Ferguson

[RMAC757]

Apparently you read something into what Ronin13 wrote that wasn't even there.

How so

[RblDiver]

How so

You emphasized this quote: "I think these people protesting at the slightest thing removes the power of protest and public grievances, much akin to the boy who cried wolf." You went on to say "The constitution isn't a flexible document that gets watered down when someone does something you don't like. Protected rights are just that, whether your a lib at a protest rally or a law abiding gun owner."

I don't think Ronin was saying that the protests should be shut down by the government. Indeed, peaceful protests are protected by the Constitution. However, what I took his point as being was that if you're going to protest, it should have a good reason behind it. Trying to rally with Michael Brown as a figurehead is ridiculous. By inciting incidents without a good, compelling reason behind them, the protesters are doing more harm to their position than good.

Think of it this way: Imagine I go on a murderous rampage and get killed by the police at the end of it. I'd daresay I had it coming and wouldn't be worthy of respect. However, if someone started a large nationwide movement "Justice for RblDiver" complete with looting, it'd be absurd and lessen the impact. Then, later on when someone DID have a valid reason to protest, their voices would be heard less because people'd more instantly assume "Oh, yet another protest, don't care what it's about, we've seen enough so it's probably something ridiculous."

So, Ronin wasn't saying that the gov't should take away the First Amendment. He was saying protesters are shooting themselves in the foot by rioting over something that really doesn't deserve it.

And in other news, today one of the protests blocked an ambulance from getting a man with a severed leg to the hospital. http://twitchy.com/2014/12/13/protes...-and-hospital/

[Ronin13]

...

Yep, pretty much the point I was making. Thanks!
RMAC, you read a little too much into what I was getting at.

[RMAC757]

Yep, pretty much the point I was making. Thanks!
RMAC, you read a little too much into what I was getting at.

I guess the same could be said both ways. This is a discussion board, as long as it's civil, I don't mind discussion.

[Gman]

I guess the same could be said both ways. This is a discussion board, as long as it's civil, I don't mind discussion.

I'm probably not the only one that's confused by your comments about even Constitutional protection. Feel free to share your feelings, but please don't attribute the contrary position to someone not making that assertion.

[RMAC757]

I'm probably not the only one that's confused by your comments about even Constitutional protection. Feel free to share your feelings, but please don't attribute the contrary position to someone not making that assertion.

No problem. I guess I don't understand where the confusion is. My apologies if it was convoluted.

[RMAC757]

You emphasized this quote: "I think these people protesting at the slightest thing removes the power of protest and public grievances, much akin to the boy who cried wolf." You went on to say "The constitution isn't a flexible document that gets watered down when someone does something you don't like. Protected rights are just that, whether your a lib at a protest rally or a law abiding gun owner."

I don't think Ronin was saying that the protests should be shut down by the government. Indeed, peaceful protests are protected by the Constitution. However, what I took his point as being was that if you're going to protest, it should have a good reason behind it. Trying to rally with Michael Brown as a figurehead is ridiculous. By inciting incidents without a good, compelling reason behind them, the protesters are doing more harm to their position than good.

Think of it this way: Imagine I go on a murderous rampage and get killed by the police at the end of it. I'd daresay I had it coming and wouldn't be worthy of respect. However, if someone started a large nationwide movement "Justice for RblDiver" complete with looting, it'd be absurd and lessen the impact. Then, later on when someone DID have a valid reason to protest, their voices would be heard less because people'd more instantly assume "Oh, yet another protest, don't care what it's about, we've seen enough so it's probably something ridiculous."

So, Ronin wasn't saying that the gov't should take away the First Amendment. He was saying protesters are shooting themselves in the foot by rioting over something that really doesn't deserve it.

And in other news, today one of the protests blocked an ambulance from getting a man with a severed leg to the hospital. http://twitchy.com/2014/12/13/protes...-and-hospital/

I wasn't going nearly that far or even leading towards that. . In context, what I wrote was that people have the "right" to protest....not commit crime. The same as gun owners. It doesn't matter what it's over. Do we select a committee to determine what's worthy of protesting and what's not? That would be the last thing we need....more govt oversight. Nowadays people protest far less than they use too.The argument that people protest over anything is way off base. Protests have been going on since the raise in Tea prices and draft notices of the civil war and they included destruction of property ironically and murder. These large protests in almost every major city of the US are constitutionallly protected freedoms and have been mostly peaceful in nature. I don't think however that the main focus of protests was Brown, but instead the divide between the community and local law enforcement agencies ( Gurley, Hill, Garner, etc ). My point is you don't have to like it ( like most anti-gunners ). It's a constitutionally protected freedom. I also think that comparing these incidents to a "murderous rampage" is a little over the top. To those of you who say "if you don't want a confrontation, don't commit crime"..,,,,when was the last time you exceeded the speed limit? I'd argue that is far more harmful than selling "singles" on the street corner in New York.

my 2 cents.

[Big John]

I wasn't going nearly that far or even leading towards that. . In context, what I wrote was that people have the "right" to protest....not commit crime. The same as gun owners. It doesn't matter what it's over. Do we select a committee to determine what's worthy of protesting and what's not? That would be the last thing we need....more govt oversight. Nowadays people protest far less than they use too.The argument that people protest over anything is way off base. Protests have been going on since the raise in Tea prices and draft notices of the civil war and they included destruction of property ironically and murder. These large protests in almost every major city of the US are constitutionallly protected freedoms and have been mostly peaceful in nature. I don't think however that the main focus of protests was Brown, but instead the divide between the community and local law enforcement agencies ( Gurley, Hill, Garner, etc ). My point is you don't have to like it ( like most anti-gunners ). It's a constitutionally protected freedom. I also think that comparing these incidents to a "murderous rampage" is a little over the top. To those of you who say "if you don't want a confrontation, don't commit crime"..,,,,when was the last time you exceeded the speed limit? I'd argue that is far more harmful than selling "singles" on the street corner in New York.

my 2 cents.

Since at least one of the events being protested is predicated on an outright lie and the other highly questionable... Not many already give two squirts of piss what they are currently protesting. Therefore, their next stupid protest will cared about even less ("watered down").


BTW... IBTL

[RMAC757]

Since at least one of the events being protested is predicated on an outright lie and the other highly questionable... Not many already give two squirts of piss what they are currently protesting. Therefore, their next stupid protest will cared about even less ("watered down").


BTW... IBTL

I disagree, protests in almost every major city would indicate that your wrong about "Not many giving a piss". How many did we get out to support our 2A rights? Your very active new guy.

[crays]

I disagree, protests in almost every major city would indicate that your wrong about "Not many giving a piss". How many did we get out to support our 2A rights? Your very active new guy.

Protesting exactly WHAT in "every major city"? Please. They didn't get the result they WANTED in Ferguson, so the GJ system is now being indicted in the court of public (mostly uneducated and definitely emotion driven) opinion. I would venture a guess that a large majority of the protesters in the majority of the "major cities" you cite couldn't even articulate clearly what they are protesting, if they were pulled aside and asked to explain what/why they are protesting.

Hell...Most of them probably couldn't even remember Michael Brown's name.