Was the kid shoplifting? Obviously even if he was, the shooting was uncalled for if he was unarmed. But at the same time if he was shop lifting he wasn't exactly an innocent bystander either.

 

Agree 100% if he wasn't armed he shouldn't of been shot. Cop should be prosecuted. My point was just reading the article and people making him out to be a saint. If he shop lifted then I'm not buying it. Just a terrible situation.

 

I won't admit I jumped to any conclusions because I specifically withheld all judgement besides saying a I didn't buy that the victim was an innocent victim.

 

 

 

:walk:

 

If you feel I was casting judgement I question your reading comprehension .

 

If you don't think you were casting judgement I question your writing comprehension

 

I don't have to be a police officer or worked in law enforcement to understand the constitution . I don't have to worked in law enforcement to understand history and freedom as intended by our forefathers. I rarely ridicule individual LA , I do ridicule leadership and tactical decisions which a I feel infringe on individual liberties. I go out of my way not to criticize an individual officer because I understand like any job they are following orders to earn a pay check like every other person I know.

 

.

 

You do realize there are people and I mean citizens or "sovereign" citizens who have more fire power than police. You've got rioters chucking Molotov cocktails at the officers and you want them standing out there in their Class A's waving a baton?

 

Since you're an expert on tactics, how would you handle the riots? I'll hang up and listen to your answer on the air.

Then why hasn't if failed miserably in the UK, which you just concluded was the reason they had almost non-existent gun violence?

If you want to take guns away from American citizens, then you should campaign to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Until it is repealed with widespread support among American citizens, then liberals should stop trying to make gun ownership rare through selective bans, taxes, and other gimmicks. The founding fathers passed the 2nd Amendment to allow Americans some defense against a potentially oppressive government.

 

The right to bear arms is not one that should be surrendered in exchange for short-term security. Vermont had it right when it adopted its state motto "Live free or die," and every bit of freedom that we surrender now will be extremely difficult to regain later.

Some locals are unhappy with the background of the prosecutor.

 

Background of prosecutor in Ferguson case has some questioning probe's credibility - CBS News

With 3D printers, guns are going to be even more accessible. I think some have already made a guns capable of firing once on a 3D printer.

 

Plastic Guns Made With 3-D Printers Pose New Security Concerns : All Tech Considered : NPR

Unless our federal government starts requiring registration of 3D printers, gun control will soon be obsolete because it will be unenforceable. If current predictions are correct, the cost of 3D metal printers will soon begin to plummet, which will almost undoubtedly result in the production of guns in garages across the country.

The founding fathers passed the 2nd Amendment to allow Americans some defense against a potentially oppressive government.

 

Their reasoning for the Second Amendment centered around the need for militias instead of a standing army. At any rate, what would an oppressive government look like if it's not found in the militarized response to the protests in Ferguson?

You do realize there are people and I mean citizens or "sovereign" citizens who have more fire power than police. You've got rioters chucking Molotov cocktails at the officers and you want them standing out there in their Class A's waving a baton?

 

Since you're an expert on tactics, how would you handle the riots? I'll hang up and listen to your answer on the air.

 

Well one tactic I wouldn't have is snipers pointing at unarmed and peaceful protesters during the day. Listen I get it as a cop in most cases you justify aggressive behavior because the mindset by the badge is you are entitled to obedience by citizens. When people are rioting at night and looting well action and agressive tactics are needed. But you can't honestly believe some of the behavior happening in Ferguson doesn't fall on the dim witted leadership Ferguson LE has shown.

 

I'm not denying the comments you posted of me but in context with several other posts I had it was consistent with my belief that if his back was turned with hands up cop should be arrested. But I never stated a definitive conclusion. Again context is needed and out of all the posters in this thread I have been one of the least extreme on either side. Lesson learned when you sit on the fence still expect to be attacked.

Their reasoning for the Second Amendment centered around the need for militias instead of a standing army. At any rate, what would an oppressive government look like if it's not found in the militarized response to the protests in Ferguson?

 

I would argue your reasoning for the second amendment while partially correct is missing a great deal of context. Anyone who has read the writings of our founding fathers knows the meaning of the right to bear arms runs much deeper than that.

I would argue your reasoning for the second amendment while partially correct is missing a great deal of context. Anyone who has read the writings of our founding fathers knows the meaning of the right to bear arms runs much deeper than that.

 

I've read as much as I can find. The most spirited debate in James Madison's journal was over whether there would be religious exemptions to service in the militias because Quakers were worried they'd be forced to fight despite religious objections.

Their reasoning for the Second Amendment centered around the need for militias instead of a standing army. At any rate, what would an oppressive government look like if it's not found in the militarized response to the protests in Ferguson?

Hitler's Germany, Stalin's U.S.S.R., Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Chavez's Venezuela, Castro's Cuba, Nero's Rome, King George's rule over the American colonies - there is no shortage of precedents for oppressive governments.

 

To compare the police departments' reaction to the looting and rioting in Ferguson to the kind of oppression that would require a widespread armed rebellion is ludicrous.

I've read as much as I can find. The most spirited debate in James Madison's journal was over whether there would be religious exemptions to service in the militias because Quakers were worried they'd be forced to fight despite religious objections.

 

Who would you suggest take guns from law abiding Americans? The police?

Who would you suggest take guns from law abiding Americans? The police?

 

I didn't suggest that.

I've read as much as I can find. The most spirited debate in James Madison's journal was over whether there would be religious exemptions to service in the militias because Quakers were worried they'd be forced to fight despite religious objections.

 

I read this as well and strays from the topic at hand.

 

Listen Habib there are many topics on this board I agree wire you on. But there are topics like this where the modern liberal such as yourself and the classic libertarian such as me differ. It confuses me deeply how modern liberals preach civil liberties and totally miss how the second ammendment along with the first define a truly free society.

I didn't suggest that.

 

I'm confused. What is your solution then?

 

Your argument is that the UK is less violent than the US because of guns, right?