Is the use of Deadly Force to protect property the solution to riots?

[Ray From Cleveland]

I watched the Laura show tonight. She was discussing the continuing riots and attacks on businesses in Minneapolis this weekend that no other MSM outlet covered. Interviewing business owners, they told their story how they ran to their business only to helplessly watch it be looted, destroyed, and in some cases, burnt to the ground.

Some had businesses handed down for generations. Others were foreigners who came here to realize the American dream. Their city and state leaders allowed their dreams to go up in smoke.

Lowlifes who do these things have no fear, because there is no real deterrent to stopping them. We've seen these so-called leaders tell their police to stand down; to not enforce laws; to not protect these businesses; to allow them "room" to vent.

IMO, a real deterrent works every time it's tried. What if we had a federal law that allowed property owners to use deadly force to protect their property with no ability for city or local governments to prosecute?

A group of thugs start busting into a business. The business owner and family or other employees open fire killing dozens or hundreds of lowlifes. Other businesses do the same. Who in their right mind (after witnessing this) would think of trying to break into, or destroying another business down the street weary if they are armed and willing to kill to protect their investment?

True, hundreds of funerals, but also hundreds of businesses saved, millions of dollars not lost, and thousands of jobs saved in just one city. We need a national law of using deadly force to protect our property.

Time to change the constitution---it is a right to shoot and kill rioters/looters/thugs attacking people. I can support that-------Texas used to have this as their castle doctrine.

Still do.
Remember Joe Horn!!!!!!

Joe Horn is my hero. I listened to that 911 call I don't know how many times. It was hilarious.

I'd love to have him for a neighbor!!

I think a lot of people would have loved to do what he did. Unfortunately, it's not legal. Even if it was, there would be some people who wouldn't have the guts to kill a person.

When I have people that I teach who express reservations about killing someone, or admit that they are unsure if they could, I tell them to go hunting. Book a deer or hog hunt and go kill something; see what it feels like. If you can't get past that, you probably shouldn't bother carrying a pistol.
As far as carrying knives, I tell them they can book a hog hunt with dogs where the dogs will run the hog down, hold it, and then you kill it with a knife.
If either of these things is too much for you, you should really re-consider carrying lethal defense tools.
But honestly, most people can handle it, they just aren't comfortable with how easy it really is.

Never understood how someone couldnt shoot another human when that human was going to kill you.
To be honest I'd feel worse shooting the deer....

Because humans are hard-wired to be uncomfortable with hurting other humans. Soldiers and police officers have to be trained specifically to bypass that reflexive reaction.

I'm not sure I believe that. I think it may be a cultural taboo rather than hard-wired into us, because frankly, it has never bothered me a bit.
And all our ancestors seemed pretty damn comfortable with stabbing each other in the face, and beating each brains in, and then chopping the heads off and taking them home as trophies.

So I'm pretty fucking sure none of us are hard-wired against this sort of thing, because if we were, none of that shit would have happened. But it did, everywhere in the world, all throughout history.

Yeah, but that was then and this is now. We humans (particularly Americans) have become more civilized with every generation. What people did to others 100 years ago, few would dream of doing now.

Look at the US today. According to the left, the most vile thing one can do to another is offend them. If a guy puts on a dress and high heels, we refer to him as a her. Today, you can get more time in jail for beating your dog than beating your wife. In many parts of the country, you can't smoke inside public places, and even outside in other places. You don't want to offend any non-smoker. If two guys or two gals want to get married, people don't beat them up, the marriage is conducted and sanctioned by the government.

That is just dumb. It isn’t about offending. You have every right to poison yourself, but you don’t have the right to poison others.

If second hand smoke were poisoning others, people who inhaled cigaret smoke directly would be dead before the cigarette was finished. I don't mind if people take a position on something, just as long as they are honest about it. I get it. Some people can't stand the smell of smoke. But their push to stop it is because they're uncomfortable with it, not health concerns.

My sister used to be the same way. She'd start coughing if you started to pull a cigarette out and didn't even light it yet. We grew up in a smoking household as my mother was a smoker since she became an adult. She probably smoked while she carried all of us in pregnancy.

That isnt they it works. The affect is cumulative. If a person has asthma or COPD, the amount they can tolerate is very low. I think it is incredibly selfish to force people to breath it in public spaces. It’s no different than urinating in public spaces.

Perhaps, but I quote a comedian who once said "Santa Monic beaches are now no smoking. I hate to inform them, but beaches are located outside."

Yes, there are places that ban smoking even outdoors. When the commies got their way here, businesses would allow their smoking employees to have a cigarette outside of the building. After they got their way, then they started to complain that smokers were getting out of work to have cigarettes. Well......you bitched because those employees were smoking and working at the same time. You stopped it. So now you're complaining that they are smoking outside like you wanted, and not working to catch their cigarettes.

In any case, this argument started to show another poster what snowflakes our US society has become.

True....but I just hate walking through a doorway and a cloud of smoke

I hate walking into an elevator - or pretty much any space - and into a cloud of cheap, choking perfume, but I don't think that means I get to outlaw wearing it in public places.

And before you try the, "Oh, well, THAT isn't bad for you", I consider anything that makes me cough until I gag to be bad for me. But I don't consider myself to have the right to live around other humans without ever being inconvenienced by them.

Before they banned cigarettes in all places here in Ohio, they placed it for a vote knowing fully well how greatly outnumbered smokers are to non-smokers. Then they called that fair. We voted on how a business is supposed to conduct their business. Before you knew it, bars started to close up all over.

 

[kaz]

I watched the Laura show tonight. She was discussing the continuing riots and attacks on businesses in Minneapolis this weekend that no other MSM outlet covered. Interviewing business owners, they told their story how they ran to their business only to helplessly watch it be looted, destroyed, and in some cases, burnt to the ground.

Some had businesses handed down for generations. Others were foreigners who came here to realize the American dream. Their city and state leaders allowed their dreams to go up in smoke.

Lowlifes who do these things have no fear, because there is no real deterrent to stopping them. We've seen these so-called leaders tell their police to stand down; to not enforce laws; to not protect these businesses; to allow them "room" to vent.

IMO, a real deterrent works every time it's tried. What if we had a federal law that allowed property owners to use deadly force to protect their property with no ability for city or local governments to prosecute?

A group of thugs start busting into a business. The business owner and family or other employees open fire killing dozens or hundreds of lowlifes. Other businesses do the same. Who in their right mind (after witnessing this) would think of trying to break into, or destroying another business down the street weary if they are armed and willing to kill to protect their investment?

True, hundreds of funerals, but also hundreds of businesses saved, millions of dollars not lost, and thousands of jobs saved in just one city. We need a national law of using deadly force to protect our property.

Looters and people who are trying to destroy local businesses (e.g., burn them) should be shot on sight. I don't think that for the general rioters who are not looting though. They should just go to jail

 

[Doc7505]

I watched the Laura show tonight. She was discussing the continuing riots and attacks on businesses in Minneapolis this weekend that no other MSM outlet covered. Interviewing business owners, they told their story how they ran to their business only to helplessly watch it be looted, destroyed, and in some cases, burnt to the ground.

Some had businesses handed down for generations. Others were foreigners who came here to realize the American dream. Their city and state leaders allowed their dreams to go up in smoke.

Lowlifes who do these things have no fear, because there is no real deterrent to stopping them. We've seen these so-called leaders tell their police to stand down; to not enforce laws; to not protect these businesses; to allow them "room" to vent.

IMO, a real deterrent works every time it's tried. What if we had a federal law that allowed property owners to use deadly force to protect their property with no ability for city or local governments to prosecute?

A group of thugs start busting into a business. The business owner and family or other employees open fire killing dozens or hundreds of lowlifes. Other businesses do the same. Who in their right mind (after witnessing this) would think of trying to break into, or destroying another business down the street weary if they are armed and willing to kill to protect their investment?

True, hundreds of funerals, but also hundreds of businesses saved, millions of dollars not lost, and thousands of jobs saved in just one city. We need a national law of using deadly force to protect our property.

Time to change the constitution---it is a right to shoot and kill rioters/looters/thugs attacking people. I can support that-------Texas used to have this as their castle doctrine.

Still do.
Remember Joe Horn!!!!!!

Joe Horn is my hero. I listened to that 911 call I don't know how many times. It was hilarious.

I'd love to have him for a neighbor!!

I think a lot of people would have loved to do what he did. Unfortunately, it's not legal. Even if it was, there would be some people who wouldn't have the guts to kill a person.

When I have people that I teach who express reservations about killing someone, or admit that they are unsure if they could, I tell them to go hunting. Book a deer or hog hunt and go kill something; see what it feels like. If you can't get past that, you probably shouldn't bother carrying a pistol.
As far as carrying knives, I tell them they can book a hog hunt with dogs where the dogs will run the hog down, hold it, and then you kill it with a knife.
If either of these things is too much for you, you should really re-consider carrying lethal defense tools.
But honestly, most people can handle it, they just aren't comfortable with how easy it really is.

Never understood how someone couldnt shoot another human when that human was going to kill you.
To be honest I'd feel worse shooting the deer....

Because humans are hard-wired to be uncomfortable with hurting other humans. Soldiers and police officers have to be trained specifically to bypass that reflexive reaction.

I'm not sure I believe that. I think it may be a cultural taboo rather than hard-wired into us, because frankly, it has never bothered me a bit.
And all our ancestors seemed pretty damn comfortable with stabbing each other in the face, and beating each brains in, and then chopping the heads off and taking them home as trophies.

So I'm pretty fucking sure none of us are hard-wired against this sort of thing, because if we were, none of that shit would have happened. But it did, everywhere in the world, all throughout history.

Yeah, but that was then and this is now. We humans (particularly Americans) have become more civilized with every generation. What people did to others 100 years ago, few would dream of doing now.

Look at the US today. According to the left, the most vile thing one can do to another is offend them. If a guy puts on a dress and high heels, we refer to him as a her. Today, you can get more time in jail for beating your dog than beating your wife. In many parts of the country, you can't smoke inside public places, and even outside in other places. You don't want to offend any non-smoker. If two guys or two gals want to get married, people don't beat them up, the marriage is conducted and sanctioned by the government.

That is just dumb. It isn’t about offending. You have every right to poison yourself, but you don’t have the right to poison others.

If second hand smoke were poisoning others, people who inhaled cigaret smoke directly would be dead before the cigarette was finished. I don't mind if people take a position on something, just as long as they are honest about it. I get it. Some people can't stand the smell of smoke. But their push to stop it is because they're uncomfortable with it, not health concerns.

My sister used to be the same way. She'd start coughing if you started to pull a cigarette out and didn't even light it yet. We grew up in a smoking household as my mother was a smoker since she became an adult. She probably smoked while she carried all of us in pregnancy.

That isnt they it works. The affect is cumulative. If a person has asthma or COPD, the amount they can tolerate is very low. I think it is incredibly selfish to force people to breath it in public spaces. It’s no different than urinating in public spaces.

Perhaps, but I quote a comedian who once said "Santa Monic beaches are now no smoking. I hate to inform them, but beaches are located outside."

Yes, there are places that ban smoking even outdoors. When the commies got their way here, businesses would allow their smoking employees to have a cigarette outside of the building. After they got their way, then they started to complain that smokers were getting out of work to have cigarettes. Well......you bitched because those employees were smoking and working at the same time. You stopped it. So now you're complaining that they are smoking outside like you wanted, and not working to catch their cigarettes.

In any case, this argument started to show another poster what snowflakes our US society has become.

True....but I just hate walking through a doorway and a cloud of smoke

I hate walking into an elevator - or pretty much any space - and into a cloud of cheap, choking perfume, but I don't think that means I get to outlaw wearing it in public places.

And before you try the, "Oh, well, THAT isn't bad for you", I consider anything that makes me cough until I gag to be bad for me. But I don't consider myself to have the right to live around other humans without ever being inconvenienced by them.

Hey - I'm not going to disagree with you on that. I have to deal with Middle Eastern students (male) who believe cologne should be poured on every possible area of the body. You can follow the trail down the hall and it takes hours to dissipate.

But you can't really regulate it. You can't even really define "cheap perfume". But you CAN with cigarette smoke and there are identifiable, well researched health issues.

You can to some extent.
The Wife hired a black women who laid the perfume on heavily and all Her employees complained.
The Wife went to human resources and they told her to stop as it was bothering the other employees.

Worked with a guy who stunk to high heaven...as in terrible body odor.
The boss told him needed to shower more often.

But that is private employers right? If you were going to create a public space law...how would you define "cheap perfume"?

Coyote urine.....

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I watched the Laura show tonight. She was discussing the continuing riots and attacks on businesses in Minneapolis this weekend that no other MSM outlet covered. Interviewing business owners, they told their story how they ran to their business only to helplessly watch it be looted, destroyed, and in some cases, burnt to the ground.

Some had businesses handed down for generations. Others were foreigners who came here to realize the American dream. Their city and state leaders allowed their dreams to go up in smoke.

Lowlifes who do these things have no fear, because there is no real deterrent to stopping them. We've seen these so-called leaders tell their police to stand down; to not enforce laws; to not protect these businesses; to allow them "room" to vent.

IMO, a real deterrent works every time it's tried. What if we had a federal law that allowed property owners to use deadly force to protect their property with no ability for city or local governments to prosecute?

A group of thugs start busting into a business. The business owner and family or other employees open fire killing dozens or hundreds of lowlifes. Other businesses do the same. Who in their right mind (after witnessing this) would think of trying to break into, or destroying another business down the street weary if they are armed and willing to kill to protect their investment?

True, hundreds of funerals, but also hundreds of businesses saved, millions of dollars not lost, and thousands of jobs saved in just one city. We need a national law of using deadly force to protect our property.

Time to change the constitution---it is a right to shoot and kill rioters/looters/thugs attacking people. I can support that-------Texas used to have this as their castle doctrine.

Still do.
Remember Joe Horn!!!!!!

Joe Horn is my hero. I listened to that 911 call I don't know how many times. It was hilarious.

I'd love to have him for a neighbor!!

I think a lot of people would have loved to do what he did. Unfortunately, it's not legal. Even if it was, there would be some people who wouldn't have the guts to kill a person.

When I have people that I teach who express reservations about killing someone, or admit that they are unsure if they could, I tell them to go hunting. Book a deer or hog hunt and go kill something; see what it feels like. If you can't get past that, you probably shouldn't bother carrying a pistol.
As far as carrying knives, I tell them they can book a hog hunt with dogs where the dogs will run the hog down, hold it, and then you kill it with a knife.
If either of these things is too much for you, you should really re-consider carrying lethal defense tools.
But honestly, most people can handle it, they just aren't comfortable with how easy it really is.

Never understood how someone couldnt shoot another human when that human was going to kill you.
To be honest I'd feel worse shooting the deer....

Because humans are hard-wired to be uncomfortable with hurting other humans. Soldiers and police officers have to be trained specifically to bypass that reflexive reaction.

I'm not sure I believe that. I think it may be a cultural taboo rather than hard-wired into us, because frankly, it has never bothered me a bit.
And all our ancestors seemed pretty damn comfortable with stabbing each other in the face, and beating each brains in, and then chopping the heads off and taking them home as trophies.

So I'm pretty fucking sure none of us are hard-wired against this sort of thing, because if we were, none of that shit would have happened. But it did, everywhere in the world, all throughout history.

Yeah, but that was then and this is now. We humans (particularly Americans) have become more civilized with every generation. What people did to others 100 years ago, few would dream of doing now.

Look at the US today. According to the left, the most vile thing one can do to another is offend them. If a guy puts on a dress and high heels, we refer to him as a her. Today, you can get more time in jail for beating your dog than beating your wife. In many parts of the country, you can't smoke inside public places, and even outside in other places. You don't want to offend any non-smoker. If two guys or two gals want to get married, people don't beat them up, the marriage is conducted and sanctioned by the government.

That is just dumb. It isn’t about offending. You have every right to poison yourself, but you don’t have the right to poison others.

If second hand smoke were poisoning others, people who inhaled cigaret smoke directly would be dead before the cigarette was finished. I don't mind if people take a position on something, just as long as they are honest about it. I get it. Some people can't stand the smell of smoke. But their push to stop it is because they're uncomfortable with it, not health concerns.

My sister used to be the same way. She'd start coughing if you started to pull a cigarette out and didn't even light it yet. We grew up in a smoking household as my mother was a smoker since she became an adult. She probably smoked while she carried all of us in pregnancy.

That isnt they it works. The affect is cumulative. If a person has asthma or COPD, the amount they can tolerate is very low. I think it is incredibly selfish to force people to breath it in public spaces. It’s no different than urinating in public spaces.

Perhaps, but I quote a comedian who once said "Santa Monic beaches are now no smoking. I hate to inform them, but beaches are located outside."

Yes, there are places that ban smoking even outdoors. When the commies got their way here, businesses would allow their smoking employees to have a cigarette outside of the building. After they got their way, then they started to complain that smokers were getting out of work to have cigarettes. Well......you bitched because those employees were smoking and working at the same time. You stopped it. So now you're complaining that they are smoking outside like you wanted, and not working to catch their cigarettes.

In any case, this argument started to show another poster what snowflakes our US society has become.

True....but I just hate walking through a doorway and a cloud of smoke

I hate walking into an elevator - or pretty much any space - and into a cloud of cheap, choking perfume, but I don't think that means I get to outlaw wearing it in public places.

And before you try the, "Oh, well, THAT isn't bad for you", I consider anything that makes me cough until I gag to be bad for me. But I don't consider myself to have the right to live around other humans without ever being inconvenienced by them.

Hey - I'm not going to disagree with you on that. I have to deal with Middle Eastern students (male) who believe cologne should be poured on every possible area of the body. You can follow the trail down the hall and it takes hours to dissipate.

But you can't really regulate it. You can't even really define "cheap perfume". But you CAN with cigarette smoke and there are identifiable, well researched health issues.

You can to some extent.
The Wife hired a black women who laid the perfume on heavily and all Her employees complained.
The Wife went to human resources and they told her to stop as it was bothering the other employees.

Worked with a guy who stunk to high heaven...as in terrible body odor.
The boss told him needed to shower more often.

But that is private employers right? If you were going to create a public space law...how would you define "cheap perfume"?

"To some extent"

And I dont give a shit if the stuffs $200 bucks an oz.

 

[Cecilie1200]

A group of thugs start busting into a business. The business owner and family or other employees open fire killing dozens or hundreds of lowlifes. Other businesses do the same. Who in their right mind (after witnessing this) would think of trying to break into, or destroying another business down the street weary if they are armed and willing to kill to protect their investment?

Wow, Ray, your wank fantasies are amusing to watch.

Businesses have insurance. Stuff can be replaced. Lives cannot.

So that's a reason to permit people to destroy the property of another? Do you pay for insurance Joe? I do. How do you suppose insurance companies recoup that money they have to pay out in claims, especially when you're talking hundreds of millions of dollars they collectively have to shell out?

Insurance or no insurance, some of these businesses are closed down for good. They not only robbed them of their property, they robbed them of their life.

I will agree with your last statement though: Stuff can be replaced, lives cannot. If you were a person who was thinking about destroying the property of others, and your life would be in jeopardy by doing so, you probably wouldn't think risking your life was worth it.

I simply can't see why I, as a law-abiding property owner, should be expected to worry more about the value of a criminal's life than the criminal has to. Seems to me that should be HIS concern, not mine.

 

[iceberg]

I watched the Laura show tonight. She was discussing the continuing riots and attacks on businesses in Minneapolis this weekend that no other MSM outlet covered. Interviewing business owners, they told their story how they ran to their business only to helplessly watch it be looted, destroyed, and in some cases, burnt to the ground.

Some had businesses handed down for generations. Others were foreigners who came here to realize the American dream. Their city and state leaders allowed their dreams to go up in smoke.

Lowlifes who do these things have no fear, because there is no real deterrent to stopping them. We've seen these so-called leaders tell their police to stand down; to not enforce laws; to not protect these businesses; to allow them "room" to vent.

IMO, a real deterrent works every time it's tried. What if we had a federal law that allowed property owners to use deadly force to protect their property with no ability for city or local governments to prosecute?

A group of thugs start busting into a business. The business owner and family or other employees open fire killing dozens or hundreds of lowlifes. Other businesses do the same. Who in their right mind (after witnessing this) would think of trying to break into, or destroying another business down the street weary if they are armed and willing to kill to protect their investment?

True, hundreds of funerals, but also hundreds of businesses saved, millions of dollars not lost, and thousands of jobs saved in just one city. We need a national law of using deadly force to protect our property.

~~~~~~
When violence, rioting, looting and arson come to your front door you have two options.. Either you run or stand and fight for your right to live peaceably and earn a living.... Protecting your family, lively-hood and property is lawful.. Woe to those that would attempt to take that away from the average American.

far as i'm concerned, you *at least* match what they do but if you simply match then you keep escalating. but the minute a "protesting group" starts property damage or hurting others, you have crossed the line to riot status.

if they're willing to hurt / kill people, then they are included in that willingness and are open for the same. you don't want to get shot in the street throwing IED's into police stations, don't be in the streets throwing IED's into police stations.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I watched the Laura show tonight. She was discussing the continuing riots and attacks on businesses in Minneapolis this weekend that no other MSM outlet covered. Interviewing business owners, they told their story how they ran to their business only to helplessly watch it be looted, destroyed, and in some cases, burnt to the ground.

Some had businesses handed down for generations. Others were foreigners who came here to realize the American dream. Their city and state leaders allowed their dreams to go up in smoke.

Lowlifes who do these things have no fear, because there is no real deterrent to stopping them. We've seen these so-called leaders tell their police to stand down; to not enforce laws; to not protect these businesses; to allow them "room" to vent.

IMO, a real deterrent works every time it's tried. What if we had a federal law that allowed property owners to use deadly force to protect their property with no ability for city or local governments to prosecute?

A group of thugs start busting into a business. The business owner and family or other employees open fire killing dozens or hundreds of lowlifes. Other businesses do the same. Who in their right mind (after witnessing this) would think of trying to break into, or destroying another business down the street weary if they are armed and willing to kill to protect their investment?

True, hundreds of funerals, but also hundreds of businesses saved, millions of dollars not lost, and thousands of jobs saved in just one city. We need a national law of using deadly force to protect our property.

~~~~~~
When violence, rioting, looting and arson come to your front door you have two options.. Either you run or stand and fight for your right to live peaceably and earn a living.... Protecting your family, lively-hood and property is lawful.. Woe to those that would attempt to take that away from the average American.

That's the point, it's not lawful. You can protect yourself and family from harm, but not your property. All you can legally do is watch it be destroyed. I think that's wrong. I think you should be allowed to use deadly force to protect what's rightfully yours; what you worked years and years to create.

 

[Cecilie1200]

We don't really need a new law, you know....

What we need to do is quit ducking jury duty and "not guilty" every case where someone got charged for shooting some asshole who really needed shooting.
Doesn't matter what the law says if everyone demands a jury trial and none of the juries are willing to convict. Jury nullification is a tried and true method.

Jurors are just like the people in USMB or any society. They are not all going to agree with you. You will get people that think just the opposite; you shot somebody over destroying property, and you belong in jail for the rest of your life.

That's why we need a change of laws.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it true a jury can't convict on a majority vote? Doesn't it have to be unanimous?
All it would take is one holdout on every jury.

I'm not sure how that works, and perhaps it's different in different states, but nobody should have to go through all that.

About 15 years ago in our state, if somebody broke into your home, and you shot them, the criminal could sue you for damages once he was out of the hospital. If he died, the family could sue you for wrongful death. Outside of that, our law was if you had a reasonable and safe way to escape your home, you must use it before using deadly force, otherwise you'd be charged with murder.

Now that the law changed dramatically, you can kill anybody that invades your home. The police cannot arrest you because you no longer have the duty to retreat. They can't even write you a ticket. The family can't sue you either.

I'm not crazy about shooting other people. The theme to my post is to create a strong enough deterrent to stop these riots. DumBama didn't do anything about them, and people got more and more encouraged to participate in them because there was no deterrent in the past, and still no real deterrent today. We need such a deterrent, and making it legal to use deadly force to protect property would stop the next riots from taking place.

U.S. Supreme Court requires unanimous jury verdicts for serious crimes

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the constitutional guarantee of trial by jury requires a unanimous verdict for serious crimes, siding with a Louisiana man convicted of murder and paving the way for potentially hundreds of defendants found guilty by divided juries...

www.reuters.com

Apparently, all but two states required unanimous juries, and the Supreme Court decided they all had to do it.

 

[iceberg]

A group of thugs start busting into a business. The business owner and family or other employees open fire killing dozens or hundreds of lowlifes. Other businesses do the same. Who in their right mind (after witnessing this) would think of trying to break into, or destroying another business down the street weary if they are armed and willing to kill to protect their investment?

Wow, Ray, your wank fantasies are amusing to watch.

Businesses have insurance. Stuff can be replaced. Lives cannot.

So that's a reason to permit people to destroy the property of another? Do you pay for insurance Joe? I do. How do you suppose insurance companies recoup that money they have to pay out in claims, especially when you're talking hundreds of millions of dollars they collectively have to shell out?

Insurance or no insurance, some of these businesses are closed down for good. They not only robbed them of their property, they robbed them of their life.

I will agree with your last statement though: Stuff can be replaced, lives cannot. If you were a person who was thinking about destroying the property of others, and your life would be in jeopardy by doing so, you probably wouldn't think risking your life was worth it.

I simply can't see why I, as a law-abiding property owner, should be expected to worry more about the value of a criminal's life than the criminal has to. Seems to me that should be HIS concern, not mine.

if that criminal has no respect for my or my property, i return the favor. i honestly don't give a shit about their motive or how mistreated they feel they are from the world around them.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I watched the Laura show tonight. She was discussing the continuing riots and attacks on businesses in Minneapolis this weekend that no other MSM outlet covered. Interviewing business owners, they told their story how they ran to their business only to helplessly watch it be looted, destroyed, and in some cases, burnt to the ground.

Some had businesses handed down for generations. Others were foreigners who came here to realize the American dream. Their city and state leaders allowed their dreams to go up in smoke.

Lowlifes who do these things have no fear, because there is no real deterrent to stopping them. We've seen these so-called leaders tell their police to stand down; to not enforce laws; to not protect these businesses; to allow them "room" to vent.

IMO, a real deterrent works every time it's tried. What if we had a federal law that allowed property owners to use deadly force to protect their property with no ability for city or local governments to prosecute?

A group of thugs start busting into a business. The business owner and family or other employees open fire killing dozens or hundreds of lowlifes. Other businesses do the same. Who in their right mind (after witnessing this) would think of trying to break into, or destroying another business down the street weary if they are armed and willing to kill to protect their investment?

True, hundreds of funerals, but also hundreds of businesses saved, millions of dollars not lost, and thousands of jobs saved in just one city. We need a national law of using deadly force to protect our property.

Time to change the constitution---it is a right to shoot and kill rioters/looters/thugs attacking people. I can support that-------Texas used to have this as their castle doctrine.

Still do.
Remember Joe Horn!!!!!!

Joe Horn is my hero. I listened to that 911 call I don't know how many times. It was hilarious.

I'd love to have him for a neighbor!!

I think a lot of people would have loved to do what he did. Unfortunately, it's not legal. Even if it was, there would be some people who wouldn't have the guts to kill a person.

When I have people that I teach who express reservations about killing someone, or admit that they are unsure if they could, I tell them to go hunting. Book a deer or hog hunt and go kill something; see what it feels like. If you can't get past that, you probably shouldn't bother carrying a pistol.
As far as carrying knives, I tell them they can book a hog hunt with dogs where the dogs will run the hog down, hold it, and then you kill it with a knife.
If either of these things is too much for you, you should really re-consider carrying lethal defense tools.
But honestly, most people can handle it, they just aren't comfortable with how easy it really is.

Never understood how someone couldnt shoot another human when that human was going to kill you.
To be honest I'd feel worse shooting the deer....

Because humans are hard-wired to be uncomfortable with hurting other humans. Soldiers and police officers have to be trained specifically to bypass that reflexive reaction.

I'm not sure I believe that. I think it may be a cultural taboo rather than hard-wired into us, because frankly, it has never bothered me a bit.
And all our ancestors seemed pretty damn comfortable with stabbing each other in the face, and beating each brains in, and then chopping the heads off and taking them home as trophies.

So I'm pretty fucking sure none of us are hard-wired against this sort of thing, because if we were, none of that shit would have happened. But it did, everywhere in the world, all throughout history.

Yeah, but that was then and this is now. We humans (particularly Americans) have become more civilized with every generation. What people did to others 100 years ago, few would dream of doing now.

Look at the US today. According to the left, the most vile thing one can do to another is offend them. If a guy puts on a dress and high heels, we refer to him as a her. Today, you can get more time in jail for beating your dog than beating your wife. In many parts of the country, you can't smoke inside public places, and even outside in other places. You don't want to offend any non-smoker. If two guys or two gals want to get married, people don't beat them up, the marriage is conducted and sanctioned by the government.

That is just dumb. It isn’t about offending. You have every right to poison yourself, but you don’t have the right to poison others.

If second hand smoke were poisoning others, people who inhaled cigaret smoke directly would be dead before the cigarette was finished. I don't mind if people take a position on something, just as long as they are honest about it. I get it. Some people can't stand the smell of smoke. But their push to stop it is because they're uncomfortable with it, not health concerns.

My sister used to be the same way. She'd start coughing if you started to pull a cigarette out and didn't even light it yet. We grew up in a smoking household as my mother was a smoker since she became an adult. She probably smoked while she carried all of us in pregnancy.

That isnt they it works. The affect is cumulative. If a person has asthma or COPD, the amount they can tolerate is very low. I think it is incredibly selfish to force people to breath it in public spaces. It’s no different than urinating in public spaces.

Perhaps, but I quote a comedian who once said "Santa Monic beaches are now no smoking. I hate to inform them, but beaches are located outside."

Yes, there are places that ban smoking even outdoors. When the commies got their way here, businesses would allow their smoking employees to have a cigarette outside of the building. After they got their way, then they started to complain that smokers were getting out of work to have cigarettes. Well......you bitched because those employees were smoking and working at the same time. You stopped it. So now you're complaining that they are smoking outside like you wanted, and not working to catch their cigarettes.

In any case, this argument started to show another poster what snowflakes our US society has become.

True....but I just hate walking through a doorway and a cloud of smoke

I hate walking into an elevator - or pretty much any space - and into a cloud of cheap, choking perfume, but I don't think that means I get to outlaw wearing it in public places.

And before you try the, "Oh, well, THAT isn't bad for you", I consider anything that makes me cough until I gag to be bad for me. But I don't consider myself to have the right to live around other humans without ever being inconvenienced by them.

Before they banned cigarettes in all places here in Ohio, they placed it for a vote knowing fully well how greatly outnumbered smokers are to non-smokers. Then they called that fair. We voted on how a business is supposed to conduct their business. Before you knew it, bars started to close up all over.

Yep..
They did that to my favorite bar and restaurant.
They do however still allow smoking out on the patio.
But in Texas it's far too hot to sit outside and eat in the summer.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I watched the Laura show tonight. She was discussing the continuing riots and attacks on businesses in Minneapolis this weekend that no other MSM outlet covered. Interviewing business owners, they told their story how they ran to their business only to helplessly watch it be looted, destroyed, and in some cases, burnt to the ground.

Some had businesses handed down for generations. Others were foreigners who came here to realize the American dream. Their city and state leaders allowed their dreams to go up in smoke.

Lowlifes who do these things have no fear, because there is no real deterrent to stopping them. We've seen these so-called leaders tell their police to stand down; to not enforce laws; to not protect these businesses; to allow them "room" to vent.

IMO, a real deterrent works every time it's tried. What if we had a federal law that allowed property owners to use deadly force to protect their property with no ability for city or local governments to prosecute?

A group of thugs start busting into a business. The business owner and family or other employees open fire killing dozens or hundreds of lowlifes. Other businesses do the same. Who in their right mind (after witnessing this) would think of trying to break into, or destroying another business down the street weary if they are armed and willing to kill to protect their investment?

True, hundreds of funerals, but also hundreds of businesses saved, millions of dollars not lost, and thousands of jobs saved in just one city. We need a national law of using deadly force to protect our property.

~~~~~~
When violence, rioting, looting and arson come to your front door you have two options.. Either you run or stand and fight for your right to live peaceably and earn a living.... Protecting your family, lively-hood and property is lawful.. Woe to those that would attempt to take that away from the average American.

That's the point, it's not lawful. You can protect yourself and family from harm, but not your property. All you can legally do is watch it be destroyed. I think that's wrong. I think you should be allowed to use deadly force to protect what's rightfully yours; what you worked years and years to create.

Depends on where you live.
God Bless Texas!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I watched the Laura show tonight. She was discussing the continuing riots and attacks on businesses in Minneapolis this weekend that no other MSM outlet covered. Interviewing business owners, they told their story how they ran to their business only to helplessly watch it be looted, destroyed, and in some cases, burnt to the ground.

Some had businesses handed down for generations. Others were foreigners who came here to realize the American dream. Their city and state leaders allowed their dreams to go up in smoke.

Lowlifes who do these things have no fear, because there is no real deterrent to stopping them. We've seen these so-called leaders tell their police to stand down; to not enforce laws; to not protect these businesses; to allow them "room" to vent.

IMO, a real deterrent works every time it's tried. What if we had a federal law that allowed property owners to use deadly force to protect their property with no ability for city or local governments to prosecute?

A group of thugs start busting into a business. The business owner and family or other employees open fire killing dozens or hundreds of lowlifes. Other businesses do the same. Who in their right mind (after witnessing this) would think of trying to break into, or destroying another business down the street weary if they are armed and willing to kill to protect their investment?

True, hundreds of funerals, but also hundreds of businesses saved, millions of dollars not lost, and thousands of jobs saved in just one city. We need a national law of using deadly force to protect our property.

Looters and people who are trying to destroy local businesses (e.g., burn them) should be shot on sight. I don't think that for the general rioters who are not looting though. They should just go to jail

I think you mean protestors, and I agree with that. Rioters are the people who are breaking into businesses and stealing their merchandise. But as far as protesters are concerned, if they are blocking the road, you should be able to roll over them like bowling pins without any penalty.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I watched the Laura show tonight. She was discussing the continuing riots and attacks on businesses in Minneapolis this weekend that no other MSM outlet covered. Interviewing business owners, they told their story how they ran to their business only to helplessly watch it be looted, destroyed, and in some cases, burnt to the ground.

Some had businesses handed down for generations. Others were foreigners who came here to realize the American dream. Their city and state leaders allowed their dreams to go up in smoke.

Lowlifes who do these things have no fear, because there is no real deterrent to stopping them. We've seen these so-called leaders tell their police to stand down; to not enforce laws; to not protect these businesses; to allow them "room" to vent.

IMO, a real deterrent works every time it's tried. What if we had a federal law that allowed property owners to use deadly force to protect their property with no ability for city or local governments to prosecute?

A group of thugs start busting into a business. The business owner and family or other employees open fire killing dozens or hundreds of lowlifes. Other businesses do the same. Who in their right mind (after witnessing this) would think of trying to break into, or destroying another business down the street weary if they are armed and willing to kill to protect their investment?

True, hundreds of funerals, but also hundreds of businesses saved, millions of dollars not lost, and thousands of jobs saved in just one city. We need a national law of using deadly force to protect our property.

Time to change the constitution---it is a right to shoot and kill rioters/looters/thugs attacking people. I can support that-------Texas used to have this as their castle doctrine.

Still do.
Remember Joe Horn!!!!!!

Joe Horn is my hero. I listened to that 911 call I don't know how many times. It was hilarious.

I'd love to have him for a neighbor!!

I think a lot of people would have loved to do what he did. Unfortunately, it's not legal. Even if it was, there would be some people who wouldn't have the guts to kill a person.

When I have people that I teach who express reservations about killing someone, or admit that they are unsure if they could, I tell them to go hunting. Book a deer or hog hunt and go kill something; see what it feels like. If you can't get past that, you probably shouldn't bother carrying a pistol.
As far as carrying knives, I tell them they can book a hog hunt with dogs where the dogs will run the hog down, hold it, and then you kill it with a knife.
If either of these things is too much for you, you should really re-consider carrying lethal defense tools.
But honestly, most people can handle it, they just aren't comfortable with how easy it really is.

Never understood how someone couldnt shoot another human when that human was going to kill you.
To be honest I'd feel worse shooting the deer....

Because humans are hard-wired to be uncomfortable with hurting other humans. Soldiers and police officers have to be trained specifically to bypass that reflexive reaction.

I'm not sure I believe that. I think it may be a cultural taboo rather than hard-wired into us, because frankly, it has never bothered me a bit.
And all our ancestors seemed pretty damn comfortable with stabbing each other in the face, and beating each brains in, and then chopping the heads off and taking them home as trophies.

So I'm pretty fucking sure none of us are hard-wired against this sort of thing, because if we were, none of that shit would have happened. But it did, everywhere in the world, all throughout history.

Yeah, but that was then and this is now. We humans (particularly Americans) have become more civilized with every generation. What people did to others 100 years ago, few would dream of doing now.

Look at the US today. According to the left, the most vile thing one can do to another is offend them. If a guy puts on a dress and high heels, we refer to him as a her. Today, you can get more time in jail for beating your dog than beating your wife. In many parts of the country, you can't smoke inside public places, and even outside in other places. You don't want to offend any non-smoker. If two guys or two gals want to get married, people don't beat them up, the marriage is conducted and sanctioned by the government.

That is just dumb. It isn’t about offending. You have every right to poison yourself, but you don’t have the right to poison others.

If second hand smoke were poisoning others, people who inhaled cigaret smoke directly would be dead before the cigarette was finished. I don't mind if people take a position on something, just as long as they are honest about it. I get it. Some people can't stand the smell of smoke. But their push to stop it is because they're uncomfortable with it, not health concerns.

My sister used to be the same way. She'd start coughing if you started to pull a cigarette out and didn't even light it yet. We grew up in a smoking household as my mother was a smoker since she became an adult. She probably smoked while she carried all of us in pregnancy.

That isnt they it works. The affect is cumulative. If a person has asthma or COPD, the amount they can tolerate is very low. I think it is incredibly selfish to force people to breath it in public spaces. It’s no different than urinating in public spaces.

Perhaps, but I quote a comedian who once said "Santa Monic beaches are now no smoking. I hate to inform them, but beaches are located outside."

Yes, there are places that ban smoking even outdoors. When the commies got their way here, businesses would allow their smoking employees to have a cigarette outside of the building. After they got their way, then they started to complain that smokers were getting out of work to have cigarettes. Well......you bitched because those employees were smoking and working at the same time. You stopped it. So now you're complaining that they are smoking outside like you wanted, and not working to catch their cigarettes.

In any case, this argument started to show another poster what snowflakes our US society has become.

True....but I just hate walking through a doorway and a cloud of smoke

I hate walking into an elevator - or pretty much any space - and into a cloud of cheap, choking perfume, but I don't think that means I get to outlaw wearing it in public places.

And before you try the, "Oh, well, THAT isn't bad for you", I consider anything that makes me cough until I gag to be bad for me. But I don't consider myself to have the right to live around other humans without ever being inconvenienced by them.

Before they banned cigarettes in all places here in Ohio, they placed it for a vote knowing fully well how greatly outnumbered smokers are to non-smokers. Then they called that fair. We voted on how a business is supposed to conduct their business. Before you knew it, bars started to close up all over.

Yep..
They did that to my favorite bar and restaurant.
They do however still allow smoking out on the patio.
But in Texas it's far too hot to sit outside and eat in the summer.

Same thing here. Who wants to stand out in the snow when it's 3 degrees in the evening and the wind is blowing at 20mph to have a cigarette. You might as well stay home like a lot of people started doing after they passed the law.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

A group of thugs start busting into a business. The business owner and family or other employees open fire killing dozens or hundreds of lowlifes. Other businesses do the same. Who in their right mind (after witnessing this) would think of trying to break into, or destroying another business down the street weary if they are armed and willing to kill to protect their investment?

Wow, Ray, your wank fantasies are amusing to watch.

Businesses have insurance. Stuff can be replaced. Lives cannot.

So that's a reason to permit people to destroy the property of another? Do you pay for insurance Joe? I do. How do you suppose insurance companies recoup that money they have to pay out in claims, especially when you're talking hundreds of millions of dollars they collectively have to shell out?

Insurance or no insurance, some of these businesses are closed down for good. They not only robbed them of their property, they robbed them of their life.

I will agree with your last statement though: Stuff can be replaced, lives cannot. If you were a person who was thinking about destroying the property of others, and your life would be in jeopardy by doing so, you probably wouldn't think risking your life was worth it.

I simply can't see why I, as a law-abiding property owner, should be expected to worry more about the value of a criminal's life than the criminal has to. Seems to me that should be HIS concern, not mine.

if that criminal has no respect for my or my property, i return the favor. i honestly don't give a shit about their motive or how mistreated they feel they are from the world around them.

It has little to do with that. It's just an excuse to steal and destroy things. I'd be willing to bet if you asked any of those lowlifes if they knew the name George Floyd, probably half of them would tell you they never heard of the guy.

 

[kaz]

I watched the Laura show tonight. She was discussing the continuing riots and attacks on businesses in Minneapolis this weekend that no other MSM outlet covered. Interviewing business owners, they told their story how they ran to their business only to helplessly watch it be looted, destroyed, and in some cases, burnt to the ground.

Some had businesses handed down for generations. Others were foreigners who came here to realize the American dream. Their city and state leaders allowed their dreams to go up in smoke.

Lowlifes who do these things have no fear, because there is no real deterrent to stopping them. We've seen these so-called leaders tell their police to stand down; to not enforce laws; to not protect these businesses; to allow them "room" to vent.

IMO, a real deterrent works every time it's tried. What if we had a federal law that allowed property owners to use deadly force to protect their property with no ability for city or local governments to prosecute?

A group of thugs start busting into a business. The business owner and family or other employees open fire killing dozens or hundreds of lowlifes. Other businesses do the same. Who in their right mind (after witnessing this) would think of trying to break into, or destroying another business down the street weary if they are armed and willing to kill to protect their investment?

True, hundreds of funerals, but also hundreds of businesses saved, millions of dollars not lost, and thousands of jobs saved in just one city. We need a national law of using deadly force to protect our property.

Time to change the constitution---it is a right to shoot and kill rioters/looters/thugs attacking people. I can support that-------Texas used to have this as their castle doctrine.

Still do.
Remember Joe Horn!!!!!!

Joe Horn is my hero. I listened to that 911 call I don't know how many times. It was hilarious.

I'd love to have him for a neighbor!!

I think a lot of people would have loved to do what he did. Unfortunately, it's not legal. Even if it was, there would be some people who wouldn't have the guts to kill a person.

When I have people that I teach who express reservations about killing someone, or admit that they are unsure if they could, I tell them to go hunting. Book a deer or hog hunt and go kill something; see what it feels like. If you can't get past that, you probably shouldn't bother carrying a pistol.
As far as carrying knives, I tell them they can book a hog hunt with dogs where the dogs will run the hog down, hold it, and then you kill it with a knife.
If either of these things is too much for you, you should really re-consider carrying lethal defense tools.
But honestly, most people can handle it, they just aren't comfortable with how easy it really is.

Never understood how someone couldnt shoot another human when that human was going to kill you.
To be honest I'd feel worse shooting the deer....

Because humans are hard-wired to be uncomfortable with hurting other humans. Soldiers and police officers have to be trained specifically to bypass that reflexive reaction.

I'm not sure I believe that. I think it may be a cultural taboo rather than hard-wired into us, because frankly, it has never bothered me a bit.
And all our ancestors seemed pretty damn comfortable with stabbing each other in the face, and beating each brains in, and then chopping the heads off and taking them home as trophies.

So I'm pretty fucking sure none of us are hard-wired against this sort of thing, because if we were, none of that shit would have happened. But it did, everywhere in the world, all throughout history.

Yeah, but that was then and this is now. We humans (particularly Americans) have become more civilized with every generation. What people did to others 100 years ago, few would dream of doing now.

Look at the US today. According to the left, the most vile thing one can do to another is offend them. If a guy puts on a dress and high heels, we refer to him as a her. Today, you can get more time in jail for beating your dog than beating your wife. In many parts of the country, you can't smoke inside public places, and even outside in other places. You don't want to offend any non-smoker. If two guys or two gals want to get married, people don't beat them up, the marriage is conducted and sanctioned by the government.

That is just dumb. It isn’t about offending. You have every right to poison yourself, but you don’t have the right to poison others.

If second hand smoke were poisoning others, people who inhaled cigaret smoke directly would be dead before the cigarette was finished. I don't mind if people take a position on something, just as long as they are honest about it. I get it. Some people can't stand the smell of smoke. But their push to stop it is because they're uncomfortable with it, not health concerns.

My sister used to be the same way. She'd start coughing if you started to pull a cigarette out and didn't even light it yet. We grew up in a smoking household as my mother was a smoker since she became an adult. She probably smoked while she carried all of us in pregnancy.

That isnt they it works. The affect is cumulative. If a person has asthma or COPD, the amount they can tolerate is very low. I think it is incredibly selfish to force people to breath it in public spaces. It’s no different than urinating in public spaces.

Perhaps, but I quote a comedian who once said "Santa Monic beaches are now no smoking. I hate to inform them, but beaches are located outside."

Yes, there are places that ban smoking even outdoors. When the commies got their way here, businesses would allow their smoking employees to have a cigarette outside of the building. After they got their way, then they started to complain that smokers were getting out of work to have cigarettes. Well......you bitched because those employees were smoking and working at the same time. You stopped it. So now you're complaining that they are smoking outside like you wanted, and not working to catch their cigarettes.

In any case, this argument started to show another poster what snowflakes our US society has become.

True....but I just hate walking through a doorway and a cloud of smoke

I hate walking into an elevator - or pretty much any space - and into a cloud of cheap, choking perfume, but I don't think that means I get to outlaw wearing it in public places.

And before you try the, "Oh, well, THAT isn't bad for you", I consider anything that makes me cough until I gag to be bad for me. But I don't consider myself to have the right to live around other humans without ever being inconvenienced by them.

Before they banned cigarettes in all places here in Ohio, they placed it for a vote knowing fully well how greatly outnumbered smokers are to non-smokers. Then they called that fair. We voted on how a business is supposed to conduct their business. Before you knew it, bars started to close up all over.

I watched the Laura show tonight. She was discussing the continuing riots and attacks on businesses in Minneapolis this weekend that no other MSM outlet covered. Interviewing business owners, they told their story how they ran to their business only to helplessly watch it be looted, destroyed, and in some cases, burnt to the ground.

Some had businesses handed down for generations. Others were foreigners who came here to realize the American dream. Their city and state leaders allowed their dreams to go up in smoke.

Lowlifes who do these things have no fear, because there is no real deterrent to stopping them. We've seen these so-called leaders tell their police to stand down; to not enforce laws; to not protect these businesses; to allow them "room" to vent.

IMO, a real deterrent works every time it's tried. What if we had a federal law that allowed property owners to use deadly force to protect their property with no ability for city or local governments to prosecute?

A group of thugs start busting into a business. The business owner and family or other employees open fire killing dozens or hundreds of lowlifes. Other businesses do the same. Who in their right mind (after witnessing this) would think of trying to break into, or destroying another business down the street weary if they are armed and willing to kill to protect their investment?

True, hundreds of funerals, but also hundreds of businesses saved, millions of dollars not lost, and thousands of jobs saved in just one city. We need a national law of using deadly force to protect our property.

Looters and people who are trying to destroy local businesses (e.g., burn them) should be shot on sight. I don't think that for the general rioters who are not looting though. They should just go to jail

I think you mean protestors, and I agree with that. Rioters are the people who are breaking into businesses and stealing their merchandise. But as far as protesters are concerned, if they are blocking the road, you should be able to roll over them like bowling pins without any penalty.

Fair enough, to be more specific, there are:

Peaceful protesters - People who demonstrate on sidewalks and don't interfere with others

- I'm good with them, that's America

Non-peaceful protesters - People who are rioting or to your point impeding others. They are not peaceful protesters, but they are not destroying the property of others or harming other people.

- Arrest them until the rest disperse. They should be charged though, not caught and released

Violent protesters destroying property and looters

- Shoot to kill

 

[Cecilie1200]

I watched the Laura show tonight. She was discussing the continuing riots and attacks on businesses in Minneapolis this weekend that no other MSM outlet covered. Interviewing business owners, they told their story how they ran to their business only to helplessly watch it be looted, destroyed, and in some cases, burnt to the ground.

Some had businesses handed down for generations. Others were foreigners who came here to realize the American dream. Their city and state leaders allowed their dreams to go up in smoke.

Lowlifes who do these things have no fear, because there is no real deterrent to stopping them. We've seen these so-called leaders tell their police to stand down; to not enforce laws; to not protect these businesses; to allow them "room" to vent.

IMO, a real deterrent works every time it's tried. What if we had a federal law that allowed property owners to use deadly force to protect their property with no ability for city or local governments to prosecute?

A group of thugs start busting into a business. The business owner and family or other employees open fire killing dozens or hundreds of lowlifes. Other businesses do the same. Who in their right mind (after witnessing this) would think of trying to break into, or destroying another business down the street weary if they are armed and willing to kill to protect their investment?

True, hundreds of funerals, but also hundreds of businesses saved, millions of dollars not lost, and thousands of jobs saved in just one city. We need a national law of using deadly force to protect our property.

Time to change the constitution---it is a right to shoot and kill rioters/looters/thugs attacking people. I can support that-------Texas used to have this as their castle doctrine.

Still do.
Remember Joe Horn!!!!!!

Joe Horn is my hero. I listened to that 911 call I don't know how many times. It was hilarious.

I'd love to have him for a neighbor!!

I think a lot of people would have loved to do what he did. Unfortunately, it's not legal. Even if it was, there would be some people who wouldn't have the guts to kill a person.

When I have people that I teach who express reservations about killing someone, or admit that they are unsure if they could, I tell them to go hunting. Book a deer or hog hunt and go kill something; see what it feels like. If you can't get past that, you probably shouldn't bother carrying a pistol.
As far as carrying knives, I tell them they can book a hog hunt with dogs where the dogs will run the hog down, hold it, and then you kill it with a knife.
If either of these things is too much for you, you should really re-consider carrying lethal defense tools.
But honestly, most people can handle it, they just aren't comfortable with how easy it really is.

Never understood how someone couldnt shoot another human when that human was going to kill you.
To be honest I'd feel worse shooting the deer....

Because humans are hard-wired to be uncomfortable with hurting other humans. Soldiers and police officers have to be trained specifically to bypass that reflexive reaction.

I'm not sure I believe that. I think it may be a cultural taboo rather than hard-wired into us, because frankly, it has never bothered me a bit.
And all our ancestors seemed pretty damn comfortable with stabbing each other in the face, and beating each brains in, and then chopping the heads off and taking them home as trophies.

So I'm pretty fucking sure none of us are hard-wired against this sort of thing, because if we were, none of that shit would have happened. But it did, everywhere in the world, all throughout history.

Yeah, but that was then and this is now. We humans (particularly Americans) have become more civilized with every generation. What people did to others 100 years ago, few would dream of doing now.

Look at the US today. According to the left, the most vile thing one can do to another is offend them. If a guy puts on a dress and high heels, we refer to him as a her. Today, you can get more time in jail for beating your dog than beating your wife. In many parts of the country, you can't smoke inside public places, and even outside in other places. You don't want to offend any non-smoker. If two guys or two gals want to get married, people don't beat them up, the marriage is conducted and sanctioned by the government.

That is just dumb. It isn’t about offending. You have every right to poison yourself, but you don’t have the right to poison others.

If second hand smoke were poisoning others, people who inhaled cigaret smoke directly would be dead before the cigarette was finished. I don't mind if people take a position on something, just as long as they are honest about it. I get it. Some people can't stand the smell of smoke. But their push to stop it is because they're uncomfortable with it, not health concerns.

My sister used to be the same way. She'd start coughing if you started to pull a cigarette out and didn't even light it yet. We grew up in a smoking household as my mother was a smoker since she became an adult. She probably smoked while she carried all of us in pregnancy.

That isnt they it works. The affect is cumulative. If a person has asthma or COPD, the amount they can tolerate is very low. I think it is incredibly selfish to force people to breath it in public spaces. It’s no different than urinating in public spaces.

Perhaps, but I quote a comedian who once said "Santa Monic beaches are now no smoking. I hate to inform them, but beaches are located outside."

Yes, there are places that ban smoking even outdoors. When the commies got their way here, businesses would allow their smoking employees to have a cigarette outside of the building. After they got their way, then they started to complain that smokers were getting out of work to have cigarettes. Well......you bitched because those employees were smoking and working at the same time. You stopped it. So now you're complaining that they are smoking outside like you wanted, and not working to catch their cigarettes.

In any case, this argument started to show another poster what snowflakes our US society has become.

True....but I just hate walking through a doorway and a cloud of smoke

I hate walking into an elevator - or pretty much any space - and into a cloud of cheap, choking perfume, but I don't think that means I get to outlaw wearing it in public places.

And before you try the, "Oh, well, THAT isn't bad for you", I consider anything that makes me cough until I gag to be bad for me. But I don't consider myself to have the right to live around other humans without ever being inconvenienced by them.

Hey - I'm not going to disagree with you on that. I have to deal with Middle Eastern students (male) who believe cologne should be poured on every possible area of the body. You can follow the trail down the hall and it takes hours to dissipate.

But you can't really regulate it. You can't even really define "cheap perfume". But you CAN with cigarette smoke and there are identifiable, well researched health issues.

When someone has bathed in it to the point that it singes my nose hairs from five feet away, it ALL smells cheap.

You actually could regulate it, and there are identifiable, well-research health issues, quite immediate and urgent. People with asthma or COPD can have an attack triggered by sitting in a work cubicle next to one occupied by someone drenched in perfume. My sister's employer had to implement a "scent-free workplace" policy after her third asthma attack brought on by going to the ladies' room after some selfish twat spritzed up in there on her lunch break. She'd been spoken to repeatedly by HR about the health risk and inconvenience she was causing, and wouldn't quit until it became official policy and her job was put at risk.

I'm actually in favor of workplace policies like that, or like office buildings requiring you to be at least 20 feet from the door to smoke; not so much with the actual laws, though.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I watched the Laura show tonight. She was discussing the continuing riots and attacks on businesses in Minneapolis this weekend that no other MSM outlet covered. Interviewing business owners, they told their story how they ran to their business only to helplessly watch it be looted, destroyed, and in some cases, burnt to the ground.

Some had businesses handed down for generations. Others were foreigners who came here to realize the American dream. Their city and state leaders allowed their dreams to go up in smoke.

Lowlifes who do these things have no fear, because there is no real deterrent to stopping them. We've seen these so-called leaders tell their police to stand down; to not enforce laws; to not protect these businesses; to allow them "room" to vent.

IMO, a real deterrent works every time it's tried. What if we had a federal law that allowed property owners to use deadly force to protect their property with no ability for city or local governments to prosecute?

A group of thugs start busting into a business. The business owner and family or other employees open fire killing dozens or hundreds of lowlifes. Other businesses do the same. Who in their right mind (after witnessing this) would think of trying to break into, or destroying another business down the street weary if they are armed and willing to kill to protect their investment?

True, hundreds of funerals, but also hundreds of businesses saved, millions of dollars not lost, and thousands of jobs saved in just one city. We need a national law of using deadly force to protect our property.

Time to change the constitution---it is a right to shoot and kill rioters/looters/thugs attacking people. I can support that-------Texas used to have this as their castle doctrine.

Still do.
Remember Joe Horn!!!!!!

Joe Horn is my hero. I listened to that 911 call I don't know how many times. It was hilarious.

I'd love to have him for a neighbor!!

I think a lot of people would have loved to do what he did. Unfortunately, it's not legal. Even if it was, there would be some people who wouldn't have the guts to kill a person.

When I have people that I teach who express reservations about killing someone, or admit that they are unsure if they could, I tell them to go hunting. Book a deer or hog hunt and go kill something; see what it feels like. If you can't get past that, you probably shouldn't bother carrying a pistol.
As far as carrying knives, I tell them they can book a hog hunt with dogs where the dogs will run the hog down, hold it, and then you kill it with a knife.
If either of these things is too much for you, you should really re-consider carrying lethal defense tools.
But honestly, most people can handle it, they just aren't comfortable with how easy it really is.

Never understood how someone couldnt shoot another human when that human was going to kill you.
To be honest I'd feel worse shooting the deer....

Because humans are hard-wired to be uncomfortable with hurting other humans. Soldiers and police officers have to be trained specifically to bypass that reflexive reaction.

I'm not sure I believe that. I think it may be a cultural taboo rather than hard-wired into us, because frankly, it has never bothered me a bit.
And all our ancestors seemed pretty damn comfortable with stabbing each other in the face, and beating each brains in, and then chopping the heads off and taking them home as trophies.

So I'm pretty fucking sure none of us are hard-wired against this sort of thing, because if we were, none of that shit would have happened. But it did, everywhere in the world, all throughout history.

Yeah, but that was then and this is now. We humans (particularly Americans) have become more civilized with every generation. What people did to others 100 years ago, few would dream of doing now.

Look at the US today. According to the left, the most vile thing one can do to another is offend them. If a guy puts on a dress and high heels, we refer to him as a her. Today, you can get more time in jail for beating your dog than beating your wife. In many parts of the country, you can't smoke inside public places, and even outside in other places. You don't want to offend any non-smoker. If two guys or two gals want to get married, people don't beat them up, the marriage is conducted and sanctioned by the government.

That is just dumb. It isn’t about offending. You have every right to poison yourself, but you don’t have the right to poison others.

If second hand smoke were poisoning others, people who inhaled cigaret smoke directly would be dead before the cigarette was finished. I don't mind if people take a position on something, just as long as they are honest about it. I get it. Some people can't stand the smell of smoke. But their push to stop it is because they're uncomfortable with it, not health concerns.

My sister used to be the same way. She'd start coughing if you started to pull a cigarette out and didn't even light it yet. We grew up in a smoking household as my mother was a smoker since she became an adult. She probably smoked while she carried all of us in pregnancy.

That isnt they it works. The affect is cumulative. If a person has asthma or COPD, the amount they can tolerate is very low. I think it is incredibly selfish to force people to breath it in public spaces. It’s no different than urinating in public spaces.

Perhaps, but I quote a comedian who once said "Santa Monic beaches are now no smoking. I hate to inform them, but beaches are located outside."

Yes, there are places that ban smoking even outdoors. When the commies got their way here, businesses would allow their smoking employees to have a cigarette outside of the building. After they got their way, then they started to complain that smokers were getting out of work to have cigarettes. Well......you bitched because those employees were smoking and working at the same time. You stopped it. So now you're complaining that they are smoking outside like you wanted, and not working to catch their cigarettes.

In any case, this argument started to show another poster what snowflakes our US society has become.

True....but I just hate walking through a doorway and a cloud of smoke

I hate walking into an elevator - or pretty much any space - and into a cloud of cheap, choking perfume, but I don't think that means I get to outlaw wearing it in public places.

And before you try the, "Oh, well, THAT isn't bad for you", I consider anything that makes me cough until I gag to be bad for me. But I don't consider myself to have the right to live around other humans without ever being inconvenienced by them.

Hey - I'm not going to disagree with you on that. I have to deal with Middle Eastern students (male) who believe cologne should be poured on every possible area of the body. You can follow the trail down the hall and it takes hours to dissipate.

But you can't really regulate it. You can't even really define "cheap perfume". But you CAN with cigarette smoke and there are identifiable, well researched health issues.

You can to some extent.
The Wife hired a black women who laid the perfume on heavily and all Her employees complained.
The Wife went to human resources and they told her to stop as it was bothering the other employees.

Worked with a guy who stunk to high heaven...as in terrible body odor.
The boss told him needed to shower more often.

My sister straight out told her selfish twat co-worker that if she really needed to spray on perfume twice a day, maybe she should investigate soap and water for her BO instead. They both wound up talking to HR about it. Stinky was told that it was now company policy that they had a "scent-free workplace", and my sister walked out unscathed after she threatened to sue the company and file an OSHA complaint.

My sister's a bit of a bitch.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I watched the Laura show tonight. She was discussing the continuing riots and attacks on businesses in Minneapolis this weekend that no other MSM outlet covered. Interviewing business owners, they told their story how they ran to their business only to helplessly watch it be looted, destroyed, and in some cases, burnt to the ground.

Some had businesses handed down for generations. Others were foreigners who came here to realize the American dream. Their city and state leaders allowed their dreams to go up in smoke.

Lowlifes who do these things have no fear, because there is no real deterrent to stopping them. We've seen these so-called leaders tell their police to stand down; to not enforce laws; to not protect these businesses; to allow them "room" to vent.

IMO, a real deterrent works every time it's tried. What if we had a federal law that allowed property owners to use deadly force to protect their property with no ability for city or local governments to prosecute?

A group of thugs start busting into a business. The business owner and family or other employees open fire killing dozens or hundreds of lowlifes. Other businesses do the same. Who in their right mind (after witnessing this) would think of trying to break into, or destroying another business down the street weary if they are armed and willing to kill to protect their investment?

True, hundreds of funerals, but also hundreds of businesses saved, millions of dollars not lost, and thousands of jobs saved in just one city. We need a national law of using deadly force to protect our property.

Time to change the constitution---it is a right to shoot and kill rioters/looters/thugs attacking people. I can support that-------Texas used to have this as their castle doctrine.

Still do.
Remember Joe Horn!!!!!!

Joe Horn is my hero. I listened to that 911 call I don't know how many times. It was hilarious.

I'd love to have him for a neighbor!!

I think a lot of people would have loved to do what he did. Unfortunately, it's not legal. Even if it was, there would be some people who wouldn't have the guts to kill a person.

When I have people that I teach who express reservations about killing someone, or admit that they are unsure if they could, I tell them to go hunting. Book a deer or hog hunt and go kill something; see what it feels like. If you can't get past that, you probably shouldn't bother carrying a pistol.
As far as carrying knives, I tell them they can book a hog hunt with dogs where the dogs will run the hog down, hold it, and then you kill it with a knife.
If either of these things is too much for you, you should really re-consider carrying lethal defense tools.
But honestly, most people can handle it, they just aren't comfortable with how easy it really is.

Never understood how someone couldnt shoot another human when that human was going to kill you.
To be honest I'd feel worse shooting the deer....

Because humans are hard-wired to be uncomfortable with hurting other humans. Soldiers and police officers have to be trained specifically to bypass that reflexive reaction.

I'm not sure I believe that. I think it may be a cultural taboo rather than hard-wired into us, because frankly, it has never bothered me a bit.
And all our ancestors seemed pretty damn comfortable with stabbing each other in the face, and beating each brains in, and then chopping the heads off and taking them home as trophies.

So I'm pretty fucking sure none of us are hard-wired against this sort of thing, because if we were, none of that shit would have happened. But it did, everywhere in the world, all throughout history.

Yeah, but that was then and this is now. We humans (particularly Americans) have become more civilized with every generation. What people did to others 100 years ago, few would dream of doing now.

Look at the US today. According to the left, the most vile thing one can do to another is offend them. If a guy puts on a dress and high heels, we refer to him as a her. Today, you can get more time in jail for beating your dog than beating your wife. In many parts of the country, you can't smoke inside public places, and even outside in other places. You don't want to offend any non-smoker. If two guys or two gals want to get married, people don't beat them up, the marriage is conducted and sanctioned by the government.

That is just dumb. It isn’t about offending. You have every right to poison yourself, but you don’t have the right to poison others.

If second hand smoke were poisoning others, people who inhaled cigaret smoke directly would be dead before the cigarette was finished. I don't mind if people take a position on something, just as long as they are honest about it. I get it. Some people can't stand the smell of smoke. But their push to stop it is because they're uncomfortable with it, not health concerns.

My sister used to be the same way. She'd start coughing if you started to pull a cigarette out and didn't even light it yet. We grew up in a smoking household as my mother was a smoker since she became an adult. She probably smoked while she carried all of us in pregnancy.

That isnt they it works. The affect is cumulative. If a person has asthma or COPD, the amount they can tolerate is very low. I think it is incredibly selfish to force people to breath it in public spaces. It’s no different than urinating in public spaces.

Perhaps, but I quote a comedian who once said "Santa Monic beaches are now no smoking. I hate to inform them, but beaches are located outside."

Yes, there are places that ban smoking even outdoors. When the commies got their way here, businesses would allow their smoking employees to have a cigarette outside of the building. After they got their way, then they started to complain that smokers were getting out of work to have cigarettes. Well......you bitched because those employees were smoking and working at the same time. You stopped it. So now you're complaining that they are smoking outside like you wanted, and not working to catch their cigarettes.

In any case, this argument started to show another poster what snowflakes our US society has become.

True....but I just hate walking through a doorway and a cloud of smoke

I hate walking into an elevator - or pretty much any space - and into a cloud of cheap, choking perfume, but I don't think that means I get to outlaw wearing it in public places.

And before you try the, "Oh, well, THAT isn't bad for you", I consider anything that makes me cough until I gag to be bad for me. But I don't consider myself to have the right to live around other humans without ever being inconvenienced by them.

Hey - I'm not going to disagree with you on that. I have to deal with Middle Eastern students (male) who believe cologne should be poured on every possible area of the body. You can follow the trail down the hall and it takes hours to dissipate.

But you can't really regulate it. You can't even really define "cheap perfume". But you CAN with cigarette smoke and there are identifiable, well researched health issues.

You can to some extent.
The Wife hired a black women who laid the perfume on heavily and all Her employees complained.
The Wife went to human resources and they told her to stop as it was bothering the other employees.

Worked with a guy who stunk to high heaven...as in terrible body odor.
The boss told him needed to shower more often.

But that is private employers right? If you were going to create a public space law...how would you define "cheap perfume"?

As I said, it all smells cheap when it's a cloud of funk several feet around you wherever you go. $200-an-ounce is no less a hazard to people with breathing problems than $2-a-gallon-at-Big-Lots.

 

[JoeB131]

Guy, at one point in my life, I actually liked killing people, lol.

So no, I don't expect anyone outside of my tribe to care what happens to me. Why does anyone else expect some strangers to give a shit?

Had nothing to do with the point...

 

[JoeB131]

So that's a reason to permit people to destroy the property of another? Do you pay for insurance Joe? I do. How do you suppose insurance companies recoup that money they have to pay out in claims, especially when you're talking hundreds of millions of dollars they collectively have to shell out?

You might have a point. The CEO might have to give up his Eight Figure Salary... that would be horrible.

Insurance or no insurance, some of these businesses are closed down for good. They not only robbed them of their property, they robbed them of their life.

If your life was your business, that is pretty pathetic.

For a lot of these businesses, looting was probably a blessing. They were going under anyway due to TRUMP PLAGUE, at least TRUMP RIOTS gave them a way out. That's how messed up things are now thanks to Trump.

Four more years? No thanks.

I will agree with your last statement though: Stuff can be replaced, lives cannot. If you were a person who was thinking about destroying the property of others, and your life would be in jeopardy by doing so, you probably wouldn't think risking your life was worth it.

Again, shows why we need to only have guns in the hands of law enforcement and the military... attitudes like that are a homicide waiting to happpen.

Did your HUD neighbors move out? That was a shooting incident looking for a place to happen.