Breaking — McCloskeys charged with felony by Kim Gardner…

[pknopp]

I don't see how she can get a conviction. They may have been way overly paranoid but that isn't illegal.

So if someone down the street from you was killed in mob violence recently and now, you have mob violence at your door, you gonna risk this is a nice mob that tore down your gate?

Those marching to the mayor's house were clear they meant no one harm. As I noted though, you can legally stand outside your house with a gun.

They were clear? How?

They let the neighbors know they were not interested in bothering them.

Did they also notify this couple of the same?

No idea if they were specifically told or not.

So, it probably was NOT clear to the couple that the mob meant them no harm. Hindsight from a distance is usually a lot clearer than immediate reaction in the moment. Do you think the outcome would have been different had members of the mob quietly told the couple that they were only interested in storming the Mayor's house and not their's instead of shouting at them? Obviously, this couple was scared. They had been seeing the violence directed at people like them, and they had a mob entering their private property with (likely) unknown intentions. Don't we all agree it's incumbent on the mob to at least make sure the people who own the property they are trespassing on know they are not in danger, and to leave quietly if the property owners tell them to?

Do you have a point?

you seem to be avoiding a pretty simple question.

he spelled it out clearly - HOW DID YOU KNOW THEY MEANT NO ONE HARM???

you can either answer it or you can play dodgeball and that answers it for you.

As you walk down a street on any given day, how do you know this about anyone? Now, what is the point?

you don't walk down the street in a huge crowd.
huge crowds have been destroying shit around these people for several days

so you are playing dodgeball and not putting yourself in their situation - just sitting in a distant judgement and playing the fool.

or not playing. either is fine.

Why not make a point? What exactly are you arguing?

that you have zero clue as to whether or not a "large crowd" moving towards you means you no harm GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES of st louis at the time this was done - large crowds were in fact destroying everything in their path.

now - you're at home watching TV and you see huge crowds lighting shit on fire and beating up people for no reason at all you can tell. THEN you see a huge crowd coming your way. SAID huge crowd rips down the gate to your property.

what do you do? serve cookies and cheer them on like a parade
or
protect you and your family?

I'm confused. I said in my very first post that I did not think the charges would stick and hugely paranoid or not they could do what they did.

So again, what are you arguing with me over?

charges
never
should
have
been
filed

it's a political game from a marxist. that's all.

but your stance of THEY MEANT NO ONE HARM - you have zero way of knowing that. ZERO.

and it's akin to teaching helen keller to hear to get you to listen.

Let's see. They peacefully turn themselves in or get arrested and then fight it in the courts. Right?

again - nothing to do with the fact that you have zero idea of the intention of the crowd.

A person has no idea about anyone. You simply for some reason want to argue an irrelevant point. Whatever.

 

[pknopp]

I don't see how she can get a conviction. They may have been way overly paranoid but that isn't illegal.

So if someone down the street from you was killed in mob violence recently and now, you have mob violence at your door, you gonna risk this is a nice mob that tore down your gate?

Those marching to the mayor's house were clear they meant no one harm. As I noted though, you can legally stand outside your house with a gun.

They were clear? How?

They let the neighbors know they were not interested in bothering them.

Did they also notify this couple of the same?

No idea if they were specifically told or not.

So, it probably was NOT clear to the couple that the mob meant them no harm. Hindsight from a distance is usually a lot clearer than immediate reaction in the moment. Do you think the outcome would have been different had members of the mob quietly told the couple that they were only interested in storming the Mayor's house and not their's instead of shouting at them? Obviously, this couple was scared. They had been seeing the violence directed at people like them, and they had a mob entering their private property with (likely) unknown intentions. Don't we all agree it's incumbent on the mob to at least make sure the people who own the property they are trespassing on know they are not in danger, and to leave quietly if the property owners tell them to?

Do you have a point?

you seem to be avoiding a pretty simple question.

he spelled it out clearly - HOW DID YOU KNOW THEY MEANT NO ONE HARM???

you can either answer it or you can play dodgeball and that answers it for you.

As you walk down a street on any given day, how do you know this about anyone? Now, what is the point?

you don't walk down the street in a huge crowd.
huge crowds have been destroying shit around these people for several days

so you are playing dodgeball and not putting yourself in their situation - just sitting in a distant judgement and playing the fool.

or not playing. either is fine.

Why not make a point? What exactly are you arguing?

that you have zero clue as to whether or not a "large crowd" moving towards you means you no harm GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES of st louis at the time this was done - large crowds were in fact destroying everything in their path.

now - you're at home watching TV and you see huge crowds lighting shit on fire and beating up people for no reason at all you can tell. THEN you see a huge crowd coming your way. SAID huge crowd rips down the gate to your property.

what do you do? serve cookies and cheer them on like a parade
or
protect you and your family?

I'm confused. I said in my very first post that I did not think the charges would stick and hugely paranoid or not they could do what they did.

So again, what are you arguing with me over?

charges
never
should
have
been
filed

it's a political game from a marxist. that's all.

but your stance of THEY MEANT NO ONE HARM - you have zero way of knowing that. ZERO.

and it's akin to teaching helen keller to hear to get you to listen.

Let's see. They peacefully turn themselves in or get arrested and then fight it in the courts. Right?

Get arrested.....the payout for wrongful arrest pays more

Maybe. Do you believe that's a good system?

 

[22lcidw]

I don't see how she can get a conviction. They may have been way overly paranoid but that isn't illegal.

So if someone down the street from you was killed in mob violence recently and now, you have mob violence at your door, you gonna risk this is a nice mob that tore down your gate?

Those marching to the mayor's house were clear they meant no one harm. As I noted though, you can legally stand outside your house with a gun.

Yes, but you can't threaten others with a gun who are not threatening you.

You can stand there and tell people to stay off your property.

Right, and they will just leave, right?

By the way, what they were doing on the private property anyways?

I saw people marching to the mayor's house to protest in front of his house.

The mayor lived Blocks away the other direction

The protesters said they took the route they chose because the city had blocked streets.

So they break into a gated community that they did not have permission to be on to take a shortcut? That makes it fine and dandy, lil faun? 200 to 300 hundred angry SJWs that have already proven that they are prone to violence, the police given stand down orders to let this collection of human garbage to rampage sans consequences. Leftard pussbags like yourself seem to believe that they should huddle in their home and hope these thugs don't start ripping shit up and knocking out windows. I also heard the trash talking these alleged "peaceful protestors" were spewing. Vulgar, threatening and intimidating. It doesn't appear to me that these commie fucks were afraid in the slightest,....apprehensive because they are cowards at heart, but they were not "fearful". I wouldn't have shed a tear if McCloskey had emptied his entire arsenal on these thugs.

Let's see your evidence any one of those protesters committed any acts of violence before guns were pulled on them...

Let's see your evidence they threatened the McCloskey's before guns were pulled on them...

Let's see your evidence they trash talked the McCloskey's before guns were pulled on them...

Let's see your evidence they're commies...

You spout a lot of bullshit made up from the whole cloth spun from inside your deranged conspiratorial empty head.

Fuckface faun, an estimated crowd of 500 angry SJW thugs break down the gate of a secured, gated community that has been zoned as much, these fucks chant loudly, some of which are armed as they are walking down my street? I wouldn't feel the need to wait and see what their intentions were before I showed them that they better keep on moving their sorry asses down the road. If it means pointing a lock and loaded AR-15 with multiple magazines at the ready as I stand on my own property to insure that they realize that their bullshit, thuggish behavior will be met with some hollow-points to those empty skulls of theirs if they step on my property? So be it. They had no right to meander, threaten or attempt to intimidate this couple on their own property. These sorry sorry pieces of commie shit that trespass, vandalize and act like they own the place had the unmitigated galll to get their panties in a wad because someone stood up to them? That is hilarious and it shows what pussy snowflakes that they are.....my only regret is that the trash-talking wimps didn't get their knee-caps shot off. I can definitely understand how your tender, snowflake like heart was breaking at the mere thought of these marxist sacks of shit being put in their place.

(snicker)

BLM IS a commie front group, dipshit.......

BTW, in the urban dictionary "faun" is a sexualized pre-adolescent boy....certainly describes your mental capabilities. Only God knows what perversions you engage in. I bet the neighborhood kids give you a wide berth or at least they should.

(snicker)

"Fuckface faun, an estimated crowd of 500 angry SJW thugs break down the gate..."

... that's as far as I got in your delusional diatribe as that is not true. Guns were drawn on that crowd before the gate was broken. You lose again like always because you're fucked in tbe head and have no clue what you're talking about.

Did they breach the secured and gated community? Ummmm, yes......were the McCloskeys well within their right to stand their ground and secure their property? Ummmmm, yes. Were these commie fucks trespassing? Ummm, yes, since they didn't have a gate card to enter and broke the gate. I wholeheartedly support the McCloskeys and what they did.l Don't like it? Tough shit.....these commie fucks are lucky that they showed at least some good sense and didn't push the issue or they would still be cleaning up commie brain matter and guts off of the streets....not that I would give a fuck if they all croaked.

Commie lives don't matter, faun, the perv.

They weren't trespassing on the McCloskey's property. That you're too fucked in the head to comprehend that is your problem.

Regardless, you lied (or hallucinated) that breaking the gate justified the McCloskey's armed response since the guns came out before the gate was broken.

What you typed I do not know. But for a period of a month or so before death, destruction and mayhem was packaged as protests in many blue areas. It would be easy to believe personal safety could have been compromised.

That would be like saying James Fields was justified to mow down a crowd of protesters because other protesters were acting violently. The crowd that marched into Portland Place made no threats, neither verbally nor non-verbally when Mark McCloskey brandished his firearm. The gate was not yet broken and the protesters were walking in the street ... until they spotted McCloskey standing on his porch with an AR-15. It was only then that some protesters got up on the sidewalk (still not McCloskey property) and some started making threats.

That couple may have been in fear. How do you react? The architects of fear who promote this every day on TV have played their role.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I don't see how she can get a conviction. They may have been way overly paranoid but that isn't illegal.

So if someone down the street from you was killed in mob violence recently and now, you have mob violence at your door, you gonna risk this is a nice mob that tore down your gate?

Those marching to the mayor's house were clear they meant no one harm. As I noted though, you can legally stand outside your house with a gun.

They were clear? How?

They let the neighbors know they were not interested in bothering them.

Did they also notify this couple of the same?

No idea if they were specifically told or not.

So, it probably was NOT clear to the couple that the mob meant them no harm. Hindsight from a distance is usually a lot clearer than immediate reaction in the moment. Do you think the outcome would have been different had members of the mob quietly told the couple that they were only interested in storming the Mayor's house and not their's instead of shouting at them? Obviously, this couple was scared. They had been seeing the violence directed at people like them, and they had a mob entering their private property with (likely) unknown intentions. Don't we all agree it's incumbent on the mob to at least make sure the people who own the property they are trespassing on know they are not in danger, and to leave quietly if the property owners tell them to?

Do you have a point?

you seem to be avoiding a pretty simple question.

he spelled it out clearly - HOW DID YOU KNOW THEY MEANT NO ONE HARM???

you can either answer it or you can play dodgeball and that answers it for you.

As you walk down a street on any given day, how do you know this about anyone? Now, what is the point?

you don't walk down the street in a huge crowd.
huge crowds have been destroying shit around these people for several days

so you are playing dodgeball and not putting yourself in their situation - just sitting in a distant judgement and playing the fool.

or not playing. either is fine.

Why not make a point? What exactly are you arguing?

that you have zero clue as to whether or not a "large crowd" moving towards you means you no harm GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES of st louis at the time this was done - large crowds were in fact destroying everything in their path.

now - you're at home watching TV and you see huge crowds lighting shit on fire and beating up people for no reason at all you can tell. THEN you see a huge crowd coming your way. SAID huge crowd rips down the gate to your property.

what do you do? serve cookies and cheer them on like a parade
or
protect you and your family?

I'm confused. I said in my very first post that I did not think the charges would stick and hugely paranoid or not they could do what they did.

So again, what are you arguing with me over?

charges
never
should
have
been
filed

it's a political game from a marxist. that's all.

but your stance of THEY MEANT NO ONE HARM - you have zero way of knowing that. ZERO.

and it's akin to teaching helen keller to hear to get you to listen.

Let's see. They peacefully turn themselves in or get arrested and then fight it in the courts. Right?

Get arrested.....the payout for wrongful arrest pays more

Maybe. Do you believe that's a good system?

A good system wouldn't allow this.
They're within their rights

 

[iceberg]

I don't see how she can get a conviction. They may have been way overly paranoid but that isn't illegal.

So if someone down the street from you was killed in mob violence recently and now, you have mob violence at your door, you gonna risk this is a nice mob that tore down your gate?

Those marching to the mayor's house were clear they meant no one harm. As I noted though, you can legally stand outside your house with a gun.

They were clear? How?

They let the neighbors know they were not interested in bothering them.

Did they also notify this couple of the same?

No idea if they were specifically told or not.

So, it probably was NOT clear to the couple that the mob meant them no harm. Hindsight from a distance is usually a lot clearer than immediate reaction in the moment. Do you think the outcome would have been different had members of the mob quietly told the couple that they were only interested in storming the Mayor's house and not their's instead of shouting at them? Obviously, this couple was scared. They had been seeing the violence directed at people like them, and they had a mob entering their private property with (likely) unknown intentions. Don't we all agree it's incumbent on the mob to at least make sure the people who own the property they are trespassing on know they are not in danger, and to leave quietly if the property owners tell them to?

Do you have a point?

you seem to be avoiding a pretty simple question.

he spelled it out clearly - HOW DID YOU KNOW THEY MEANT NO ONE HARM???

you can either answer it or you can play dodgeball and that answers it for you.

As you walk down a street on any given day, how do you know this about anyone? Now, what is the point?

you don't walk down the street in a huge crowd.
huge crowds have been destroying shit around these people for several days

so you are playing dodgeball and not putting yourself in their situation - just sitting in a distant judgement and playing the fool.

or not playing. either is fine.

Why not make a point? What exactly are you arguing?

that you have zero clue as to whether or not a "large crowd" moving towards you means you no harm GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES of st louis at the time this was done - large crowds were in fact destroying everything in their path.

now - you're at home watching TV and you see huge crowds lighting shit on fire and beating up people for no reason at all you can tell. THEN you see a huge crowd coming your way. SAID huge crowd rips down the gate to your property.

what do you do? serve cookies and cheer them on like a parade
or
protect you and your family?

I'm confused. I said in my very first post that I did not think the charges would stick and hugely paranoid or not they could do what they did.

So again, what are you arguing with me over?

charges
never
should
have
been
filed

it's a political game from a marxist. that's all.

but your stance of THEY MEANT NO ONE HARM - you have zero way of knowing that. ZERO.

and it's akin to teaching helen keller to hear to get you to listen.

Let's see. They peacefully turn themselves in or get arrested and then fight it in the courts. Right?

again - nothing to do with the fact that you have zero idea of the intention of the crowd.

A person has no idea about anyone. You simply for some reason want to argue an irrelevant point. Whatever.

cause YOU SAID the large crowd meant no harm.

and then you wonder why people question that.

 

[pknopp]

I don't see how she can get a conviction. They may have been way overly paranoid but that isn't illegal.

So if someone down the street from you was killed in mob violence recently and now, you have mob violence at your door, you gonna risk this is a nice mob that tore down your gate?

Those marching to the mayor's house were clear they meant no one harm. As I noted though, you can legally stand outside your house with a gun.

They were clear? How?

They let the neighbors know they were not interested in bothering them.

Did they also notify this couple of the same?

No idea if they were specifically told or not.

So, it probably was NOT clear to the couple that the mob meant them no harm. Hindsight from a distance is usually a lot clearer than immediate reaction in the moment. Do you think the outcome would have been different had members of the mob quietly told the couple that they were only interested in storming the Mayor's house and not their's instead of shouting at them? Obviously, this couple was scared. They had been seeing the violence directed at people like them, and they had a mob entering their private property with (likely) unknown intentions. Don't we all agree it's incumbent on the mob to at least make sure the people who own the property they are trespassing on know they are not in danger, and to leave quietly if the property owners tell them to?

Do you have a point?

you seem to be avoiding a pretty simple question.

he spelled it out clearly - HOW DID YOU KNOW THEY MEANT NO ONE HARM???

you can either answer it or you can play dodgeball and that answers it for you.

As you walk down a street on any given day, how do you know this about anyone? Now, what is the point?

you don't walk down the street in a huge crowd.
huge crowds have been destroying shit around these people for several days

so you are playing dodgeball and not putting yourself in their situation - just sitting in a distant judgement and playing the fool.

or not playing. either is fine.

Why not make a point? What exactly are you arguing?

that you have zero clue as to whether or not a "large crowd" moving towards you means you no harm GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES of st louis at the time this was done - large crowds were in fact destroying everything in their path.

now - you're at home watching TV and you see huge crowds lighting shit on fire and beating up people for no reason at all you can tell. THEN you see a huge crowd coming your way. SAID huge crowd rips down the gate to your property.

what do you do? serve cookies and cheer them on like a parade
or
protect you and your family?

I'm confused. I said in my very first post that I did not think the charges would stick and hugely paranoid or not they could do what they did.

So again, what are you arguing with me over?

charges
never
should
have
been
filed

it's a political game from a marxist. that's all.

but your stance of THEY MEANT NO ONE HARM - you have zero way of knowing that. ZERO.

and it's akin to teaching helen keller to hear to get you to listen.

Let's see. They peacefully turn themselves in or get arrested and then fight it in the courts. Right?

Get arrested.....the payout for wrongful arrest pays more

Maybe. Do you believe that's a good system?

A good system wouldn't allow this.
They're within their rights

People argue for this all the time.

"just peacefully allow yourself to get arrested and fight it in court". Your rights also extend beyond the 2nd Amendment.

 

[pknopp]

I don't see how she can get a conviction. They may have been way overly paranoid but that isn't illegal.

So if someone down the street from you was killed in mob violence recently and now, you have mob violence at your door, you gonna risk this is a nice mob that tore down your gate?

Those marching to the mayor's house were clear they meant no one harm. As I noted though, you can legally stand outside your house with a gun.

They were clear? How?

They let the neighbors know they were not interested in bothering them.

Did they also notify this couple of the same?

No idea if they were specifically told or not.

So, it probably was NOT clear to the couple that the mob meant them no harm. Hindsight from a distance is usually a lot clearer than immediate reaction in the moment. Do you think the outcome would have been different had members of the mob quietly told the couple that they were only interested in storming the Mayor's house and not their's instead of shouting at them? Obviously, this couple was scared. They had been seeing the violence directed at people like them, and they had a mob entering their private property with (likely) unknown intentions. Don't we all agree it's incumbent on the mob to at least make sure the people who own the property they are trespassing on know they are not in danger, and to leave quietly if the property owners tell them to?

Do you have a point?

you seem to be avoiding a pretty simple question.

he spelled it out clearly - HOW DID YOU KNOW THEY MEANT NO ONE HARM???

you can either answer it or you can play dodgeball and that answers it for you.

As you walk down a street on any given day, how do you know this about anyone? Now, what is the point?

you don't walk down the street in a huge crowd.
huge crowds have been destroying shit around these people for several days

so you are playing dodgeball and not putting yourself in their situation - just sitting in a distant judgement and playing the fool.

or not playing. either is fine.

Why not make a point? What exactly are you arguing?

that you have zero clue as to whether or not a "large crowd" moving towards you means you no harm GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES of st louis at the time this was done - large crowds were in fact destroying everything in their path.

now - you're at home watching TV and you see huge crowds lighting shit on fire and beating up people for no reason at all you can tell. THEN you see a huge crowd coming your way. SAID huge crowd rips down the gate to your property.

what do you do? serve cookies and cheer them on like a parade
or
protect you and your family?

I'm confused. I said in my very first post that I did not think the charges would stick and hugely paranoid or not they could do what they did.

So again, what are you arguing with me over?

charges
never
should
have
been
filed

it's a political game from a marxist. that's all.

but your stance of THEY MEANT NO ONE HARM - you have zero way of knowing that. ZERO.

and it's akin to teaching helen keller to hear to get you to listen.

Let's see. They peacefully turn themselves in or get arrested and then fight it in the courts. Right?

again - nothing to do with the fact that you have zero idea of the intention of the crowd.

A person has no idea about anyone. You simply for some reason want to argue an irrelevant point. Whatever.

cause YOU SAID the large crowd meant no harm.

and then you wonder why people question that.

Did they harm anyone? Even after having guns pulled on them, did they harm anyone?

 

[Flash]

Every freedom loving person in this country has a vested interest in the outcome of this case.

Elections have consequences.

It is strange that a couple like the McCloskeys have become the face for the protection of the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

While they are unlikely champions they are probably the right people to fight it. They have the money and they have the legal savvy. They also have the videos showing them to be threatened by a vicious mob of deranged assholes. They have everything on their side, including a pardon in the back pocket if some stupid ass Moon Bat jury of inner city ghetto assholes were to find them guilty.

The problem with most fraudulent RTABA cases is that most people charged with a gun crime will take a plea deal to stay out of jail so the really good cases to challenge the filthy government's infringement upon our Constitutional rights never gets properly litigated.

The other things is that the chickenshit Supreme court has yet to declare what level of scrutiny these oppressive anti gun laws should have. It should be like all the other Constitutional rights and get strict scrutiny.

That is why it is so important to get Trump reelcted. So that he can put more Constitutional protectionists on the Supreme court.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I don't see how she can get a conviction. They may have been way overly paranoid but that isn't illegal.

So if someone down the street from you was killed in mob violence recently and now, you have mob violence at your door, you gonna risk this is a nice mob that tore down your gate?

Those marching to the mayor's house were clear they meant no one harm. As I noted though, you can legally stand outside your house with a gun.

They were clear? How?

They let the neighbors know they were not interested in bothering them.

Did they also notify this couple of the same?

No idea if they were specifically told or not.

So, it probably was NOT clear to the couple that the mob meant them no harm. Hindsight from a distance is usually a lot clearer than immediate reaction in the moment. Do you think the outcome would have been different had members of the mob quietly told the couple that they were only interested in storming the Mayor's house and not their's instead of shouting at them? Obviously, this couple was scared. They had been seeing the violence directed at people like them, and they had a mob entering their private property with (likely) unknown intentions. Don't we all agree it's incumbent on the mob to at least make sure the people who own the property they are trespassing on know they are not in danger, and to leave quietly if the property owners tell them to?

Do you have a point?

you seem to be avoiding a pretty simple question.

he spelled it out clearly - HOW DID YOU KNOW THEY MEANT NO ONE HARM???

you can either answer it or you can play dodgeball and that answers it for you.

As you walk down a street on any given day, how do you know this about anyone? Now, what is the point?

you don't walk down the street in a huge crowd.
huge crowds have been destroying shit around these people for several days

so you are playing dodgeball and not putting yourself in their situation - just sitting in a distant judgement and playing the fool.

or not playing. either is fine.

Why not make a point? What exactly are you arguing?

that you have zero clue as to whether or not a "large crowd" moving towards you means you no harm GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES of st louis at the time this was done - large crowds were in fact destroying everything in their path.

now - you're at home watching TV and you see huge crowds lighting shit on fire and beating up people for no reason at all you can tell. THEN you see a huge crowd coming your way. SAID huge crowd rips down the gate to your property.

what do you do? serve cookies and cheer them on like a parade
or
protect you and your family?

I'm confused. I said in my very first post that I did not think the charges would stick and hugely paranoid or not they could do what they did.

So again, what are you arguing with me over?

charges
never
should
have
been
filed

it's a political game from a marxist. that's all.

but your stance of THEY MEANT NO ONE HARM - you have zero way of knowing that. ZERO.

and it's akin to teaching helen keller to hear to get you to listen.

Let's see. They peacefully turn themselves in or get arrested and then fight it in the courts. Right?

Get arrested.....the payout for wrongful arrest pays more

Maybe. Do you believe that's a good system?

A good system wouldn't allow this.
They're within their rights

People argue for this all the time.

"just peacefully allow yourself to get arrested and fight it in court". Your rights also extend beyond the 2nd Amendment.

They're within their rights, you know it and so does Gardner, she pushed it and now she'll pay...or rather the tax payer.

You think that dumbed down poor excuse of an attorney and racist bitch cares? Really? Lol

 

[pknopp]

Every freedom loving person in this country has a vested interest in the outcome of this case.

Elections have consequences.

It is strange that a couple like the McCloskeys have become the face for the protection of the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

It is. Why isn't someone like Kenneth Walker?

While they are unlikely champions they are probably the right people to fight it. They have the money and they have the legal savvy. They also have the videos showing them to be threatened by a vicious mob of deranged assholes. They have everything on their side, including a pardon in the back pocket if some stupid ass Moon Bat jury of inner city ghetto assholes were to find them guilty.

Yes, lucky them. A large number of people who are overcharged or wrongly charged do not have this luxury.

The problem with most fraudulent RTABA cases is that most people charged with a gun crime will take a plea deal to stay out of jail so the really good cases to challenge the filthy government's infringement upon our Constitutional rights never gets properly litigated.

The other things is that the chickenshit Supreme court has yet to declare what level of scrutiny these oppressive anti gun laws should have. It should be like all the other Constitutional rights and get strict scrutiny.

That is why it is so important to get Trump reelcted. So that he can put more Constitutional protectionists on the Supreme court.

His violations of the 4th Amendment are not helping your case here.

 

[pknopp]

I don't see how she can get a conviction. They may have been way overly paranoid but that isn't illegal.

So if someone down the street from you was killed in mob violence recently and now, you have mob violence at your door, you gonna risk this is a nice mob that tore down your gate?

Those marching to the mayor's house were clear they meant no one harm. As I noted though, you can legally stand outside your house with a gun.

They were clear? How?

They let the neighbors know they were not interested in bothering them.

Did they also notify this couple of the same?

No idea if they were specifically told or not.

So, it probably was NOT clear to the couple that the mob meant them no harm. Hindsight from a distance is usually a lot clearer than immediate reaction in the moment. Do you think the outcome would have been different had members of the mob quietly told the couple that they were only interested in storming the Mayor's house and not their's instead of shouting at them? Obviously, this couple was scared. They had been seeing the violence directed at people like them, and they had a mob entering their private property with (likely) unknown intentions. Don't we all agree it's incumbent on the mob to at least make sure the people who own the property they are trespassing on know they are not in danger, and to leave quietly if the property owners tell them to?

Do you have a point?

you seem to be avoiding a pretty simple question.

he spelled it out clearly - HOW DID YOU KNOW THEY MEANT NO ONE HARM???

you can either answer it or you can play dodgeball and that answers it for you.

As you walk down a street on any given day, how do you know this about anyone? Now, what is the point?

you don't walk down the street in a huge crowd.
huge crowds have been destroying shit around these people for several days

so you are playing dodgeball and not putting yourself in their situation - just sitting in a distant judgement and playing the fool.

or not playing. either is fine.

Why not make a point? What exactly are you arguing?

that you have zero clue as to whether or not a "large crowd" moving towards you means you no harm GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES of st louis at the time this was done - large crowds were in fact destroying everything in their path.

now - you're at home watching TV and you see huge crowds lighting shit on fire and beating up people for no reason at all you can tell. THEN you see a huge crowd coming your way. SAID huge crowd rips down the gate to your property.

what do you do? serve cookies and cheer them on like a parade
or
protect you and your family?

I'm confused. I said in my very first post that I did not think the charges would stick and hugely paranoid or not they could do what they did.

So again, what are you arguing with me over?

charges
never
should
have
been
filed

it's a political game from a marxist. that's all.

but your stance of THEY MEANT NO ONE HARM - you have zero way of knowing that. ZERO.

and it's akin to teaching helen keller to hear to get you to listen.

Let's see. They peacefully turn themselves in or get arrested and then fight it in the courts. Right?

Get arrested.....the payout for wrongful arrest pays more

Maybe. Do you believe that's a good system?

A good system wouldn't allow this.
They're within their rights

People argue for this all the time.

"just peacefully allow yourself to get arrested and fight it in court". Your rights also extend beyond the 2nd Amendment.

They're within their rights, you know it and so does Gardner, she pushed it and now she'll pay...or rather the tax payer.

You think that dumbed down poor excuse of an attorney and racist bitch cares? Really? Lol

So you are now understanding some of what the people who were protesting are protesting over?

 

[hadit]

I don't see how she can get a conviction. They may have been way overly paranoid but that isn't illegal.

So if someone down the street from you was killed in mob violence recently and now, you have mob violence at your door, you gonna risk this is a nice mob that tore down your gate?

Those marching to the mayor's house were clear they meant no one harm. As I noted though, you can legally stand outside your house with a gun.

They were clear? How?

They let the neighbors know they were not interested in bothering them.

Did they also notify this couple of the same?

No idea if they were specifically told or not.

So, it probably was NOT clear to the couple that the mob meant them no harm. Hindsight from a distance is usually a lot clearer than immediate reaction in the moment. Do you think the outcome would have been different had members of the mob quietly told the couple that they were only interested in storming the Mayor's house and not their's instead of shouting at them? Obviously, this couple was scared. They had been seeing the violence directed at people like them, and they had a mob entering their private property with (likely) unknown intentions. Don't we all agree it's incumbent on the mob to at least make sure the people who own the property they are trespassing on know they are not in danger, and to leave quietly if the property owners tell them to?

Do you have a point?

Of course I do. I believe the couple was justified in warning the mob to stay off their property, and I don't agree that they should have been expected to assume that the mob was peaceful. As I've said, hindsight from a distance is usually clearer than the vision at the time on the scene. We can sit back and say, "Oh, they were peaceful, should have been allowed to trespass with impunity". The couple having their property invaded didn't have that luxury, which is why the mob should have made sure they were not threatening in any way and shown respect for the property owners' wishes regarding their presence.

 

[iceberg]

I don't see how she can get a conviction. They may have been way overly paranoid but that isn't illegal.

So if someone down the street from you was killed in mob violence recently and now, you have mob violence at your door, you gonna risk this is a nice mob that tore down your gate?

Those marching to the mayor's house were clear they meant no one harm. As I noted though, you can legally stand outside your house with a gun.

They were clear? How?

They let the neighbors know they were not interested in bothering them.

Did they also notify this couple of the same?

No idea if they were specifically told or not.

So, it probably was NOT clear to the couple that the mob meant them no harm. Hindsight from a distance is usually a lot clearer than immediate reaction in the moment. Do you think the outcome would have been different had members of the mob quietly told the couple that they were only interested in storming the Mayor's house and not their's instead of shouting at them? Obviously, this couple was scared. They had been seeing the violence directed at people like them, and they had a mob entering their private property with (likely) unknown intentions. Don't we all agree it's incumbent on the mob to at least make sure the people who own the property they are trespassing on know they are not in danger, and to leave quietly if the property owners tell them to?

Do you have a point?

you seem to be avoiding a pretty simple question.

he spelled it out clearly - HOW DID YOU KNOW THEY MEANT NO ONE HARM???

you can either answer it or you can play dodgeball and that answers it for you.

As you walk down a street on any given day, how do you know this about anyone? Now, what is the point?

you don't walk down the street in a huge crowd.
huge crowds have been destroying shit around these people for several days

so you are playing dodgeball and not putting yourself in their situation - just sitting in a distant judgement and playing the fool.

or not playing. either is fine.

Why not make a point? What exactly are you arguing?

that you have zero clue as to whether or not a "large crowd" moving towards you means you no harm GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES of st louis at the time this was done - large crowds were in fact destroying everything in their path.

now - you're at home watching TV and you see huge crowds lighting shit on fire and beating up people for no reason at all you can tell. THEN you see a huge crowd coming your way. SAID huge crowd rips down the gate to your property.

what do you do? serve cookies and cheer them on like a parade
or
protect you and your family?

I'm confused. I said in my very first post that I did not think the charges would stick and hugely paranoid or not they could do what they did.

So again, what are you arguing with me over?

charges
never
should
have
been
filed

it's a political game from a marxist. that's all.

but your stance of THEY MEANT NO ONE HARM - you have zero way of knowing that. ZERO.

and it's akin to teaching helen keller to hear to get you to listen.

Let's see. They peacefully turn themselves in or get arrested and then fight it in the courts. Right?

again - nothing to do with the fact that you have zero idea of the intention of the crowd.

A person has no idea about anyone. You simply for some reason want to argue an irrelevant point. Whatever.

cause YOU SAID the large crowd meant no harm.

and then you wonder why people question that.

Did they harm anyone? Even after having guns pulled on them, did they harm anyone?

you are changing the question.

how do you know they meant no harm and given the situation would you wave as they passed by or protect your home?

you never answer a direct question, do you?

 

[pknopp]

I don't see how she can get a conviction. They may have been way overly paranoid but that isn't illegal.

So if someone down the street from you was killed in mob violence recently and now, you have mob violence at your door, you gonna risk this is a nice mob that tore down your gate?

Those marching to the mayor's house were clear they meant no one harm. As I noted though, you can legally stand outside your house with a gun.

They were clear? How?

They let the neighbors know they were not interested in bothering them.

Did they also notify this couple of the same?

No idea if they were specifically told or not.

So, it probably was NOT clear to the couple that the mob meant them no harm. Hindsight from a distance is usually a lot clearer than immediate reaction in the moment. Do you think the outcome would have been different had members of the mob quietly told the couple that they were only interested in storming the Mayor's house and not their's instead of shouting at them? Obviously, this couple was scared. They had been seeing the violence directed at people like them, and they had a mob entering their private property with (likely) unknown intentions. Don't we all agree it's incumbent on the mob to at least make sure the people who own the property they are trespassing on know they are not in danger, and to leave quietly if the property owners tell them to?

Do you have a point?

Of course I do. I believe the couple was justified in warning the mob to stay off their property, and I don't agree that they should have been expected to assume that the mob was peaceful.

Which is fine. Others are just as justified in not willing to give up their rights.

 

[pknopp]

I don't see how she can get a conviction. They may have been way overly paranoid but that isn't illegal.

So if someone down the street from you was killed in mob violence recently and now, you have mob violence at your door, you gonna risk this is a nice mob that tore down your gate?

Those marching to the mayor's house were clear they meant no one harm. As I noted though, you can legally stand outside your house with a gun.

They were clear? How?

They let the neighbors know they were not interested in bothering them.

Did they also notify this couple of the same?

No idea if they were specifically told or not.

So, it probably was NOT clear to the couple that the mob meant them no harm. Hindsight from a distance is usually a lot clearer than immediate reaction in the moment. Do you think the outcome would have been different had members of the mob quietly told the couple that they were only interested in storming the Mayor's house and not their's instead of shouting at them? Obviously, this couple was scared. They had been seeing the violence directed at people like them, and they had a mob entering their private property with (likely) unknown intentions. Don't we all agree it's incumbent on the mob to at least make sure the people who own the property they are trespassing on know they are not in danger, and to leave quietly if the property owners tell them to?

Do you have a point?

you seem to be avoiding a pretty simple question.

he spelled it out clearly - HOW DID YOU KNOW THEY MEANT NO ONE HARM???

you can either answer it or you can play dodgeball and that answers it for you.

As you walk down a street on any given day, how do you know this about anyone? Now, what is the point?

you don't walk down the street in a huge crowd.
huge crowds have been destroying shit around these people for several days

so you are playing dodgeball and not putting yourself in their situation - just sitting in a distant judgement and playing the fool.

or not playing. either is fine.

Why not make a point? What exactly are you arguing?

that you have zero clue as to whether or not a "large crowd" moving towards you means you no harm GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES of st louis at the time this was done - large crowds were in fact destroying everything in their path.

now - you're at home watching TV and you see huge crowds lighting shit on fire and beating up people for no reason at all you can tell. THEN you see a huge crowd coming your way. SAID huge crowd rips down the gate to your property.

what do you do? serve cookies and cheer them on like a parade
or
protect you and your family?

I'm confused. I said in my very first post that I did not think the charges would stick and hugely paranoid or not they could do what they did.

So again, what are you arguing with me over?

charges
never
should
have
been
filed

it's a political game from a marxist. that's all.

but your stance of THEY MEANT NO ONE HARM - you have zero way of knowing that. ZERO.

and it's akin to teaching helen keller to hear to get you to listen.

Let's see. They peacefully turn themselves in or get arrested and then fight it in the courts. Right?

again - nothing to do with the fact that you have zero idea of the intention of the crowd.

A person has no idea about anyone. You simply for some reason want to argue an irrelevant point. Whatever.

cause YOU SAID the large crowd meant no harm.

and then you wonder why people question that.

Did they harm anyone? Even after having guns pulled on them, did they harm anyone?

you are changing the question.

how do you know they meant no harm and given the situation would you wave as they passed by or protect your home?

you never answer a direct question, do you?

It's an irrelevant point. They could do what they did scared or not.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I don't see how she can get a conviction. They may have been way overly paranoid but that isn't illegal.

So if someone down the street from you was killed in mob violence recently and now, you have mob violence at your door, you gonna risk this is a nice mob that tore down your gate?

Those marching to the mayor's house were clear they meant no one harm. As I noted though, you can legally stand outside your house with a gun.

They were clear? How?

They let the neighbors know they were not interested in bothering them.

Did they also notify this couple of the same?

No idea if they were specifically told or not.

So, it probably was NOT clear to the couple that the mob meant them no harm. Hindsight from a distance is usually a lot clearer than immediate reaction in the moment. Do you think the outcome would have been different had members of the mob quietly told the couple that they were only interested in storming the Mayor's house and not their's instead of shouting at them? Obviously, this couple was scared. They had been seeing the violence directed at people like them, and they had a mob entering their private property with (likely) unknown intentions. Don't we all agree it's incumbent on the mob to at least make sure the people who own the property they are trespassing on know they are not in danger, and to leave quietly if the property owners tell them to?

Do you have a point?

you seem to be avoiding a pretty simple question.

he spelled it out clearly - HOW DID YOU KNOW THEY MEANT NO ONE HARM???

you can either answer it or you can play dodgeball and that answers it for you.

As you walk down a street on any given day, how do you know this about anyone? Now, what is the point?

you don't walk down the street in a huge crowd.
huge crowds have been destroying shit around these people for several days

so you are playing dodgeball and not putting yourself in their situation - just sitting in a distant judgement and playing the fool.

or not playing. either is fine.

Why not make a point? What exactly are you arguing?

that you have zero clue as to whether or not a "large crowd" moving towards you means you no harm GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES of st louis at the time this was done - large crowds were in fact destroying everything in their path.

now - you're at home watching TV and you see huge crowds lighting shit on fire and beating up people for no reason at all you can tell. THEN you see a huge crowd coming your way. SAID huge crowd rips down the gate to your property.

what do you do? serve cookies and cheer them on like a parade
or
protect you and your family?

I'm confused. I said in my very first post that I did not think the charges would stick and hugely paranoid or not they could do what they did.

So again, what are you arguing with me over?

charges
never
should
have
been
filed

it's a political game from a marxist. that's all.

but your stance of THEY MEANT NO ONE HARM - you have zero way of knowing that. ZERO.

and it's akin to teaching helen keller to hear to get you to listen.

Let's see. They peacefully turn themselves in or get arrested and then fight it in the courts. Right?

Get arrested.....the payout for wrongful arrest pays more

Maybe. Do you believe that's a good system?

A good system wouldn't allow this.
They're within their rights

People argue for this all the time.

"just peacefully allow yourself to get arrested and fight it in court". Your rights also extend beyond the 2nd Amendment.

They're within their rights, you know it and so does Gardner, she pushed it and now she'll pay...or rather the tax payer.

You think that dumbed down poor excuse of an attorney and racist bitch cares? Really? Lol

So you are now understanding some of what the people who were protesting are protesting over?

Wtf? They're protesting a black bitch over changing a couple for excersing their Constitutional and state rights?

You probably need to rethink your position.
I'm rolling my eyes at you... never ever should a prosecutor let personal feelings politics, etc come between what's legal.

You know this and know better. Each case is an individual case.

 

[pknopp]

I don't see how she can get a conviction. They may have been way overly paranoid but that isn't illegal.

So if someone down the street from you was killed in mob violence recently and now, you have mob violence at your door, you gonna risk this is a nice mob that tore down your gate?

Those marching to the mayor's house were clear they meant no one harm. As I noted though, you can legally stand outside your house with a gun.

They were clear? How?

They let the neighbors know they were not interested in bothering them.

Did they also notify this couple of the same?

No idea if they were specifically told or not.

So, it probably was NOT clear to the couple that the mob meant them no harm. Hindsight from a distance is usually a lot clearer than immediate reaction in the moment. Do you think the outcome would have been different had members of the mob quietly told the couple that they were only interested in storming the Mayor's house and not their's instead of shouting at them? Obviously, this couple was scared. They had been seeing the violence directed at people like them, and they had a mob entering their private property with (likely) unknown intentions. Don't we all agree it's incumbent on the mob to at least make sure the people who own the property they are trespassing on know they are not in danger, and to leave quietly if the property owners tell them to?

Do you have a point?

you seem to be avoiding a pretty simple question.

he spelled it out clearly - HOW DID YOU KNOW THEY MEANT NO ONE HARM???

you can either answer it or you can play dodgeball and that answers it for you.

As you walk down a street on any given day, how do you know this about anyone? Now, what is the point?

you don't walk down the street in a huge crowd.
huge crowds have been destroying shit around these people for several days

so you are playing dodgeball and not putting yourself in their situation - just sitting in a distant judgement and playing the fool.

or not playing. either is fine.

Why not make a point? What exactly are you arguing?

that you have zero clue as to whether or not a "large crowd" moving towards you means you no harm GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES of st louis at the time this was done - large crowds were in fact destroying everything in their path.

now - you're at home watching TV and you see huge crowds lighting shit on fire and beating up people for no reason at all you can tell. THEN you see a huge crowd coming your way. SAID huge crowd rips down the gate to your property.

what do you do? serve cookies and cheer them on like a parade
or
protect you and your family?

I'm confused. I said in my very first post that I did not think the charges would stick and hugely paranoid or not they could do what they did.

So again, what are you arguing with me over?

charges
never
should
have
been
filed

it's a political game from a marxist. that's all.

but your stance of THEY MEANT NO ONE HARM - you have zero way of knowing that. ZERO.

and it's akin to teaching helen keller to hear to get you to listen.

Let's see. They peacefully turn themselves in or get arrested and then fight it in the courts. Right?

Get arrested.....the payout for wrongful arrest pays more

Maybe. Do you believe that's a good system?

A good system wouldn't allow this.
They're within their rights

People argue for this all the time.

"just peacefully allow yourself to get arrested and fight it in court". Your rights also extend beyond the 2nd Amendment.

They're within their rights, you know it and so does Gardner, she pushed it and now she'll pay...or rather the tax payer.

You think that dumbed down poor excuse of an attorney and racist bitch cares? Really? Lol

So you are now understanding some of what the people who were protesting are protesting over?

Wtf? They're protesting a black bitch over changing a couple for excersing their Constitutional and state rights?

You probably need to rethink your position.
I'm rolling my eyes at you... never ever should a prosecutor let personal feelings politics, etc come between what's legal.

You know this and know better. Each case is an individual case.

Of course each case is different to you. As long as they are black, it's all cool.

 

[iceberg]

I don't see how she can get a conviction. They may have been way overly paranoid but that isn't illegal.

So if someone down the street from you was killed in mob violence recently and now, you have mob violence at your door, you gonna risk this is a nice mob that tore down your gate?

Those marching to the mayor's house were clear they meant no one harm. As I noted though, you can legally stand outside your house with a gun.

They were clear? How?

They let the neighbors know they were not interested in bothering them.

Did they also notify this couple of the same?

No idea if they were specifically told or not.

So, it probably was NOT clear to the couple that the mob meant them no harm. Hindsight from a distance is usually a lot clearer than immediate reaction in the moment. Do you think the outcome would have been different had members of the mob quietly told the couple that they were only interested in storming the Mayor's house and not their's instead of shouting at them? Obviously, this couple was scared. They had been seeing the violence directed at people like them, and they had a mob entering their private property with (likely) unknown intentions. Don't we all agree it's incumbent on the mob to at least make sure the people who own the property they are trespassing on know they are not in danger, and to leave quietly if the property owners tell them to?

Do you have a point?

you seem to be avoiding a pretty simple question.

he spelled it out clearly - HOW DID YOU KNOW THEY MEANT NO ONE HARM???

you can either answer it or you can play dodgeball and that answers it for you.

As you walk down a street on any given day, how do you know this about anyone? Now, what is the point?

you don't walk down the street in a huge crowd.
huge crowds have been destroying shit around these people for several days

so you are playing dodgeball and not putting yourself in their situation - just sitting in a distant judgement and playing the fool.

or not playing. either is fine.

Why not make a point? What exactly are you arguing?

that you have zero clue as to whether or not a "large crowd" moving towards you means you no harm GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES of st louis at the time this was done - large crowds were in fact destroying everything in their path.

now - you're at home watching TV and you see huge crowds lighting shit on fire and beating up people for no reason at all you can tell. THEN you see a huge crowd coming your way. SAID huge crowd rips down the gate to your property.

what do you do? serve cookies and cheer them on like a parade
or
protect you and your family?

I'm confused. I said in my very first post that I did not think the charges would stick and hugely paranoid or not they could do what they did.

So again, what are you arguing with me over?

charges
never
should
have
been
filed

it's a political game from a marxist. that's all.

but your stance of THEY MEANT NO ONE HARM - you have zero way of knowing that. ZERO.

and it's akin to teaching helen keller to hear to get you to listen.

Let's see. They peacefully turn themselves in or get arrested and then fight it in the courts. Right?

again - nothing to do with the fact that you have zero idea of the intention of the crowd.

A person has no idea about anyone. You simply for some reason want to argue an irrelevant point. Whatever.

cause YOU SAID the large crowd meant no harm.

and then you wonder why people question that.

Did they harm anyone? Even after having guns pulled on them, did they harm anyone?

you are changing the question.

how do you know they meant no harm and given the situation would you wave as they passed by or protect your home?

you never answer a direct question, do you?

It's an irrelevant point. They could do what they did scared or not.

so...no. you never do.

bye.

 

[pknopp]

I don't see how she can get a conviction. They may have been way overly paranoid but that isn't illegal.

So if someone down the street from you was killed in mob violence recently and now, you have mob violence at your door, you gonna risk this is a nice mob that tore down your gate?

Those marching to the mayor's house were clear they meant no one harm. As I noted though, you can legally stand outside your house with a gun.

They were clear? How?

They let the neighbors know they were not interested in bothering them.

Did they also notify this couple of the same?

No idea if they were specifically told or not.

So, it probably was NOT clear to the couple that the mob meant them no harm. Hindsight from a distance is usually a lot clearer than immediate reaction in the moment. Do you think the outcome would have been different had members of the mob quietly told the couple that they were only interested in storming the Mayor's house and not their's instead of shouting at them? Obviously, this couple was scared. They had been seeing the violence directed at people like them, and they had a mob entering their private property with (likely) unknown intentions. Don't we all agree it's incumbent on the mob to at least make sure the people who own the property they are trespassing on know they are not in danger, and to leave quietly if the property owners tell them to?

Do you have a point?

you seem to be avoiding a pretty simple question.

he spelled it out clearly - HOW DID YOU KNOW THEY MEANT NO ONE HARM???

you can either answer it or you can play dodgeball and that answers it for you.

As you walk down a street on any given day, how do you know this about anyone? Now, what is the point?

you don't walk down the street in a huge crowd.
huge crowds have been destroying shit around these people for several days

so you are playing dodgeball and not putting yourself in their situation - just sitting in a distant judgement and playing the fool.

or not playing. either is fine.

Why not make a point? What exactly are you arguing?

that you have zero clue as to whether or not a "large crowd" moving towards you means you no harm GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES of st louis at the time this was done - large crowds were in fact destroying everything in their path.

now - you're at home watching TV and you see huge crowds lighting shit on fire and beating up people for no reason at all you can tell. THEN you see a huge crowd coming your way. SAID huge crowd rips down the gate to your property.

what do you do? serve cookies and cheer them on like a parade
or
protect you and your family?

I'm confused. I said in my very first post that I did not think the charges would stick and hugely paranoid or not they could do what they did.

So again, what are you arguing with me over?

charges
never
should
have
been
filed

it's a political game from a marxist. that's all.

but your stance of THEY MEANT NO ONE HARM - you have zero way of knowing that. ZERO.

and it's akin to teaching helen keller to hear to get you to listen.

Let's see. They peacefully turn themselves in or get arrested and then fight it in the courts. Right?

again - nothing to do with the fact that you have zero idea of the intention of the crowd.

A person has no idea about anyone. You simply for some reason want to argue an irrelevant point. Whatever.

cause YOU SAID the large crowd meant no harm.

and then you wonder why people question that.

Did they harm anyone? Even after having guns pulled on them, did they harm anyone?

you are changing the question.

how do you know they meant no harm and given the situation would you wave as they passed by or protect your home?

you never answer a direct question, do you?

It's an irrelevant point. They could do what they did scared or not.

so...no. you never do.

bye.

You never stated a point. They could do what they did, scared or not. Did I see a reason for them to be scared? No.

Do I see a reason for many who carry to be scared? No.

It's irrelevant what I see where one's rights are concerned.

 

[Flash]

His violations of the 4th Amendment are not helping your case here.

This has nothing to do with the 4th amendment.

It is basically 1st amendment v 2nd amendment.

Do the commie/neggra assholes have the right to go onto somebody property and threaten them or do the people threaten have the right to bear arms to protect themselves from the mob? That is what it boils down to.

If anything the McCloskey's 4th Amendment rights were violate when some stupid uneducated Moon Bat judge issued the warrant to confiscate the AR-15.