Silence continues on the forum regarding Ferguson.

2seaoat wrote:Let me see if I got this right.  A State Senator was at a protest.  She had a concealed carry permit and a loaded gun in her purse.  When she was arrested the gun was discovered.   An officer believed the Senator had been drinking, so he asked her to take a breathalyzer.

1.   She had every right to be at the protest.

2.   She had every right to have her permitted gun.

3.   She had every right to have consumed alcohol, and she had no duty to take any breathalyzer.  Her refusal is exactly the correct answer for any person who is not driving a vehicle when asked by an officer to do the same.


SO EXACTLY WHAT IS THE PROBLEM.

2seaoat wrote:Let me see if I got this right.  A State Senator was at a protest.  She had a concealed carry permit and a loaded gun in her purse.  When she was arrested the gun was discovered.   An officer believed the Senator had been drinking, so he asked her to take a breathalyzer.

1.   She had every right to be at the protest.

2.   She had every right to have her permitted gun.

3.   She had every right to have consumed alcohol, and she had no duty to take any breathalyzer.  Her refusal is exactly the correct answer for any person who is not driving a vehicle when asked by an officer to do the same.


SO EXACTLY WHAT IS THE PROBLEM.

2seaoat wrote:possibly intoxicated which means said person would be even more dangerous to the public in general.

All innuendo.  Please report back when she has been criminally charged for being intoxicated.   It will not happen.  An adult woman walking in a protest who has been drinking is NOT a crime.  You would have to understand how difficult the state's case is to prove intoxication.   I am curious....can you show me the BAC level for walking where one has broken the law?  You cannot.  She has a 1 in a thousand chance of a conviction on intoxication, and with a simple jury demand the state could retry it a 100 times and not get a conviction.

Yep, she was a scardy cat.....but I am pretty chauvinist still.......I just do not understand how a grown man has to be that scared to carry a gun.  If someone has threatened him, I understand.   However the average male in America who scared enough to need a gun to walk in public.....get a dress.

Damaged Eagle wrote:

2seaoat wrote:Let me see if I got this right.  A State Senator was at a protest.  She had a concealed carry permit and a loaded gun in her purse.  When she was arrested the gun was discovered.   An officer believed the Senator had been drinking, so he asked her to take a breathalyzer.

1.   She had every right to be at the protest.

2.   She had every right to have her permitted gun.

3.   She had every right to have consumed alcohol, and she had no duty to take any breathalyzer.  Her refusal is exactly the correct answer for any person who is not driving a vehicle when asked by an officer to do the same.


SO EXACTLY WHAT IS THE PROBLEM.

I see... So now it's OK for a scardy cat with a gun, who's an anti-gun progressive by the way, to be at a 'peaceful protest' and possibly intoxicated which means said person would be even more dangerous to the public in general.

I just love liberal logic... You can do anything you want so long as those you oppose can't.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ljy6PTbX9I

 

Markle wrote:

So true!  She has proposed numerous gun laws which would restrict innocent members of the public from possessing guns and even restricting the ammunition we can buy.  Mean time she had extra clips for her semi-automatic weapon and was drunk.  The massive hypocrisy of Progressives is simply appalling.  

2seaoat wrote:I carry a firearm because of scaredy cat females like you who only attack others in packs or with a weapon of their own.

I carry no gun.   I am a big boy who has had the snot kicked out me many times, and I have done my own kicking, but for the life of me I cannot imagine being scared enough to carry a gun.  I have been attacked by three individuals and was bloodied as they were and would no more consider carrying a gun.....chit happens.  I have broken multiple bones in athletic competition and been bloodied repeatedly, and I never once thought about bringing a gun to a football game.......Seaoat turns the corner and has open field but for the safety.....oh seaoat shoots the safety.......touchdown.   I am pretty comfortable dealing with known risks than shivering under the glow of a nightlight.   Life is tough enough without going through it scared.

2seaoat wrote:Yeah you're a tough guy and that's why you use an anonymous when posting here as you call others names and other abuses. That takes a lot of courage.


Nope....no longer a tough guy.  Just a sick old man.  However, out of all my friends with some being the real deal tough guys, we only know one person who has a conceal and carry.  He got it after he had open heart surgery and had a stint put in.......he no longer felt secure physically.  I understand the weak, old and affirmed seeking security in a gun, I simply do not get the fear which would drive a normal male to get a conceal and carry.  What scares a person enough to seek that additional assurance?   Sensitive fellow......I will give you the kid glove treatment from now on.

2seaoat wrote:You've got that turned around. You're the sensitive one when it comes to discussing an issue. You always run away from the discussion and/or refuse to answer the questions.

Was you're scaredy cat progressive liberal anti-gun female to chicken to accomplish what she set out to do when she went white people hunting or did she forget to pick up her white people hunting permit from the New Black Panthers?

By golly I tried to have a logical discussion with you, but when you talk about white people hunting sitting in the middle of Iowa, I can understand why Hallmark thought you had a screw loose.   Do you ever notice people do not converse with you.  I always try to give you the benefit of the doubt, but really what you just posted is pretty incoherent.  

2seaoat wrote:Hallmark an abusive troll......I am certainly not on his Christmas list, but he was never an abusive troll.  I actually enjoy conversing with you when you have both oars in the water......it is just sometimes you give off signals that you cannot quite get that oar in the water.   I once had a street person come into the office and start ranting at a receptionist about snakes.  I invited him into my office and began speaking with him.......about 10 sentences into the conversation I realized he was mentally ill and rather than agitating him by telling him there were no snakes in his house, I gave credence to his concerns and told him he was doing a great public service to get rid of the snakes.....but that snakes travel and the entire city could be in trouble.....he lowered his voice and became less agitated....he listened instead of talking.  I explained it was his highest civic duty to take care of the snakes, and the mayor must know about this immediately.  I gave him directions to city hall and the office number for the mayor.   He left my office with a mission, content in his sanity, and certain he was going to save the city.   I left the conversation happy as a pig in chit that the SOB mayor  was now going to waste an hour trying to convince this guy that he could not save the city..........so sometimes when we are having a conversation and you start to talk about snakes......well.

2seaoat wrote:You didn't post the whole law,Seaoat.

Your use of the concept of the "whole law" is exactly one of the deficiencies I am forced to point to  ad nausea.  First, you are correct that I did not post the entire Supreme Court decision.   Now when the Supreme Court rules, it addresses many issues and many tenets can be garnered, but the whole law is not every word of a decision, or dissent.  You seem to think that I have excluded something from a Supreme Court case which you certainly had no knowledge or understanding.  You also think that the addition of the White dicta changes a thing on what I have posted.  It does not.   The Supreme Court standard remains the same as I have outlined.  In order for this officer to have his lethal shooting justified he must reasonably have believed that he or the public was at risk of serious physical harm.

The standard is not:
If an officer pulls his gun and you grab it, I think you can safely assume the gun would be used on you. That would be an attempt to murder the officer and running away as a fleeing felon would under the law justify shooting someone.



I hope you are learning.  However, your misconceptions are numerous and disconnected.  When I attempt to give you guidance you get angry.  I would think by now you would figure some things out......hopefully you understand that your standard as written by you was wrong.  It has been corrected.  

Damaged Eagle wrote:

2seaoat wrote:You've got that turned around. You're the sensitive one when it comes to discussing an issue. You always run away from the discussion and/or refuse to answer the questions.

Was you're scaredy cat progressive liberal anti-gun female to chicken to accomplish what she set out to do when she went white people hunting or did she forget to pick up her white people hunting permit from the New Black Panthers?

By golly I tried to have a logical discussion with you, but when you talk about white people hunting sitting in the middle of Iowa, I can understand why Hallmark thought you had a screw loose.   Do you ever notice people do not converse with you.  I always try to give you the benefit of the doubt, but really what you just posted is pretty incoherent.  

I figure it only fair play since you consider everyone who's white a racist but anyone who isn't white can't be racist.

So why not answer the original question I posed instead. What did the progressive liberal anti-gun female feel she needed a firearm for while participating in a 'peaceful protest'?

Hallmark got pissed off over my question of... 'If his daughter opposed his wishes?'... At which time he became nothing more than a abusive troll to me just as your suggestions that everyone here is a racist makes you nothing more than a troll about race relations...... As for the people who refuse to talk to me or have me on ignore... They're all supposedly enlightened progressive liberals who don't like being questioned about their spoon feed philosophy.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ljy6PTbX9I