Protests at a LEO's home.

[HCM]

Part of living in a free society is accepting that other people are sometimes going to exercise their rights in a manner in which you disagree. But if they're not infringing upon your rights, what right do you have to infringe on theirs?

Conflicts do not exist amongst men who do not desire the unearned.

Rights are not absolute. Liberty, is the exercise of your rights balanced against the rights of others. Protests at private residences fail that test.

[Wake27]

You can still have magazines over 15 rounds in Colo. if you possessed them prior to the ban or are LE. Many, many hi-cap mags in the state.

Displaying a deadly weapon in a "manner calculated to alarm" and "Making unreasonable noise in a public place or near a private residence that he has no right to occupy" is specific language in the Disorderly Conduct statute."

Oh yeah, forgot about that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HCM]

Part of living in a free society is accepting that other people are sometimes going to exercise their rights in a manner in which you disagree. But if they're not infringing upon your rights, what right do you have to infringe on theirs?

Conflicts do not exist amongst men who do not desire the unearned.

Here you go:

https://www.fox6now.com/news/protest...nt-at-his-home

Protesters tried to kill me:' Wauwatosa Officer Mensah issues statement on incident at his home

Officer Mensah attempted to communicate with the group but was physically assaulted outside his home, according to a release from Wauwatosa police around 11 a.m. Sunday.

As the officer made his way back into his home, police said "armed protesters" approached the rear door and a single shotgun round was discharged into the back door.

[cornstalker]

If anyone verbally or physically threatened the officer, they clearly crossed the line. If the officer *felt* threatened by people lawfully exercising their rights, that's on him. #fucksafespaces

I have to admit that I have lost track of this thread, so if I say something stupid, well, that’s fairly normal for me.

If we are talking about the OP scenario, the reports I saw said the officer and his family were not even home. In case y’all missed it, 30ish heavily armed civilians showed up in defense of the officer. What happened here was not okay, and citizens stood up in support of that. Bickering about the minutiae only indicates that we are willing to argue about ones right to be a fucking asshole. An asshole is an asshole. One that justifies their right to be so is also a fucking asshole. Show each other a little respect. Fucking with a guy’s home and family is not an example of that.

[BehindBlueI's]

Protests are supposed to make those in power uncomfortable - they ought to feel threatened.

Part of living in a free society is accepting that other people are sometimes going to exercise their rights in a manner in which you disagree.

Those aren't the same thing and at this point I'm not sure which you're trying to argue.

Simple question: Is a group of people, some with long guns at the low ready, who have made it clear they are targeting an individual for their ire protected activity in your world view?

If yes, how does this differ from KKK tactics or any other example of mob/warlord rule?

[Joe in PNG]

Those aren't the same thing and at this point I'm not sure which you're trying to argue.

Simple question: Is a group of people, some with long guns at the low ready, who have made it clear they are targeting an individual for their ire protected activity in your world view?

If yes, how does this differ from KKK tactics or any other example of mob/warlord rule?

And how does stopping and restraining uninvolved neighbors by threatening deadly force work out as a 'peaceful protest' likewise?

[jh9]

Simple question: Is a group of people, some with long guns at the low ready, who have made it clear they are targeting an individual for their ire protected activity in your world view?

Yeah, it seems like we've been down the road of armed protest before. I don't know where the notion that the right to protest and to simultaneously open carry longarms in the most threatening manner possible are unlimited in scope, but it's a very modern invention.

I would not cry a single tear if I woke up tomorrow and the Texas state lege decided that open carry of a long gun required not only the use of a sling but that the long gun had to be carried on the back and not over the front of the chest. That, of course, doesn't address the whole "dozen armed men show up outside your house" aspect... but it does force them to change some of the undesirable behavior if they want to remain legally protected.

[jh9]

And how does stopping and restraining uninvolved neighbors by threatening deadly force work out as a 'peaceful protest' likewise?

I'd say one of them is asking to get Garrett Foster'd but you have to be real about the odds. The solution to this isn't escalating to pseudo-neighborhood militias engaging each other. Though I know some of the doomsday cheerleaders think they would love it, that's some third world shit.

[5pins]

I like the fact we have a like button on this forum. I just wish we had a dumb ass button.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I think such actions are despicable. I will make two comments on the general issue:

1. We are seeing an unintended consequence of open long arm carry. Folks in the gun world were all excited in their pants about folks marching around with modern sporting rifle (ahem). Demonstrate to the gummit with yours! They assumed that such demonstrations would be composed just of their righteous, progun, conservative folks fearing the socialist wave. Oops - they missed that the other side of the political and demographic coin will conduct marches, demonstrations and the like, armed for their cause and views. We are seeing this and people are shocked. Some of the marches are well controlled and in accord with our rights, some are turning bad by circumstance and some are deliberately evil, as in this case. Like I said, you wanted open long arm carry and that's what you are getting.

Intimidating armed demonstrations and drive bys against minorities weren't rare in the past. When you allow such, you get the bad on all sides. Unintended consequence. I understand the absolutist 'rights' position but as HCM, absolute rights don't really exist. Also, rights shouldn't be a suicide pact. You are adequately defended with a quality concealed weapon, IMHO. Daggaboy said, IIRC, I don't want to see you naked or see your gun (but that picture - OMG).

2. I've mentioned before that when you get into real resistance/opposition (or whatever you want to call it) to law enforcement, in other countries, we see the police and their families targeted. A bunch of guys in pickups isn't going to solve that problem if such tactics truly take hold. Just pointing out the history of such. There is no quick fix if switch into true civil war or true organized terrorism from any side of the spectrum. If substantial parts of a population support or acquiesce to such, well, we are truly screwed as a society.