|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Aug 21, 2020 10:27:52 GMT -6
Don't deflect.
A mayor that supports the notion that people don't have the right to firearms is prohibiting protests near her home. Using armed police.
Is it hypocritical or not?
|
|
|
|
Post by rmcalhoun on Aug 21, 2020 10:35:25 GMT -6
Don't deflect. A mayor that supports the notion that people don't have the right to firearms is prohibiting protests near her home. Using armed police. Is it hypocritical or not? It is |
|
|
|
Post by frozenbaugh on Aug 21, 2020 11:08:50 GMT -6
Maybe you should be a little more concerned about the actual left-wing wanton violence, looting, burning and destruction occurring this summer, and less concerned about your fevered imaginary fantasies of right-wing dictatorship that there is no sane basis for.
Name one case where a Republican mayor/governor/prosecutor has sat back and allowed their political allies to riot and destroy things in their city this summer. This is strictly a Democratic shit show. Own it.
I don't think the political party of the mayors had much to do with the rioting occurring. Once you have a riot there is no pretty solution. Your characterization of the response as "allowing" political allies to riot is specious.
No party has a monopoly on wisdom. Or an answer to big problems we have with race in the country.
No political party can claim to have an answer to prevent rioting. Maybe you think our President's actions to unleash tear gas on peaceful protest for his photo op and call in feds from all over the country perhaps prevented a riot. Well, sort of.
Once you have a riot, there is no simple effective way to deal with the situation. What response do you think would have worked in these cases. Same one that worked so well in past history? Like Watts, or Detroit, or in Chicago during the political convention. The aftermath we have seen looks better to me than that alternative.
I don't know the perfect answer, but making political charges of a Democrat party leadership that wants riots to appease potential voters is ridiculous.
I was in Portland last year. People just set up tents in the interstate medians and in underpasses. The city government does nothing to stop that. They allow panhandlers to intimidate other citizens. The city council passed a budget to cut (defund) at least $15M from the police bureau, eliminating 84 positions. And the Antifa thing, too. Minnepolis wanted to do away with the police. I don't need to say anything about Chicago. The inmates run the asylum there and I think you can point to a political party and ideology. |
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Aug 21, 2020 14:18:54 GMT -6
Wait, you mean the mayor can keep everyone a block away, with armed police, because she has "a right to keep her home secure?" Leftist hypocrisy at its finest. Can't wait to see how 00 defends this... No great enthusiasm to defend it here. Politicians are targets, I get that part. Police should recognize that.
I'll be consistent and defend the Washington DC decision to keep demonstrators away from the WH fences and confined across the street in a public park, but there has to be limit on that. For example, I certainly can't defend Trump deciding he needed a tear gas trip to make a photo op a block from the WH.
Where do you think the line should be drawn?
Obviously the line has to be drawn when the politicians are inconvenienced. Because, you know, they are "targets". Other people just have to suck it up and deal with it when their residences and places of business and cities are burned, looted vandalized and generally overrun by rioting scum protestors because they are not "targets". We can trust the politicians to decide who are targets and who are not.
|
|
|
|
Scum
Aug 21, 2020 19:43:02 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by rusty on Aug 21, 2020 19:43:02 GMT -6
I’ve owned it boys and have been fighting against that behavior since my 20’s
|
|
|
|
Scum
Aug 22, 2020 21:28:47 GMT -6
Post by rmcalhoun on Aug 22, 2020 21:28:47 GMT -6
you gotta fight the powers that be
|
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Aug 25, 2020 7:34:45 GMT -6
Don't deflect. A mayor that supports the notion that people don't have the right to firearms is prohibiting protests near her home. Using armed police. Is it hypocritical or not? Still waiting for an answer to this question... |
|
|
|
Scum
Aug 25, 2020 9:01:45 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by 00hmh on Aug 25, 2020 9:01:45 GMT -6
The mayor has limited right to restrict firearms. Police use of firearms surely is permissable and necessary.
Having well trained professionals, supervised on the streets, armed, is A lot more safe than allowing everyone who can beg borrow buy or steal a gun.
In your home, legal guns are fine, except if kids have access.
I don't know this mayor's views, so beyond that opinion, I have no idea what you're talking about.
|
|
|
|
Scum
Aug 25, 2020 9:22:39 GMT -6
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Aug 25, 2020 9:22:39 GMT -6
"The mayor has limited right to restrict firearms." Not according to the Constitution.
"Police use of firearms surely is permissable and necessary." Sure, if you want your city burned to the ground. It's only permissible on white folks.
"Having well trained professionals, supervised on the streets, armed, is A lot more safe than allowing everyone who can beg borrow buy or steal a gun." Borrowing a gun for illegal purposes is illegal in itself. So is stealing a gun. So are straw purchases. Anyone who participates in those practices should be prosecuted and sentenced to the fullest extent of the law, including (as Chicago politicians have argued) Indiana gun store owners that sell to Chicago residents.
"In your home, legal guns are fine, except if kids have access." My son has had access to a firearm since he was 8. They have to be taught respect for it, and he has always been kind of OCD about that.
"I don't know this mayor's views, so beyond that opinion, I have no idea what you're talking about." Well, it's Chicago. What more info do you need?
|
|
|
|
Scum
Aug 25, 2020 9:25:27 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Aug 25, 2020 9:25:27 GMT -6
"The mayor has limited right to restrict firearms." Not according to the Constitution. "Police use of firearms surely is permissable and necessary." Sure, if you want your city burned to the ground. It's only permissible on white folks. "Having well trained professionals, supervised on the streets, armed, is A lot more safe than allowing everyone who can beg borrow buy or steal a gun." Borrowing a gun for illegal purposes is illegal in itself. So is stealing a gun. So are straw purchases. Anyone who participates in those practices should be prosecuted and sentenced to the fullest extent of the law, including (as Chicago politicians have argued) Indiana gun store owners that sell to Chicago residents. "In your home, legal guns are fine, except if kids have access." My son has had access to a firearm since he was 8. They have to be taught respect for it, and he has always been kind of OCD about that. "I don't know this mayor's views, so beyond that opinion, I have no idea what you're talking about." Well, it's Chicago. What more info do you need? Did he answer whether it was hypocritical? The best conversations with 00 are when you try to get him to answer a yes or no question. |
|
|
|
Scum
Aug 25, 2020 10:48:54 GMT -6
Post by 00hmh on Aug 25, 2020 10:48:54 GMT -6
I have no idea about this mayors specific views on gun control. I do not know the details of the way the police are being used, but the fact they are armed is completely proper.
Just to be clear. It is not hypocritical to advocate gun control and support use of armed police to enforce the law.
If someone thinks the mayor is wrong in her views on gun control that would not mean the mayor is wrong about using police who are armed.
|
|
|
|
Scum
Aug 25, 2020 12:54:44 GMT -6
Post by rmcalhoun on Aug 25, 2020 12:54:44 GMT -6
Are we playing dodge ball
|
|
|
|
Scum
Aug 25, 2020 12:57:24 GMT -6
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Aug 25, 2020 12:57:24 GMT -6
It is not hypocritical to advocate gun control and support use of armed police to enforce the law. With your vast knowledge of everything else under the sun, I'm finding it hard to believe you don't know anything about the mayor of Chicago. Regardless, the police in this case are not enforcing the law, they're acting as her private security force, which was OBVIOUSLY not available to the businesses along the Miracle Mile. She's fine with rioters looting and stealing from others, just don't trample her begonias. That's hypocrisy as well... right? Oh, and educate yourself: www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/07/16/mayor-lori-lightfoot-chicago-needs-more-gun-control/ |
|
|
|
Scum
Aug 25, 2020 13:43:33 GMT -6
Post by frozenbaugh on Aug 25, 2020 13:43:33 GMT -6
Are we playing dodge ball Boy, there are so many people I'm gunning for....Red ball to head. |
|
|
|
Scum
Aug 25, 2020 18:47:46 GMT -6
Post by 00hmh on Aug 25, 2020 18:47:46 GMT -6
It is not hypocritical to advocate gun control and support use of armed police to enforce the law. Regardless, the police in this case are not enforcing the law, they're acting as her private security force, which was OBVIOUSLY not available to the businesses along the Miracle Mile. She's fine with rioters looting and stealing from others, just don't trample her begonias. That's hypocrisy as well... right? I am sure the mayor doesn't look at a police force protecting a public official as "private" security.
But if it is hypocritical for the mayor to protect her residence where she is vulnerable to threats and knows she will be targeted then the issue has nothing to do with guns. Which was the point of my earlier post.
And if it is an abuse to use police to protect a public official, what is it to use police and troops and tear gas to clear a path to a photo op.
|
|
