Brandishing lawyer won't get his guns back

[ThisIsMe]

Why are you insinuating that these people are racist?!? You a fucking deranged!

You don’t know?? That’s the standard leftist fallback…EVERYONE they don’t like is racist….

 

[ThisIsMe]

Its almost like they wanted to blow each other's heads off.

Does that thought make you all warm inside? I bet it does…

 

[ThisIsMe]

I would agree, the pardon does seem to do that, but also accepting a pardon is an admittance of guilt.

No it’s not…where do people get that. People are wrongly convicted, it happens, people are convicted on bs means, such as political vendetta, getting a pardon can correct these things and doesn’t necessarily mean they were guilty.

 

[ThisIsMe]

And they made the first threat. I am curious how a court would have treated it, if a protestor took out their gun and shot the pink lump in his head. I mean, he pointed his gun at them first. Self defense.

That’s too makes you warm and fuzzy, doesn’t it.

Are we forgetting that these rioters had already shown willingness to be violent.

The idea of self defense from the left is, you have to wait until someone has beaten you bloody, tied you up, beaten your wife and kids, tied them up, THEN you can use self defense…

 

[bripat9643]

You don’t know?? That’s the standard leftist fallback…EVERYONE they don’t like is racist….

They started insinuating it the day the story became public.

 

[bripat9643]

That’s too makes you warm and fuzzy, doesn’t it.

Are we forgetting that these rioters had already shown willingness to be violent.

The idea of self defense from the left is, you have to wait until someone has beaten you bloody, tied you up, beaten your wife and kids, tied them up, THEN you can use self defense…

These are the same morons who claim Kyle Rittenhouse should have allowed himself to get shot.

 

[Missourian]

I also think gated communities are bad.

Why?

 

[Missourian]

They can always buy more guns.

He got one right away.

Mark McCloskey, who pulled gun on St. Louis BLM protesters, shows off new rifle

The gun-toting St. Louis lawyer who pleaded guilty to pulling a gun on Black Lives Matter protesters is flaunting his new rifle.

nypost.com

 

[ThisIsMe]

They started insinuating it the day the story became public.

Right. It couldn’t be that 500 rioters broke into their community…it HAS to be because they are racist….even though no sign of racism was present.

 

[Missourian]

Once you break into or onto private property, you can and will be confronted with a firearm in Missouri.

Bank on it.

If you don't like it...stay in limp-wristed pussyville.

 

[toobfreak]

It was dumb. Dumb on the part of those two damned Fools.

I'll tell you what was dumb.

• It was dumb that leftwing losers actually thought that carrying out harassment and protesting in a private gated community of rich republicans would actually advance their leftwing agenda beyond proving what sociopaths the Left really are.
• It was dumb that people living in that strata of society couldn't count on their own worthless police department to keep the riffraff out of the fine community they pay for.
• It was dumb that the two of them couldn't nail that bunch of losers to the wall without letting themselves get recorded on a cellphone or taken onto social media (probably staged like J6) that half the bodies didn't end up floating in the East River.
• It was especially dumb that people of such obvious wealth can't hire competent defense lawyers because all the good ones are busy trying to keep democrats like Hunter Biden out of jail.

 

[reconmark]

I think you meant there was no reasonable expectation, and yes there certainly was. Only a self-important prog asshole would make your assumption that the mob wasn't dangerous.

Thank God that more sane, intelligent and educated people share my point of view and not the "I'll shoot you for walking past my house idiots" like you.

 

[bripat9643]

Thank God that more sane, intelligent and educated people share my point of view and not the "I'll shoot you for walking past my house idiots" like you.

Who did he shoot?

Eh, asshole?

 

[reconmark]

Who did he shoot?

Eh, asshole?

So either you are unable to comprehend third grade english or basically stupid; not to worry as I stated before, more capable people have basically come to the rational, lawful conclusion.

Those two criminals aren't getting the guns back, they are a danger to the public.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

You apparently have a hard time understanding that government expropriated their property, which is a constitutional violation.

No it's not. The constitution doesn't prohibit seizure of property, it only limits the government to reasonable seizures.

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

Accepting a pardon is considered a tacit admission of guilt.

I am not so sure that the law is settled on that, despite the 1915 supreme court case which mentioned that in passing.

It makes no sense. There is no one more deserving of a pardon than an innocent person who was wrongly convicted.

Regards,
Jim

 

[SavannahMann]

I'll tell you what was dumb.

• It was dumb that leftwing losers actually thought that carrying out harassment and protesting in a private gated community of rich republicans would actually advance their leftwing agenda beyond proving what sociopaths the Left really are.
• It was dumb that people living in that strata of society couldn't count on their own worthless police department to keep the riffraff out of the fine community they pay for.
• It was dumb that the two of them couldn't nail that bunch of losers to the wall without letting themselves get recorded on a cellphone or taken onto social media (probably staged like J6) that half the bodies didn't end up floating in the East River.
• It was especially dumb that people of such obvious wealth can't hire competent defense lawyers because all the good ones are busy trying to keep democrats like Hunter Biden out of jail.

The problem with the “competent” defense lawyers is that video makes it difficult to create the doubts they need. You had two morons on video breaking the law.

How many times have I written the line? You all need to learn the laws. Not what you think they say. Or worse, what you think they should say. But what the laws actually are.

A gun isn’t a magic wand of death. Just pointing it in the general direction does nothing.

Let’s be serious for a moment. Let’s say they can put one person down with two shots from the rifle. Probably not, but let’s pretend they can. That means best case scenario, if the guy is the direct descendant of Carlos Hathcock, then fifteen are down when his bolt locks back on an empty magazine.

Let’s give the wife another two with her nine. That’s seventeen down. Best case scenario. I doubt that they could do it. But let’s say they do.

What then? The crowd tears them limb from limb? They get stomped to death?

You tough talking guys crack me up. You really do. In one thread you act like the crowd will just stand there and obligingly get shot. In the next thread you can’t wait to describe how dangerous the same dark skinned people are. Animals who will rob, rape, and murder without any hesitation.

If that couple had opened fire, they wouldn’t have lived long enough to get charged with a crime. The crowd would have killed them. Charging outside and waving the bang stick around doesn’t do anything but escalate the situation. And then if it doesn’t work, you can’t back down, the crowd will follow you. Then kill you.

I showed my wife the video. She agreed they were idiots. If anything this proves one of Murphys laws of combat. Professional soldiers are predictable. The world is full of amateurs. A soldier would be smart enough to seek cover. And defend from a position where additional logistical support was present. More ammo in other words.

But if you are going to be dumb enough to go outside. Have your spouse in cover with the rifle to cover you. Have a plan of action. So she knows if it starts that you are running to your right or whatever. That way there is a better than average chance of them not shooting you. Another one of Murphys laws. Friendly fire isn’t.

 

[reconmark]

No it's not. The constitution doesn't prohibit seizure of property, it only limits the government to reasonable seizures.

Damn you just got made dunce of the board....

 

[Crepitus]

I am not so sure that the law is settled on that, despite the 1915 supreme court case which mentioned that in passing.

It makes no sense. There is no one more deserving of a pardon than an innocent person who was wrongly convicted.

Regards,
Jim

It's been used as grounds for civil suits.

 

[bripat9643]

No it's not. The constitution doesn't prohibit seizure of property, it only limits the government to reasonable seizures.

The Fourth Amendment only applies to crimes. These people committed no crimes.