Ferguson

[Gman]

That's absurd. What if Lib's used the same argument about gun ownership. 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. The constitution isn't just there for stuff we like.

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

[GilpinGuy]

Not sure if this has been posted up here yet. If so, I apologize.

It was, but well worth a repost.

[kidicarus13]

It was, but well worth a repost.

I consider that preaching to the choir.

[Big John]

I'd go as far as even saying, at the point that Michael Brown made a legitimate attempt at Off. Wilson's firearm, his life no longer mattered. The scum sucking, piece of slime, Hassan Nidal's life doesn't matter. Traitorous Bowe Bergdahl's life, to me, no longer matters. Bailey, once again you are hitting the nail on the head with the liberal mantra "all lives matter." Do they? Do they really? (This question is of course not posed to you).

Another thing I cannot stand these days, and it stems from these "incidents", protest. Okay, I get that people are upset and want to protest something. But if it's not a legitimate cause and it's just protest for protesting sake, give me a break! The man-hours and effort it takes to deal with this crap for weeks on end is just absurd. I also grow tired of it, especially with stupid catch-phrases like "Black Lives Matter", "Hands Up, Don't Shoot", "I Can't Breath" (no kidding, they misspell it because they're too busy protesting instead of learning). If there truly was a grave injustice being committed by America's Law Enforcement, en masse (not singular cases), then I would understand and sympathize. But day in, day out, millions of Americans are not subjected to abuse or mistreatment by the police; police are accountable and held liable for their actions all the time. Many other countries out there do not afford the public such ability to pursue charges, tort, or complaints against the police. They should consider themselves lucky. In all, 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. Numb the average American to protest with its overuse and eventually, when something really does go bad, people protesting will get an annoyed "There they go again," rather than actual attention to the subject.

Well said sir!

[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]

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.

[Gman]

...and there are police officers that really care about people. This kind of thing happens more often than some may think;

Grandmother caught stealing eggs to feed hungry children 'overwhelmed' by kindness of police

[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.