should be registered and manufactured in such a way that every round is traceable. No law will suffice. A new Amendment is required.

 

[Paperman299]

The violence in Ferguson didn't end because of an armed populace. It ended because Ferguson organized, protested forcefully but peacefully, and the images of their struggle swung public support heavily in their favor.

 

[Old Rocks]

The violence in Ferguson didn't end because of an armed populace. It ended because Ferguson organized, protested forcefully but peacefully, and the images of their struggle swung public support heavily in their favor.

Exactly. And that is how the Civil Rights Movement won in the '60's. I do not like war weapons in the hands of the police, and I do like them in the hands of civilians. Unneccessary in both cases, and leads to a set of mind that seeks confrontations.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The violence in Ferguson didn't end because of an armed populace. It ended because Ferguson organized, protested forcefully but peacefully, and the images of their struggle swung public support heavily in their favor.

Exactly. And that is how the Civil Rights Movement won in the '60's. I do not like war weapons in the hands of the police, and I do like them in the hands of civilians. Unneccessary in both cases, and leads to a set of mind that seeks confrontations.

You're aware that the Deacons of for Defense and Justice routinely marched alongside blacks with shotguns to defend against KKK assaults?

 

[LoneLaugher]

I've noticed an absolutely copious number of the Progressive websites discussing the danger of Militarized Police (whilst these same Progressive websites called Libertarians tin-foil hat crowd on the same issue for the past 10 years).

So, may I ask, now that Progressives are acknowledge the dangers of the Militarized Police State (while Republicans seem to like it????), have your ideas concerning the Second Amendment changed at all, or at the very least, are you doing any sort of ideological reconsideration?

Bullshit premise. Liberals have always had a problem with militarized police. We have always acknowledged the dangers of a military police state. We just don't think we have one here.

Our ideas concerning the second amendment haven't changed. We believe that we have the right to bear arms in a well regulated militia. We don't dig the idea of unelected persons having all the weapons. We don't dig the idea of elected persons having all the weapons. We also don't dig the idea of crazed nutbags having any weapons. We abhors the idea of little kids shooting themselves and their little siblings and friends with daddy's gun. We think people who feel the need to carry a gun to buy groceries in this nation are probably ******* lunatics.

I usually avoid these....but I will ask you a "what if" regarding Ferguson.

What if the protesters showed up with assault rifles and pointed them at the police? What would have happened?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

What if the protesters showed up with assault rifles and pointed them at the police? What would have happened?

Depends if they pointed them at the police before or after the police pointed their guns at them.

If the police point their guns at them first, they have a right and even a duty to point them back. If the police shoot, they shoot.

Jury of their Peers will acquit them afterwards.

 

[Paperman299]

The violence in Ferguson didn't end because of an armed populace. It ended because Ferguson organized, protested forcefully but peacefully, and the images of their struggle swung public support heavily in their favor.

Exactly. And that is how the Civil Rights Movement won in the '60's. I do not like war weapons in the hands of the police, and I do like them in the hands of civilians. Unneccessary in both cases, and leads to a set of mind that seeks confrontations.

You're aware that the Deacons of for Defense and Justice routinely marched alongside blacks with shotguns to defend against KKK assaults?

There were no KKK threatening protesters' safety in Ferguson, only police. That's why the protest had to be completely non-violent.

 

[idb]

Why only liberals?
Is it true that all liberals believe in gun control and all conservatives oppose any notion of it?
Is that a fundamental basis for determining your political leaning?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Exactly. And that is how the Civil Rights Movement won in the '60's. I do not like war weapons in the hands of the police, and I do like them in the hands of civilians. Unneccessary in both cases, and leads to a set of mind that seeks confrontations.

You're aware that the Deacons of for Defense and Justice routinely marched alongside blacks with shotguns to defend against KKK assaults?

There were no KKK threatening protesters' safety in Ferguson, only police. That's why the protest had to be completely non-violent.

Old Rocks invoked the Civil Rights Movement, so I invoked something that was critical to the Civil Rights movement. You should tell Old Rocks that his comment was non-sequitor since you believe mine was.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I've noticed an absolutely copious number of the Progressive websites discussing the danger of Militarized Police (whilst these same Progressive websites called Libertarians tin-foil hat crowd on the same issue for the past 10 years).

So, may I ask, now that Progressives are acknowledge the dangers of the Militarized Police State (while Republicans seem to like it????), have your ideas concerning the Second Amendment changed at all, or at the very least, are you doing any sort of ideological reconsideration?

Bullshit premise. Liberals have always has a problem with militarized police. We have always acknowledged the dangers of a military police state. We just don't think we have one here.

Our ideas concerning the second amendment haven't changed. We believe that we have the right to bear arms in a well regulated militia. We don't dig the idea of unelected persons having all the weapons. We don't dig the idea of elected persons having all the weapons. We also don't dig the idea of crazed nutbags having any weapons. We abhors the idea of little kids shooting themselves and their little siblings and friends with daddy's gun. We think people who feel the need to carry a gun to buy groceries in this nation are probably ******* lunatics.

I usually avoid these....but I will ask you a "what if" regarding Ferguson.

What if the protesters showed up with assault rifles and pointed them at the police? What would have happened?

So the music aside, it's safe to say that you're still clueless about what the Second Amendment is ultimately all about, right?

 

[LoneLaugher]

I've noticed an absolutely copious number of the Progressive websites discussing the danger of Militarized Police (whilst these same Progressive websites called Libertarians tin-foil hat crowd on the same issue for the past 10 years).

So, may I ask, now that Progressives are acknowledge the dangers of the Militarized Police State (while Republicans seem to like it????), have your ideas concerning the Second Amendment changed at all, or at the very least, are you doing any sort of ideological reconsideration?

Bullshit premise. Liberals have always has a problem with militarized police. We have always acknowledged the dangers of a military police state. We just don't think we have one here.

Our ideas concerning the second amendment haven't changed. We believe that we have the right to bear arms in a well regulated militia. We don't dig the idea of unelected persons having all the weapons. We don't dig the idea of elected persons having all the weapons. We also don't dig the idea of crazed nutbags having any weapons. We abhors the idea of little kids shooting themselves and their little siblings and friends with daddy's gun. We think people who feel the need to carry a gun to buy groceries in this nation are probably ******* lunatics.

I usually avoid these....but I will ask you a "what if" regarding Ferguson.

What if the protesters showed up with assault rifles and pointed them at the police? What would have happened?

So the music aside, it's safe to say that you're still clueless about what the Second Amendment is ultimately all about, right?

Nope. I've got a pretty good handle on it. Thanks.

 

[LoneLaugher]

What if the protesters showed up with assault rifles and pointed them at the police? What would have happened?

Depends if they pointed them at the police before or after the police pointed their guns at them.

If the police point their guns at them first, they have a right and even a duty to point them back. If the police shoot, they shoot.

Jury of their Peers will acquit them afterwards.

You are avoiding the question.

And....you are insane.

 

[R.C. Christian]

Liberals have had absolutely no problem with the police state the last eight years. Nary a word of discontent.

 

[Paperman299]

What if the protesters showed up with assault rifles and pointed them at the police? What would have happened?

Depends if they pointed them at the police before or after the police pointed their guns at them.

If the police point their guns at them first, they have a right and even a duty to point them back. If the police shoot, they shoot.

Jury of their Peers will acquit them afterwards.

I have to disagree with you here. Americans are strongly predisposed to side with police. Just by approaching a police line armed, the protesters would have shed a lot of their credibility in the media. John Q. Public would have watched that and said "Well, they incited a police response."

And without the media on their side, the protesters' concerns would never have been taken seriously.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

What if the protesters showed up with assault rifles and pointed them at the police? What would have happened?

Depends if they pointed them at the police before or after the police pointed their guns at them.

If the police point their guns at them first, they have a right and even a duty to point them back. If the police shoot, they shoot.

Jury of their Peers will acquit them afterwards.

You are avoiding the question.

And....you are insane.

It worked in 1946 at the Battle of Athens, Tennessee, right down to the Jury trial.

 

[Paperman299]

You're aware that the Deacons of for Defense and Justice routinely marched alongside blacks with shotguns to defend against KKK assaults?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAZT_K-ofB0

There were no KKK threatening protesters' safety in Ferguson, only police. That's why the protest had to be completely non-violent.

Old Rocks invoked the Civil Rights Movement, so I invoked something that was critical to the Civil Rights movement. You should tell Old Rocks that his comment was non-sequitor since you believe mine was.

Just because these elements were present during the Civil Rights movement does not mean they were critical to it. It's generally agreed that the most powerful aspect of the Civil Rights movement was nonviolent resistance. Images of peaceful black protesters being violently opposed shocked the viewing public and stirred their support.

You keep focusing on these peoples' right to protect themselves. Guess what, I agree: they have that right. But the hard truth is that when you're fighting for change in these situations, invoking that right will undermine your goals.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Depends if they pointed them at the police before or after the police pointed their guns at them.

If the police point their guns at them first, they have a right and even a duty to point them back. If the police shoot, they shoot.

Jury of their Peers will acquit them afterwards.

You are avoiding the question.

And....you are insane.

It worked in 1946 at the Battle of Athens, Tennessee, right down to the Jury trial.

I asked you what you think would have happened had a number of the protesters in Ferguson had brought firearms to the protest and aimed them at the police.

You did not answer honestly.

I'll tell you what would have happened. The police would have demanded that those with weapons drop them. If they did not drop them immediately, the police would have opened fire and shot at them. Resulting in multiple deaths.

Do you agree?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Liberals have had absolutely no problem with the police state the last eight years. Nary a word of discontent.

That is not true.