Mass Shooting in Atlanta

[McDad]

He surrendered his rights when he fired on federal agents.

Incorrect. He surrendered his rights when he died. Or, does the accused, the criminal, or the guilty not possess rights in America.

It's a pathetic effort to goad, Luther. Your attack on the sect rivals how the other side attack suspects who are killed by LEOs. Y'all do that to justify the actions. There was a time when the liberal didn't trust "the man".

 

[hndog609]

Incorrect. He surrendered his rights when he died. Or, does the accused, the criminal, or the guilty not possess rights in America.

It's a pathetic effort to goad, Luther. Your attack on the sect rivals how the other side attack suspects who are killed by LEOs. Y'all do that to justify the actions. There was a time when the liberal didn't trust "the man".

That only lasts as long as it takes for their ideologies to reach the point where they ARE "the man".

 

[BeecherVol]

Incorrect. He surrendered his rights when he died. Or, does the accused, the criminal, or the guilty not possess rights in America.

It's a pathetic effort to goad, Luther. Your attack on the sect rivals how the other side attack suspects who are killed by LEOs. Y'all do that to justify the actions. There was a time when the liberal didn't trust "the man".

Its amazing (sad) how politics have change the way people view everything.

 

[McDad]

Its amazing (sad) how politics have change the way people view everything.

I've changed, too, since my days as a young man. I used to be much more conformist, nationalistic, and pro government as long as Rs were in charge. I am now much more inclined to simply want the government to be as small as possible, as insignificant as possible, and for people to be left the hell alone as much as possible no matter which party is in charge.

 

[luthervol]

Incorrect. He surrendered his rights when he died. Or, does the accused, the criminal, or the guilty not possess rights in America.

It's a pathetic effort to goad, Luther. Your attack on the sect rivals how the other side attack suspects who are killed by LEOs. Y'all do that to justify the actions. There was a time when the liberal didn't trust "the man".

lol......he was manufacturing illegal weapons and explosives with the expressed intent of an apocalyptic battle. His followers knew this.
When an armed man opens fire on a LEO, does the LEO have the right to fire back with deadly force?

An example from one of Rocktop's posts yesterday:

A person has the right to bail........BUT they surrender that right in the case of a capital crime or committing another crime while out on bail.

 

[McDad]

lol......he was manufacturing illegal weapons and explosives with the expressed intent of an apocalyptic battle. His followers knew this.
When an armed man opens fire on a LEO, does the LEO have the right to fire back with deadly force?

Ted Kennedy killed more people than DK (before the ATF showed up).

 

[luthervol]

Ted Kennedy killed more people than DK (before the ATF showed up).

Ted Kennedy didn't plan an apocalyptic Armageddon, manufacture illegal explosives, or open fire on Federal Officers.

 

[BeecherVol]

I've changed, too, since my days as a young man. I used to be much more conformist, nationalistic, and pro government as long as Rs were in charge. I am now much more inclined to simply want the government to be as small as possible, as insignificant as possible, and for people to be left the hell alone as much as possible no matter which party is in charge.

Agreed.

The idea of big government when my team is in charge typically back fires when that is no longer the case.

 

[C-south]

9th

Lol.

 

[McDad]

Ted Kennedy didn't plan an apocalyptic Armageddon, manufacture illegal explosives, or open fire on Federal Officers.

You make a good point. The ATF approach was completely rational and reasonable.

I wonder, again, why I am not in favor of rational and reasonable approaches to my constitutional rights

 

[luthervol]

You make a good point. The ATF approach was completely rational and reasonable.

I wonder, again, why I am not in favor of rational and reasonable approaches to my constitutional rights

I'm not sure that the manufacturing of illegal explosives is a constitutional right.

 

[McDad]

I'm not sure that the manufacturing of illegal explosives is a constitutional right.

I agreed. The ATF had a rational and reasonable approach given the imminent threat and illegal activity..

That's why I am not in favor of rational and reasonable approaches where my rights are concerned.

Surely you aren't suggesting rational and reasonable is somehow violent with illegal activity and peaceful with legal activity when done by the same entity.

 

[VolStrom]

I'm not sure that the manufacturing of illegal explosives is a constitutional right.

Interesting statement. Either something is constitutional or it isn't and that is decided by the courts. If it's legal or illegal is also up to the courts. What if something is legal, but unconstitutional or is illegal but constitutional?

 

[BeecherVol]

lol......he was manufacturing illegal weapons and explosives with the expressed intent of an apocalyptic battle. His followers knew this.
When an armed man opens fire on a LEO, does the LEO have the right to fire back with deadly force?

An example from one of Rocktop's posts yesterday:

A person has the right to bail........BUT they surrender that right in the case of a capital crime or committing another crime while out on bail.

So Koresh along with some of his followers paid no attention to the law or "deterrent" set in place at the time in regards to weapons (guns and explosives), due to what was described as a "apocalyptic battle" they were planning to be apart of.

Thats hard to believe.

 

[luthervol]

I agreed. The ATF had a rational and reasonable approach given the imminent threat and illegal activity..

That's why I am not in favor of rational and reasonable approaches where my rights are concerned.

Surely you aren't suggesting rational and reasonable is somehow violent with illegal activity and peaceful with legal activity when done by the same entity.

Rational and reasonable is always the preferred approach. Rational and reasonable is precisely what leads to taking differing approaches to legal and illegal activities.

 

[luthervol]

Interesting statement. Either something is constitutional or it isn't and that is decided by the courts. If it's legal or illegal is also up to the courts. What if something is legal, but unconstitutional or is illegal but constitutional?

Decided by the courts.

 

[luthervol]

So Koresh along with some of his followers paid no attention to the law or "deterrent" set in place at the time in regards to weapons (guns and explosives), due to what was described as a "apocalyptic battle" they were planning to be apart of.

Thats hard to believe.

And we see how stupid that was and how it turned out.

 

[BeecherVol]

And we see how stupid that was and how it turned out.

Im not arguing that.
My response was a sarcastic one in regards to why Koresh and his followers obviously were not phased by the laws they were breaking to reach the end the desired.

 

[MG1968]

Ted Kennedy didn't plan an apocalyptic Armageddon, manufacture illegal explosives, or open fire on Federal Officers.

No, but he did serve in Congress for 5 decades. Which is just as bad as anything Koresh was alleged to have been doing.

 

[LouderVol]

Hysterical...........
You guys are the ones talking about what "could happen" with your obsessive paranoia about government.

has happened with our government.
or do you not believe in systemic racism? or all the examples of the government wrongly harming its own citizens?
Tuskegee, Bundy, Wacco, Kent State. you need to do a background check on the government since you seem to be such a fan of it.

 

[LouderVol]

Koresh was an idiot and the people who followed him were bigger idiots. Also, weren't they heavily armed? I'm not saying the government's approach was correct, only that Koresh and company were total fools.

And please don't tell me that you think that if the Japanese Americans had been heavily armed that things would have gone better for them.
Both of your examples serve only to prove the nonsense behind the notion that being heavily armed somehow offers you protection against our government when it does something stupid.

lets ask the brits how a disarmed population would have gone.

 

[LouderVol]

Ted Kennedy didn't plan an apocalyptic Armageddon, manufacture illegal explosives, or open fire on Federal Officers.

he was a kennedy. there was a lot he did that got buried deep.

 

[KB5252]

Why don't we blame the vehicles these idiots use to travel to the scenes of their crimes? If not for those vehicles they would be less likely to hurt many people.

 

[luthervol]

has happened with our government.
or do you not believe in systemic racism? or all the examples of the government wrongly harming its own citizens?
Tuskegee, Bundy, Wacco, Kent State. you need to do a background check on the government since you seem to be such a fan of it.

I'm fully aware that our government is far from perfect, but it's hard to find a better one.

Also, I've always said that the only thing worse than government is the absence of government.

 

[hog88]

I'm fully aware that our government is far from perfect, but it's hard to find a better one.

Also, I've always said that the only thing worse than government is the absence of government.

The absence of government is far better than a totalitarian government.