No one needs a semiautomatic rifle with a high cap magazine

Absolutely agree...upvote.

Red flag laws are a green light for people to assault others' 2nd amendment rights. Our legislators need to be very, as in VERY careful how any red flag legislation is crafted so that the person being charged does not lose any of their rights.

Good gawd, who am I kidding? Every libtard in America who hates guns will turn in the neighbor they hate who happens to have a gun. It's gonna be a fcuking nightmare!

How can anyone argue with this? Gosh dang son.

Pretty simple.

First, the “mob” were trespassing a “gated neighborhood”, not on their lawn, to march down the street to protest police violence.

Second, the protestors were not armed with guns.

Third, the protestors didn’t give two shits about the McCloskey’s nor their home until they came out onto their lawn armed with guns.

Fourth, being pro-police no matter what then to shift one-eighty and scapegoat police officers as so-called leftists, without any proof other than the fact that you didn’t get the results you wanted, shows a genuine apathy toward the statistics, the facts, and no integrity in a simple debate on gun registration and licensing of weapons capable of killing almost 100 people in 5 minutes or less.

Not simple at all, your argument gets destroyed in a court of law in 5 minutes.

Item 1, Objection: Speculation. The motives of the crowd on that day and time are not determinable as the mob is not present to provide their account of their motivation.

Item 2, Objection: Speculation. The witness was not present to determine whether or not any of the trespassing angry mob was or was not armed with a gun. The mob was also not searched by authorities.

Item 3, Objection: Speculation and hearsay. The crowd was not sequestered to provide an account of what they were going to do to which houses in the gated community they were trespassing in.

Item 4, Objection: leading the witness and relevancy. Leftists in the situation were the trespassing mob, not the police. Also relevancy - guns don't have the capability to "kill almost 100 people in 5 minutes or less" as guns are not sentient beings and require a person to pull the trigger, ergo it's the person and not the gun with that capability.

It's almost like you want the other side to win the argument.

LETS GO.

Dude you utterly destroyed him LOL

I try lol - not bad for a registered Democrat right?

WOW. No, not bad at all :)

1. Not speculation. Fact.

On June 28, 2020, approximately 500 protesters marched to Mayor Lyda Krewson's house after she read aloud the names and addresses of residents who had written letters suggesting she defund the police in a Facebook live stream. To reach Krewson's home, protesters took a shortcut through the Portland Place, by entering through a gate located directly next to the home of Mark and Patricia McCloskey. The McCloskeys were seen outside their home pointing guns at the protesters while exchanging hostile words.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/06/29/us/st-louis-couple-protest-firearms-trnd/index.html

2-3. It is legal to own and possess a gun, thus the police did not need to search protestors. In fact, police did not even arrest them for trespassing as gated community laws are not protected under the same guidelines as private property. There is just no such thing as a private road as people like the McCloskey’s like to falsely propagate.

4. The OP claims leftist law enforcement are responsible for Uvalde. Ya see, despite Blue Lives Matter, yada yada: when the facts add up that a police officer let 19 children and 2 teachers die, according to radical conservatives that must mean the officer was a leftist. I further speculate that because the “so-called” mob was never sequestered and searched and instead the McCloskey’s were arrested and charged; that those same people would claim that to be the work of leftist law enforcement as well. If my speculation becomes true, then that puts my other so-called speculation as plausible as well.

5. Facts always seem to fall in line against radical conservative arguments. Not my fault that they do.

Fact - they ain't here and now are they? So you lose that one.

Fact -- no Trespassing means that. If you do that you're breaking the law. Fact - if it's ok to carry guns, it's of reasonable doubt to assume some of an angry mob has one. Especially when you break down statistically the probabilities of someone has the gun in the mob. So you're wrong there again.

Fact - we are talking about those armed folks... Which I don't believe was Uvalde. Objection Relevance.

Fact - you're the one failing at facts here....

So, you do understand the rules of debate and rule of court is different, yes?

That law enforcement and courts did intervene, investigate, and prosecute people involved at the St. Louis incident that occurred during the protest. They arrested and convicted two armed thugs. The McCloskeys. No arrests were made for trespassing.

The relevance is the OP stated:

unless their home is about to be razed by an angry mob whose violence has been green-lighted by “leftist law enforcement”

Which is a reference to Uvalde police not protecting 19 children.

As my response is directly addressing that claim, the reply is relevant.

I’ve stayed only facts so I don’t see how I’m failing at anything.

You’re the one maintaining facts are speculation.

So if anyone is failing, it is you.

Weird how everyone else is upvoting my comments... Trial by jury of peers, upvotes to me = Win.

Come again though

So, you’d rather majority win out over logic and reason.

Fair enough.

That's the entire heart and soul of Democracy isn't it? Yes it is. And in this case the majority IS siding with Logic and Reason. They see my logic and reasoning - and can't relate to yours.

America is a Constitutional Democratic-Republic. The Constitution is absolute, it sets the rules for who can be Democraticaly Elected a Representative. That being said; if you don't understand what an "arm" is, you'll find out by the fist.

“Quiet.”

No.

“Lol...do you even know what the word "Constitution" means? I would assume you do not considering "gospel" is a style of music.”

The most basic definition is “a composition of something” which ours is made up of amendments as well as the articles of the constitution which dictate the rules you’ve mentioned.

Rules that have been ratified out of necessity and within legal authority as one of the problems our forefathers had with previous articles and doctrines was their structural inflexibility to modern conventions written generations ago. It was even contended by Thomas Jefferson that the Constitution be updated every 19 or 20 years so that generations have the opportunity to make periodical repairs from generation to generation, to the end of time. Of course, he was overruled and ratification requires votes; rather than routine ratification.

Many words have double meanings but the origin of them remain important.

Amendments are suppose to be amendable.

The Constitution, the articles, and amendments have been changed; many times since it’s conception. Most times out of necessity and justice.

To say the Constitution is absolute; and ignoring it’s intent to continuously be perfected, without ever being universally perfect; shows you not only do not know the definition of “amendments” but what the word “absolute” means.

Yes, while the Constitution can be considered perfect in design; if it is not fully utilized and adapted, then it is not impervious to stagnation and irrelevance.

And as long as we continue to let our divisions define us, we risk that very dangerous possibility every day.

Some people know this; and willfully encourage it to weaken our republic.

Because they’ve never been able to get over a civil war fought almost two centuries ago.

“A 'Constant'. Like the Gospel is the Law by which Peace is maintained, the Constitution is the Law by which a more perfect Union is maintained. It contains laws against the Federal Reserve, the U.N. and a slew of other corrupt organizations. But go ahead and explain why we should "adopt" these 'parental replacements'..“

Constant is not the root of Constitution

Constant derives from Latin adjective constare and constans meaning "resolute, to stand firm”

Constitution stems from Latin verb constituere, meaning "to cause to stand, set up, fix, place, establish, set in order; form something new; resolve."

Grant you, they are similar but they’re not as exchangeable as amendment and amendable.

There are no laws in the Constitution that invalidates the Federal Reserve, nor is the U.N., or any organization; specifically named for limitations. What the Constitution does limit are the powers and authority the government has and their limits on their influence on organizations.

I said that the Constitution should be adapted least it risk stagnation or irrelevance as thar was the forefather’s intent. I’m not advocating for any specific adaptation but pointing out that the Constitution is not as unchangeable as you believe it to be.

“a more perfect Union”

The key word in that sentence is more. That which is perfect, cannot be perfected. Therefore that which can become more perfect, admits it cannot be fully perfect, but can be perfected.

And therefore is amendable and not constant in it’s sets of amendments, rules, and laws but in the body of it’s organization and it’s lasting relevancy by way of adaptation through the generations.

It is not absolute.

That is why it has amendments, which are amendable.

“You're arguing for the leftist side of Democrats - that want to remove rights from people. I'm arguing for rights for people - especially the Non-white, Non-Christians in this country.”

The only thing you’ve argued, if you’ve argued anything, is that protestors should be locked up and people are allowed to threaten protestors with guns.

I’m just telling it like it is, my man.

But feel free to tell me when I’ve argued anything leftist just for not supporting dipshits like the McCloskeys. I absolutely believe in defending your home and gun rights, that doesn’t mean you get to sit on your porch and point your gun at people in the street

That's exactly what it means. When an angry mob is breaking through to a gated community after committing arson and vandalism... Yes, that's what it means. You are allowed to defend yourself and your property.

How many people did the Mccloskey's shoot by the way? None. How many people had no business being there? The entire mob.

Rittenhouse defended himself and shot quite a few and what happened?? Charges were dropped.

“When an angry mob is breaking through to a gated community after committing arson and vandalism”

They were let in. The vandalism happened after. There was no arson.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ksdk.com/amp/article/news/local/video-shows-gate-was-intact-when-cwe-couple-pointed-guns-at-protesters/63-14a1582a-9372-4494-b8ee-41d5d4d71b61

“How many people did the Mccloskey's shoot by the way? None. How many people had no business being there? The entire mob.”

It is still illegal to brandish your weapon at non-violent people. And since no vandalism occurred; nor were they trespassing on the McCloskey’s property; and the gate was opened by someone who owned the street; as well as the collective owners of the street refused to charge the protestors with trespassing; wether they were trespassing is moot.

Further, the second amendment does not give you the right to brandish your weapons against people in the street who are walking past your house.

The protestors also have a right to first amendment and every right to be angry at the mayor who wrongfully doxxed them. A Democrat mayor, I might add.

“Rittenhouse defended himself and shot quite a few and what happened?? Charges were dropped.”

Rittenhouse broke quite a few laws but since he was recruited by a local militia who had been deputized by local law enforcement; and the murky details surrounding the first instance of his use of his weapon; he couldn’t be convicted.

All the videotape of gunfire that was traded between kids pretending to be adults were all acts of self-defense. The armed protestors believing to be acting toward an aggressive shooter who’d shot a seemingly unarmed protestor; and Rittenhouse defending himself against the retaliatory gun fire and violence. While I disagree with the verdict, I at least agree Rittenhouse had the right to defend himself after the first instance whether he was in the wrong or the right.

Both Rittenhouse and the McCloskey’s show that in the wrong hands, guns only escalate a situation.

A 'Constant'. Like the Gospel is the Law by which Peace is maintained, the Constitution is the Law by which a more perfect Union is maintained. It contains laws against the Federal Reserve, the U.N. and a slew of other corrupt organizations. But go ahead and explain why we should "adopt" these 'parental replacements'..

“We are a constitutional republic though... I used the phrase democracy to set you into a trap.”

A trap that proves you’re wrong… so good job?

There is nothing inherently wrong in democracy choosing representatives with solutions or those representatives using it to vote on legislation; but in terms of examination of facts and conclusions it is inherently flawed.

As a conservative Republican who would rather choose facts, reason, and yes even science over beliefs, ignorance, and religion; I know it’s hard for you to not only distinguish between a bully and a victim; but also a Democrat and a Republican.

No Republican worth their salt would say that the actions of the McCloskey’s was warranted or justified in the face of unarmed protestors of police brutality.

Even now, Republicans who are quick to label any result; be it the cowardice of the police officers of Uvalde, or the 2020 elections as the result of Democrat conspiracy - shows just why disregarding facts and reason are a huge mistake over petty tribal political differences.

If the McCloskey’s were pardoned by a Democrat or Mark McCloskey was running as a Democrat for the Senate; which I suspect is why this meme even exists two years after the incident; or the Democrats claimed Trump won the 2020 election through fraud; you would not still be championing them.

I, on the other hand, would still be right here saying the exact same thing in the hypothetical scenario.

The only thing you’ve proved is that populism remains a dangerous threat to our constitutional republic.

Which I whole heartily agree.

Populism would’ve seen the McCloskey’s dead; going down in a blaze of glory and Pence choosing the Trump mob over our constitution.

Something which I am fiercely against.

There's a thin line between a democracy and a Constitutional Republic honestly, almost splitting hairs. But the hairs that are split are vital because they give our citizens inalienable rights.

Rights that leftist aligned Democrats keep trying to take and take and take. Rights that God fearing, country loving Democrats like me -- don't want taken away from any of our citizens.

You're arguing for the leftist side of Democrats - that want to remove rights from people. I'm arguing for rights for people - especially the Non-white, Non-Christians in this country.

Not sure why you're so Gung-Ho to have freedoms stripped. Democrats used to love freedom.

“A 'Constant'. Like the Gospel is the Law by which Peace is maintained, the Constitution is the Law by which a more perfect Union is maintained. It contains laws against the Federal Reserve, the U.N. and a slew of other corrupt organizations. But go ahead and explain why we should "adopt" these 'parental replacements'..“

Constant is not the root of Constitution

Constant derives from Latin adjective constare and constans meaning "resolute, to stand firm”

Constitution stems from Latin verb constituere, meaning "to cause to stand, set up, fix, place, establish, set in order; form something new; resolve."

Grant you, they are similar but they’re not as exchangeable as amendment and amendable.

There are no laws in the Constitution that invalidates the Federal Reserve, nor is the U.N., or any organization; specifically named for limitations. What the Constitution does limit are the powers and authority the government has and their limits on their influence on organizations.

I said that the Constitution should be adapted least it risk stagnation or irrelevance as thar was the forefather’s intent. I’m not advocating for any specific adaptation but pointing out that the Constitution is not as unchangeable as you believe it to be.

“a more perfect Union”

The key word in that sentence is more. That which is perfect, cannot be perfected. Therefore that which can become more perfect, admits it cannot be fully perfect, but can be perfected.

And therefore is amendable and not constant in it’s sets of amendments, rules, and laws but in the body of it’s organization and it’s lasting relevancy by way of adaptation through the generations."

Quiet.

If you say so.

You’re boasting more than stating facts now. I get you have a problem with democracy but democracy doesn’t change facts.

Regardless, your failure to add any relevancy to my initial facts which dispute the OP’s claim that a violent mob as descending on the McCloskey’s home.

They were protesting a mayor who violated constitutional protections of people’s right to privacy by doxxing people who called her office to defund the police.

She hid at home following that event, which required protestors to go to her home, which was on a private street, which is not the same thing as private property.

No one would’ve given two shits about the McCloskey’s until they came out on their yard armed with what might as well been props to get their 15 seconds of fame.

I refuse to entertain it further as with most Trump Supporters, you can’t tell the difference between victims and bullies.

We are a constitutional republic though... I used the phrase democracy to set you into a trap. 😜🤣

“You lost this round , take the L and head home”

Opinions never outweigh facts.

I will continue to correct anyone who disputes them with their personal views which are inaccurate to the accounts based on them.

You’re free to disagree of course.

It doesn’t mean you’ve won anything or I’ve lost anything.

Lol...do you even know what the word "Constitution" means? I would assume you do not considering "gospel" is a style of music.

Umm. It was private property, not merely gated. Second the mob broke the locked gate down, showing intent to be destructive, and third they were violent to folks previously during their mostly peaceful riot. And no one checked the mob for weapons so you don’t know they were unarmed.

This has always been contended, but law enforcement never made any arrests for the trespassing protestors. While damaging the gate, which yes, was on private property; the protestors were found in the street. And yes, it was a gated community.

Why should police check a peaceful and lawful protest for weapons? That’s illegal search and seizure.

Unless you’re claiming those law enforcement were conveniently leftist as well?

You - Why should police check a peaceful and lawful protest for weapons?

Me - It's no longer peaceful or lawful when protesters start breaking the law.(Trespassing, destruction of property).

You can’t trespass in a street.

Nor does finding a damaged gate, that… at the time the McCloskey’s were armed on their lawn, was open AND intact.

These two things do not make a protest less peaceful.

It’s not like they stormed someone’s house and demanded she be hanged.

Well, they probably did threaten to hang her. It was BLM. Still, no houses were burned or broken into.

Maybe the Proud Boys and violent Trump Supporters should take a lesson in that.

Given the McCloskey’s being known for their showmanship, hey; they didn’t kill anyone either, they probably broke their own gate.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ksdk.com/amp/article/news/local/video-shows-gate-was-intact-when-cwe-couple-pointed-guns-at-protesters/63-14a1582a-9372-4494-b8ee-41d5d4d71b61

Trespass means arrest and search incident to arrest for safety of officers

The thing is, people were actually initially charged with trespassing and therefore were likely searched. But charges were dropped nor were additional charges of carrying weapons made.

Because they had no grounds to charge them with trespassing.

The claim they were trespassing is demonstrably false.

The trespass on private, locked property was a slam dunk. The criminals were given a pass.

Apparently, because it was a private street, not private property, it required civil charges. And the street owners refused to press charges. So it was out of the city’s hands.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ksdk.com/amp/article/news/local/st-louis-city-counselors-refuse-charges-against-protesters-accused-of-trespassing-in-mccloskey-case/63-989a40d3-259c-482c-b182-1f419af867dc

Trespass is criminal in any property

If they were on the McCloskey’s yard; and not on a private street; I would agree.

However; I see private streets as a leftover from segregation.

And while segregation was legal, it was hardly constitutional.

Not all laws are justified.

The owners of the private street did not press charges, and someone opened the gate; without damaging it (though the gate was damaged later)

Which shows that someone who owned the street allowed the protestors through, meaning they were not trespassing for simply being there.

If the protestors were allowed to pass the street by any owner of that street then it is not trespassing.

Yes it is. :) You lost this round , take the L and head home

What were they gonna do ??? Arrest all of them and put them in a jail that can't handle the capacity???? Use your Brain...

We also don’t arrest people for protesting.

No matter how they do it? If I protest at your house before I steal stuff, burn your house and beat you, I’m golden, right?

None of the protestors were charged with theft, arson, or battery; so yeah. As long as you don’t do that; your protest is golden.

Trespassing on a private street? Not a crime. In fact, no civil charges were made (by the people who owned the street) for the trespass.

Apparently the gate was done after the ordeal.

Anyone could’ve broken it.

Given the McCloskey’s being known for their showmanship, hey; they didn’t kill anyone either, they probably broke their own gate.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ksdk.com/amp/article/news/local/video-shows-gate-was-intact-when-cwe-couple-pointed-guns-at-protesters/63-14a1582a-9372-4494-b8ee-41d5d4d71b61

We do arrest people for trespassing, damaging property, and arson... All of which the mob did. But the leftist lawmakers decided not to do anything about it ... You're only giving me extra credit here now.

The attorneys are the ones who dropped the charges, based on lack of evidence, not due to political reasons. The lawmakers actually pardoned the McCloskey’s, not the protestors.

You will need to back up your claim that lawmakers or law enforcement decided to do anything about it because they were leftist if you want any real merit to your credit.

St Louis County prosecutor is a woke liberal. Common knowledge. She took out 28 yr Democrat prosecutor because he was too tough on crime. Google her.

No the lawmakers did not. Gov. Parson pardoned the victims.

“Are you even an American?”

Would you like me to show you my papers?

Governor Parson never pardoned the protestors.

He abused his powers and thwarted justice by pardoning the McCloskey’s for their publicity stunt to increase Mark’s chance of a future government pension by way of the Senate, if not at least a significant amount of money from campaign donation.

And you suckers lapped it up.

Are you even an American? You seem to have no understanding of our constitutional processes. July 30, 2021 Gov Parson pardoned both persons who exercised their 2nd amendment rights.

There wasn't a lack of evidence - there was a lack of care. You're telling me there wasn't Security Cameras plastered over all of the gated community? There wasnt a single security camera whose footage could have been sequestered? There weren't any social media posts live streaming the whole thing? There wasn't news outlets on scene for the "mostly peaceful" protest?

So again you're wrong - if there wasn't evidence, we wouldn't be talking about what happened would we? So it's obvious that evidence was ignored - and criminals allowed to keep running free to continue "protesting".

Yeah, and where do you think they would have ended up? NOT their house?

Who cares if they were not armed with guns? Did they use guns to burn down the businesses and homes? Or to injure the police/old men, women, by standards?

Yes, they would have caused trouble, and you know that. So says literally all the people they passed before they came there (hence the smoke in the air).

"Fourth, being pro-police no matter what then to shift one-eighty and scapegoat police officers as so-called leftists, without any proof other than the fact that you didn’t get the results you wanted, shows a genuine apathy toward the statistics, the facts, and no integrity in a simple debate on gun registration and licensing of weapons capable of killing almost 100 people in 5 minutes or less."

What do you mean?

“Yeah, and where do you think they would have ended up? NOT their house?”

On June 28, 2020, approximately 500 protesters marched to Mayor Lyda Krewson's house after she read aloud the names and addresses of residents who had written letters suggesting she defund the police in a Facebook live stream. To reach Krewson's home, protesters took a shortcut through the Portland Place, by entering through a gate located directly next to the home of Mark and Patricia McCloskey. The McCloskeys were seen outside their home pointing guns at the protesters while exchanging hostile words.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/06/29/us/st-louis-couple-protest-firearms-trnd/index.html

It was never about the McCloskeys. They made it about themselves.

“Who cares if they were not armed with guns? Did they use guns to burn down the businesses and homes? Or to injure the police/old men, women, by standards?”

Who is they? The people in Minnesota where the riots occurred? This was Missouri. Black Lives Matter? Strange they’ve never been arrested for rioting or conspiracy to incite, isn’t it? It’s almost like assholes use protestors to do illegal shit. Which was arguably not happening here.

“Yes, they would have caused trouble, and you know that. So says literally all the people they passed before they came there (hence the smoke in the air). “

Post hoc/ False cause and bandwagon fallacy.

Just because it has happened before does not mean it would’ve unfolded any differently had the McCloskey’s not waved their guns at them. Further it doesn’t matter if everyone says something that is demonstrably false.

“What do you mean?“

OP called law enforcement leftist, implying the Uvalde officer intentionally let the children die to support a political cause.

They broke the law by doing that. An angry mob whom you know has committed arson, battery and physical violence, and probably is carrying gun should be ignored?

It was not about them until a mob broke the law to engage with them.

Yeah, a good amount were arrested, then Kamala literally funded their release. A crap ton of people did illegal shit, and since they were with BLM, the law no longer applied to them.

Yeah, I am sure when a mob comes to your door and you have been hearing on the news that these people burn down buildings you won't think once they'd do it again. Just that time. DUH, ITS SO FRICKEN OBVIOUS!

I don't know about that, I wasn't arguing for whatever that is about.

He's referring to the leftist PROSECUTORs who catch and release criminals.

My Constitutional rights are not up for debate. Period. Cope and seek therapy.

Your constitutional right to guns is no more hindered by licensing and registration as voting rights are now required to have licensing and registration.