Regaurdless of right or wrong, are these people seriously suprised at the outcome?... No clue where they are at or why they are doing what they are doing. But if cops are demanding you do something and you dont, the minimum youll get is pepper sprayed.
Regaurdless of right or wrong, are these people seriously suprised at the outcome?... No clue where they are at or why they are doing what they are doing. But if cops are demanding you do something and you dont, the minimum youll get is pepper sprayed.
bro you sound exactly like my local "Rush Radio" evening show host. no joke.
Regaurdless of right or wrong, are these people seriously suprised at the outcome?... No clue where they are at or why they are doing what they are doing. But if cops are demanding you do something and you dont, the minimum youll get is pepper sprayed.
bro you sound exactly like my local "Rush Radio" evening show host. no joke.
My point is you wont catch me "protesting" like these verns. Im not about to knowingly ignore police orders and await my pepper spraying... Ya you got pepper sprayed... nothing changes except youll have a cool story of how heroic you were in 40 years to tell your grand kids. If he held a gun to their heads would they have awaited execution too? Dude GTFO of there... These people are a pertfect example of why the 1st ammendment is worthless without the 2nd. OWS was a failure 100% because their words carried zero weight. They had it totally backwards... They scream at the top of their lungs and have nothing to back it up...Hows it suppose to be again? "speak softly but carry a big stick"....
Ken,
Let me see if I understand your point...
There is no point to peacefully protest when you will just be illegally and unconstitutionally assaulted and arrested anyway.
*Thumbs up*
JFK Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xFswOATUDc#ws[/url])
Ken,
Let me see if I understand your point...
There is no point to peacefully protest when you will just be illegally and unconstitutionally assaulted and arrested anyway.
*Thumbs up*
JFK Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xFswOATUDc#ws[/url])
Yep... i agree with the video quote.
But my point is from a different angle. A man screaming at you who can do nothing to you no matter what you do to him is a very weak protest in todays world. Hold a long gun and see how fast they wanna hear what it is you want way before you try to talk. Holding a 2nd ammendment protected item isnt considered a violent protest. Its simply saying "i have something to say and if you dont like it you can non-violently protest back, but if you take it to the next level im ready for that too, and you will be held accountable for any wrong doing as any other".
Many say just because you have all these rights dosent mean you have to use them all at once. But clearly we need to use a couple at once in this case in order to keep the peace. Or atleast keep your first ammendment. If they are going to walk all over you then eventually you have to say no more.
Ken,
Let me see if I understand your point...
There is no point to peacefully protest when you will just be illegally and unconstitutionally assaulted and arrested anyway.
*Thumbs up*
JFK Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xFswOATUDc#ws[/url])
Yep... i agree with the video quote.
But my point is from a different angle. A man screaming at you who can do nothing to you no matter what you do to him is a very weak protest in todays world. Hold a long gun and see how fast they wanna hear what it is you want way before you try to talk. Holding a 2nd ammendment protected item isnt considered a violent protest. Its simply saying "i have something to say and if you dont like it you can non-violently protest back, but if you take it to the next level im ready for that too, and you will be held accountable for any wrong doing as any other".
Many say just because you have all these rights dosent mean you have to use them all at once. But clearly we need to use a couple at once in this case in order to keep the peace. Or atleast keep your first ammendment. If they are going to walk all over you then eventually you have to say no more.
Well, seeing how anyone who wishes to exercise their rights in such a manner is labeled a domestic extremist and usually shot on sight if perceived a real threat, the possibility of peaceful "protest" becomes impossible...
If you were sitting protesting with a rifle/gun in your hands, and you tried to use it to defend yourself against the police spraying you, you would end up serving time in prison for sure man. (That's supposing they decide to pepper spray you instead of ventilating you without warning)
Never discard peaceful protest as it is the most important tool people have in a democracy, it generates political changes, or at least put issues in the media focus.
If you start using violent means, media will destroy you, people will be afraid of you and LEO will kick your ass, ventilate you or put you in the can.
If you were sitting protesting with a rifle/gun in your hands, and you tried to use it to defend yourself against the police spraying you, you would end up serving time in prison for sure man. (That's supposing they decide to pepper spray you instead of ventilating you without warning)
Never discard peaceful protest as it is the most important tool people have in a democracy, it generates political changes, or at least put issues in the media focus.
If you start using violent means, media will destroy you, people will be afraid of you and LEO will kick your ass, ventilate you or put you in the can.
So your saying mearly holding a rifle isnt a peaceful protest? And i highly doubt a police officer would be stupid enough to just start pepper spraying a few in a crowd of thousands with weapons. But... if he wants to become a domestic terrorist and not allow peaceful protests then its really our duty at that point.
Lets keep it above board gang, make a solid argument and you know I will allow it but let's keep the 'hate speech' out of it. All that crap does is make us look like the rest of the wackos.
Whats the end goal of this thread. Seems we are off the OP topic. And im not one to bitch about being off topic because development of conversations creates new topics. But where are we going with this? not a loaded question just curious...
Personally I see no point in showing example after example of the elites enforcers getting away with criminal acts. We all know it happens and there isn't a damn thing anyone can do about it, we aren't willing to play the cards we are holding.
Don't get me wrong Nola, it is appalling that this cop got away with spraying those hippies in the face with mace like he was watering his wife's flower garden.
I mean, if I can't do it why does he get to do it?
Fuck hippies.
What I am saying is that Free Speech was never Protected Speech. In America you have always been free to speak your mind just the same as someone else was free to take offense to it and demand satisfaction.
If you denied a gentleman's request for satisfaction he had the right to chastise you publicly for the rest of your days as a coward. To the extent of taking out adds in the paper and printing handbills.
And all that is to say you were dealing with a civil person, what I just described was the hight of civility. A coarser man would just beat the fuck out of you and his defence in court would be that you offended him and his honor. Typically the court saw these cases as a waste of time unless very serious damages were done.
So you are looking at a world where you were free to say as you pleased and someone else was free to relieve your face of its teeth. That is something I can believe in.
What I am saying is that Free Speech was never Protected Speech. In America you have always been free to speak your mind just the same as someone else was free to take offense to it and demand satisfaction.
If you denied a gentleman's request for satisfaction he had the right to chastise you publicly for the rest of your days as a coward. To the extent of taking out adds in the paper and printing handbills.
And all that is to say you were dealing with a civil person, what I just described was the hight of civility. A coarser man would just beat the fuck out of you and his defence in court would be that you offended him and his honor. Typically the court saw these cases as a waste of time unless very serious damages were done.
So you are looking at a world where you were free to say as you pleased and someone else was free to relieve your face of its teeth. That is something I can believe in.
So let me get this straight. You deny people the ability to say what they want because dueling is no longer legal/socially acceptable.
You sir, are an affront to my honour. Pistols at dawn. Or shall it be fisticuffs?
But seriously really? It sounds to me that you don't like people talking about free speech when you as the Admin are the one that restricts it. So you come up with some lame excuse about how it was the norm 150 years ago to duel those who insult you and thus, people who speak freely are cowards.
It is really quite simple broseph. You either respect RS7's right to speak about offensive things or you suppress him and regulate what he says for public appearances.
I'm not really buying the calling people coward thing.
That's great bro. More power to you. So that guy is against free speech in his house but he is for free speech in the government's house. Got it. Crystal clear.
You guys have to understand that I am not directly calling you hypocrites but sorry if that's how you're taking it.
lol.... JT Ready... [img]http://www.arrse.co.uk/at
The decision for things to become way worse is in the hands of the LEO's ultimately.
Did any of the protesters that day get pepper sprayed or anything of the sort?
I accidently ran accross this video of militia gaurding th OWS protesters and i find the one bastard who ends up murding his whole family, dammit... lol
But beyond all that.....
Did any of the protesters that day get pepper sprayed or anything of the sort? I dont know but if you do then speak up. I cant imagine they did though. Which lends itself to my point. People holding guns get respect. Yes things can go way worse then peaceful protesting. But with no risk comes no reward. Or what i always like to say, "Scared money dont make money". The decision for things to become way worse is in the hands of the LEO's ultimately.
They pull the trigger. They make the final decision wether they know it or not.The decision for things to become way worse is in the hands of the LEO's ultimately.
The decision is in the hands of the government, LEOs do nothing without someone giving the order. LEOs are pawns.
Correct. But it does say it dosent immediatly make all cops swarm and start shooting everyone holding a gun every time... what ever thats worth.. Even cops have tolerance to some degree or another. and they too know to pick their battles. But one thing is for certain. If the battles look easier to win (no armed citizens) they are more likely to pick them.Did any of the protesters that day get pepper sprayed or anything of the sort?
That isn't conclusive, there were tons of occupy protests in the US without pepper spray and without the militia on guard.
Correct. But it does say it dosent immediatly make all cops swarm and start shooting everyone holding a gun every time... what ever thats worth.. Even cops have tolerance to some degree or another. and they too know to pick their battles. But one thing is for certain. If the battles look easier to win (no armed citizens) they are more likely to pick them.Did any of the protesters that day get pepper sprayed or anything of the sort?
That isn't conclusive, there were tons of occupy protests in the US without pepper spray and without the militia on guard.
My only point is that there is no way armed citizens/militia will be able to act to defend the protestors from the LEO without extremely serious consequences for them.
I would really like to see how do you think the militia should act in the case LEOs try to disperse the protest.
Ken mentioned that "no risk, no gain" and that's true, but as an irregular force you need to pick your battles and choose the ones you can win, going head to head against the LEOs isn't a wise choice, even less with a still working judicial system and media that will rip you apart
QuoteI would really like to see how do you think the militia should act in the case LEOs try to disperse the protest.Fire with fire brother. If police escilated to violence they made the choice for them. If they ask nicely and the protesters refuse and they give up then thats where it ends. Again, its the LEO's decision if they want to become terrorists, its not the miltia members place to decide that for them. But it is their place and responsibility to stop them the best they can if it went there.
QuoteI would really like to see how do you think the militia should act in the case LEOs try to disperse the protest.Fire with fire brother. If police escilated to violence they made the choice for them. If they ask nicely and the protesters refuse and they give up then thats where it ends. Again, its the LEO's decision if they want to become terrorists, its not the miltia members place to decide that for them. But it is their place and responsibility to stop them the best they can if it went there.
Ken, that's not the SOP of LE.
LE first ask nicely and if you refuse they insist.
If you continue to refuse, they'll use non lethal weapons (batons, tear gas, pepper spray, hydrant trucks etc), that's not becoming a terrorist, that's a usual day for riot police.
If protestors use lethal force, the second line of LE will shoot.( Riot police usually isn't armed to avoid losing the weapon). In this case they are not the terrorist because you shot first and they are defending themselves.
So, you cant apply "fire by fire" because the fire will be initiated by the militia (or an infiltrated gov agent), not LE.
The militia has no way to respond to non-lethal force without fucking it up.
Urban demonstrations have their own set of tactics, a better response to LE would be to move the protest to a different place, when the police go there you move again, that tactic can turn a city upside down and no one gets hurt or shot.
ter?ror?ism/ˈterəˌrizəm/
Noun: The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
I never said that the presence of guns makes a protest violent.
My only point is that there is no way armed citizens/militia will be able to act to defend the protestors from the LEO without extremely serious consequences for them.
The only way you mention is the dissuasive factor, but that means shit, in my country I have seen the police sent to disperse indigenous protests and there were wounded and dead on both sides, the indigenous were armed and that meant shit for the politicians, they just wanted the police to clear the road.
I would really like to see how do you think the militia should act in the case LEOs try to disperse the protest.
Ken mentioned that "no risk, no gain" and that's true, but as an irregular force you need to pick your battles and choose the ones you can win, going head to head against the LEOs isn't a wise choice, even less with a still working judicial system and media that will rip you apart.
QuoteMy only point is that there is no way armed citizens/militia will be able to act to defend the protestors from the LEO without extremely serious consequences for them.
Simply being there and having the weight of actual risk to the officers is defending the protesters. They stop the protesters from being taken advantage of in many cases. If this went on and eventually one event turned out with blood shed, then so be it. If your not willing to defend your rights with blood then theres no way you can keep them.QuoteI would really like to see how do you think the militia should act in the case LEOs try to disperse the protest.
Fire with fire brother. If police escilated to violence they made the choice for them. If they ask nicely and the protesters refuse and they give up then thats where it ends. Again, its the LEO's decision if they want to become terrorists, its not the miltia members place to decide that for them. But it is their place and responsibility to stop them the best they can if it went there.QuoteKen mentioned that "no risk, no gain" and that's true, but as an irregular force you need to pick your battles and choose the ones you can win, going head to head against the LEOs isn't a wise choice, even less with a still working judicial system and media that will rip you apart
But simply being present on a spot on the map isnt picking a battle in my opinion. If it apears that way its because we have been driven to think that using our rights makes us bad. Again, it's up to police to make any attack on our liberties or not. They have freedom of choice as individuals. Americans however have a responsibility to stop attacks on our liberty.
That's nice rhetoric, its easy to talk about blood, shooting and killing LEOs from home, but doing that and living the consequences is another issue.
I see tons of guys saying what you say in many forums, but I never saw anyone shooting riot police, or shooting congress mans when they approved the assault weapons ban, or when in the latest NDAA they got the tools to incarcerate a US citizen without trial or other laws that are extremely more aggravating that pepper spraying you...
Maybe that's because people love their families and their lives and they don't want to spent the rest of their life in jail, or be shot in the streets.
Talking the talk is easy, walking the walk is pretty fucking hard man, my country had more than 40 years of urban guerrilla against military dictatorships and it fucking sucks.
Please, don't take this as an attack to you Ken, is just that fighting against a government isn't easy business, lots of people die and your country will pay the price for generations, never talk easily about insurrection.
Escalation of any sort should be avoided, help in the form of advice, particularly on communication and organizing is the better method from my point of view.
The protesters lack both leadership and anything resembling tactics as far as I've seen. Just sending out more groups to targeted points than the police have sufficient numbers to address and pulling them out to other targets if enough law enforcement shows up would effectively lock "crowd control" down to only high priority points. They are a response only force without real mobile endurance in these situations and the momentum can be taken easily leaving them isolated and ineffective. If given cause they move in and make arrests but will not do so without sufficient numbers for the most part. Opportunities missed due to a lack of understanding the capabilities, limitations and rules of engagement of the opposing force.