Jack and DP said:

---

---

Those aren't paint sprayers in that photo. Those are used to dispense something far more sinister.

Jack and DP said:

---

---

I reckon they didn't want to become @riotbrokenribs. Take the money and run.

Booray said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Booray said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Who in this discussion suggested shooting people? Good grief you are as disingenuous as can be. And btw, when does someone cease to be a protestor? When they light a fire? Blind a police officer? Break a skull with a chunk of ice? Kill someone with an explosive device?

This isn't a sit-in at the Chancellor's office.

---

No one on this thread. But I had an extended discussion on another thread where Canada and one other poster suggested specifically that, When I called them out and asked for other conservatives to do the same only Mothra and Sam would do it.

---

Do you see Canada in my nameplate? If not, don't ascribe his opinions to me or anyone else who has not advocated for such. Thank you.

---

I wasn't and I am sorry that it wasn't clear.

But having Canada and Florida openly advocate for shooting protesters and garnering support for that idea, I think it is worth pointing out that "what would Reagan do?" would exclude shooting protesters.

---

Have you watched the videos from around the nation of these "protestors"?? They are rioters and thugs, and they won't stop until force is used against them.
I pray that it isn't bullets... but some of them are just asking to be shot. I think we've passed the opportunity for a good ole ass whippin.

Live Protests Day 61:
99 days until Election Day.

And here we go...!!

NYC and Chicago with big murder counts over the weekend, Seattle burned a police precinct but has dropped to 2nd after the elimination of CHOP/CHAZ, Austin had a homicide at a BLM march but nobody can stay with Portland's longstanding, consistent anarchy. They're not in a sprint, they're running a protest marathon.

Vegas Odds for Biggest ****hole of 2020
Portland: 3-2
Seattle: 4-1
NYC: 6-1
LA: 10-1
Austin: 10-1
Oakland: 12-1
Chicago: 15-1
Aurora Interstate 225: 100-1

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Yall are going to need more kneepads soon. Thanks for the name calling wuzzy.,Anyone that disagrees with you and Trump must be a loon. Of course you are calling over half of voting Americans loons. Hpw American is that?

Why doesnt Trump show leadership and step up? One of you mentioned the election. Is he waiting to get re elected before he takes action? He just watches because getting elected again is more important?

He is the president now. These riots belong to his watch. Not Joe Biden.

BTW fuzzy, I guess you are new. i have never voted for a democrat presidential candidate and sure wont vote for Biden. Instead of vomiting the party line address the problems. If Trump cant handle it now how will he handle in the future? Do you think more of the same same will make it better? Really?

---

I think I have given you way too much credit. I thought you were more savvy than this.

Why do you think these Democrat-funded riots in Democrat cities are taking place? It's simple: be as chaotic and violent until the election so people like LIQR will figure out a way to blame Trump for them and get Biden elected. You watch, when Biden whens. these Democrat cities seeking all the looting and rioting are going to start to calm down.

Just like your stance on COVID-19 before you got it, I think you need to re-think your position on this one.

ShooterTX said:

---

Booray said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Booray said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Who in this discussion suggested shooting people? Good grief you are as disingenuous as can be. And btw, when does someone cease to be a protestor? When they light a fire? Blind a police officer? Break a skull with a chunk of ice? Kill someone with an explosive device?

This isn't a sit-in at the Chancellor's office.

---

No one on this thread. But I had an extended discussion on another thread where Canada and one other poster suggested specifically that, When I called them out and asked for other conservatives to do the same only Mothra and Sam would do it.

---

Do you see Canada in my nameplate? If not, don't ascribe his opinions to me or anyone else who has not advocated for such. Thank you.

---

I wasn't and I am sorry that it wasn't clear.

But having Canada and Florida openly advocate for shooting protesters and garnering support for that idea, I think it is worth pointing out that "what would Reagan do?" would exclude shooting protesters.

---

Have you watched the videos from around the nation of these "protestors"?? They are rioters and thugs, and they won't stop until force is used against them.
I pray that it isn't bullets... but some of them are just asking to be shot. I think we've passed the opportunity for a good ole ass whippin.

---

First, the riots are limited in place: to a couple of blocks in selected cities, and in time: later in the evening. They are not that large.

Second, and I can't believe I have to keep making this point: yes, if someone is breaking the law, arrest them. Impose a curfew so being in an impacted area is breaking the law. But don't shoot them unless you want riots that are not limited in place or time.

No curfew in Portland?

https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/the-story/why-is-there-no-curfew-in-portland-oregon-protests-riots-downtown-justice-center-federal-officers-police/283-020db26b-e5c4-42eb-b25b-b2662348f5d7

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Let me make sure I understand, All this stuff that is happening is happening under Pres. Trump. So I should vote for Pres. Trump.

Voting for someone other than Trump will promote what is happening now under Trump.

The rioting is occurring during Pres. Trumps term so we should re elect him so he can step in and fix it. What is he waiting for?

---

So who should we vote for?

Don't forgot, it was Trump originally suggesting the cure, Hydroxychloroquine!

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Let me make sure I understand, All this stuff that is happening is happening under Pres. Trump. So I should vote for Pres. Trump.

Voting for someone other than Trump will promote what is happening now under Trump.

The rioting is occurring during Pres. Trumps term so we should re elect him so he can step in and fix it. What is he waiting for?

---

Wasn't it Trump we all first recall mentioning Hydroxychloroquine?

Asking for a friend

How soon we forget

Back to Trump bashing and posting for money? Glad you survived so we can see the ultimate in hypocrisy

Booray said:

---

But don't shoot them unless you want riots that are not limited in place or time.

---

Dead or injured severely idiots don't riot! They rot.

Cops start shooting and two things are inevitable: innocent people will be injured (including cops) and the riots will spread like wildfire.

Let's just focus on arresting the lawbreakers.

ShooterTX said:

---

Booray said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Booray said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Booray said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Who in this discussion suggested shooting people? Good grief you are as disingenuous as can be. And btw, when does someone cease to be a protestor? When they light a fire? Blind a police officer? Break a skull with a chunk of ice? Kill someone with an explosive device?

This isn't a sit-in at the Chancellor's office.

---

No one on this thread. But I had an extended discussion on another thread where Canada and one other poster suggested specifically that, When I called them out and asked for other conservatives to do the same only Mothra and Sam would do it.

---

Do you see Canada in my nameplate? If not, don't ascribe his opinions to me or anyone else who has not advocated for such. Thank you.

---

I wasn't and I am sorry that it wasn't clear.

But having Canada and Florida openly advocate for shooting protesters and garnering support for that idea, I think it is worth pointing out that "what would Reagan do?" would exclude shooting protesters.

---

Have you watched the videos from around the nation of these "protestors"?? They are rioters and thugs, and they won't stop until force is used against them.
I pray that it isn't bullets... but some of them are just asking to be shot. I think we've passed the opportunity for a good ole ass whippin.

---

First, the riots are limited in place: to a couple of blocks in selected cities, and in time: later in the evening. They are not that large.

Second, and I can't believe I have to keep making this point: yes, if someone is breaking the law, arrest them. Impose a curfew so being in an impacted area is breaking the law. But don't shoot them unless you want riots that are not limited in place or time.

---

You really have no idea what you are talking about. The size of area is irrelevant, when you make a wrong turn and your car is surrounded by thugs. And they are NOT limited in place, as you can see in the video, they marched across about a dozen city blocks within an hour or so.

You do realize that the local politicians are JOINING the riots... er "protestors"... right? They have no desire to stop or arrest anyone involved.... it is their voting base.
At best, they are captured, arrested, and then released within an hour or so. This has NO effect on the riots at all. The cops do the arresting, but the politicians do the releasing.

They want violence, and they are going to get it.

---

There is a reason the cops and federal LEO have shown such great restraint. They know how awful it will be if something tragic happens at their hands.

I agree with your last sentence. The hardcore want violence. Why in the world would you give it to them?

My comments are a criticism of the politicians you are talking about. I agree that what they are (not) doing is not working. They need to impose a curfew and start arresting the ringleaders. Do it enough and the violence/property destruction will stop.

But going from hands off to shooting people is not the answer.

Booray said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Booray said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Booray said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Booray said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Who in this discussion suggested shooting people? Good grief you are as disingenuous as can be. And btw, when does someone cease to be a protestor? When they light a fire? Blind a police officer? Break a skull with a chunk of ice? Kill someone with an explosive device?

This isn't a sit-in at the Chancellor's office.

---

No one on this thread. But I had an extended discussion on another thread where Canada and one other poster suggested specifically that, When I called them out and asked for other conservatives to do the same only Mothra and Sam would do it.

---

Do you see Canada in my nameplate? If not, don't ascribe his opinions to me or anyone else who has not advocated for such. Thank you.

---

I wasn't and I am sorry that it wasn't clear.

But having Canada and Florida openly advocate for shooting protesters and garnering support for that idea, I think it is worth pointing out that "what would Reagan do?" would exclude shooting protesters.

---

Have you watched the videos from around the nation of these "protestors"?? They are rioters and thugs, and they won't stop until force is used against them.
I pray that it isn't bullets... but some of them are just asking to be shot. I think we've passed the opportunity for a good ole ass whippin.

---

First, the riots are limited in place: to a couple of blocks in selected cities, and in time: later in the evening. They are not that large.

Second, and I can't believe I have to keep making this point: yes, if someone is breaking the law, arrest them. Impose a curfew so being in an impacted area is breaking the law. But don't shoot them unless you want riots that are not limited in place or time.

---

You really have no idea what you are talking about. The size of area is irrelevant, when you make a wrong turn and your car is surrounded by thugs. And they are NOT limited in place, as you can see in the video, they marched across about a dozen city blocks within an hour or so.

You do realize that the local politicians are JOINING the riots... er "protestors"... right? They have no desire to stop or arrest anyone involved.... it is their voting base.
At best, they are captured, arrested, and then released within an hour or so. This has NO effect on the riots at all. The cops do the arresting, but the politicians do the releasing.

They want violence, and they are going to get it.

---

There is a reason the cops and federal LEO have shown such great restraint. They know how awful it will be if something tragic happens at their hands.

I agree with your last sentence. The hardcore want violence. Why in the world would you give it to them?

My comments are a criticism of the politicians you are talking about. I agree that what they are (not) doing is not working. They need to impose a curfew and start arresting the ringleaders. Do it enough and the violence/property destruction will stop.

But going from hands off to shooting people is not the answer.

---

This group of violent thugs has been active for over 20 years now.
They were called the Black Block and now they are Antifa. Non-violent tactics have been used over and over again. The group has continued to act, and continued to grow. Non-violence isn't working... at all!
Non-violence didn't work with muslim terrorists, and it won't work with Socialist terrorists either. They are calling for a war, and they want a war. They used to march in the streets with rocks, knives & smoke bombs; now they are marching in the streets with AK-47s and molotov cocktails. It is better to snuf them out now, than to wait until they have an actual makeshift army or some kind.
At their core, they are wussies. So if you take out their leaders in the streets now... the rest will run for mama. Do you want a few dead now, or do you want thousands dead later... those are your only options.
Antifa in America goes all the way back to the 1990s. Their first riot that I can recall was in the 1990s in Seattle, during a G5 summit or something like that. Non-violent containment isn't working.

Edit: It was 1999, and was called "The Battle of Seattle".
Read up and educate yourself. Non-violence is never going to work with these evil *******s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Seattle_WTO_protests

Loving that #binarylife, eh?

quash said:

---

Loving that #binarylife, eh?

---

If binary means finding disgust in radicals across the political spectrum, then yes.

ShooterTX said:

---

Booray said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Booray said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Booray said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Booray said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Who in this discussion suggested shooting people? Good grief you are as disingenuous as can be. And btw, when does someone cease to be a protestor? When they light a fire? Blind a police officer? Break a skull with a chunk of ice? Kill someone with an explosive device?

This isn't a sit-in at the Chancellor's office.

---

No one on this thread. But I had an extended discussion on another thread where Canada and one other poster suggested specifically that, When I called them out and asked for other conservatives to do the same only Mothra and Sam would do it.

---

Do you see Canada in my nameplate? If not, don't ascribe his opinions to me or anyone else who has not advocated for such. Thank you.

---

I wasn't and I am sorry that it wasn't clear.

But having Canada and Florida openly advocate for shooting protesters and garnering support for that idea, I think it is worth pointing out that "what would Reagan do?" would exclude shooting protesters.

---

Have you watched the videos from around the nation of these "protestors"?? They are rioters and thugs, and they won't stop until force is used against them.
I pray that it isn't bullets... but some of them are just asking to be shot. I think we've passed the opportunity for a good ole ass whippin.

---

First, the riots are limited in place: to a couple of blocks in selected cities, and in time: later in the evening. They are not that large.

Second, and I can't believe I have to keep making this point: yes, if someone is breaking the law, arrest them. Impose a curfew so being in an impacted area is breaking the law. But don't shoot them unless you want riots that are not limited in place or time.

---

You really have no idea what you are talking about. The size of area is irrelevant, when you make a wrong turn and your car is surrounded by thugs. And they are NOT limited in place, as you can see in the video, they marched across about a dozen city blocks within an hour or so.

You do realize that the local politicians are JOINING the riots... er "protestors"... right? They have no desire to stop or arrest anyone involved.... it is their voting base.
At best, they are captured, arrested, and then released within an hour or so. This has NO effect on the riots at all. The cops do the arresting, but the politicians do the releasing.

They want violence, and they are going to get it.

---

There is a reason the cops and federal LEO have shown such great restraint. They know how awful it will be if something tragic happens at their hands.

I agree with your last sentence. The hardcore want violence. Why in the world would you give it to them?

My comments are a criticism of the politicians you are talking about. I agree that what they are (not) doing is not working. They need to impose a curfew and start arresting the ringleaders. Do it enough and the violence/property destruction will stop.

But going from hands off to shooting people is not the answer.

---

This group of violent thugs has been active for over 20 years now.
They were called the Black Block and now they are Antifa. Non-violent tactics have been used over and over again. The group has continued to act, and continued to grow. Non-violence isn't working... at all!
Non-violence didn't work with muslim terrorists, and it won't work with Socialist terrorists either. They are calling for a war, and they want a war. They used to march in the streets with rocks, knives & smoke bombs; now they are marching in the streets with AK-47s and molotov cocktails. It is better to snuf them out now, than to wait until they have an actual makeshift army or some kind.
At their core, they are wussies. So if you take out their leaders in the streets now... the rest will run for mama. Do you want a few dead now, or do you want thousands dead later... those are your only options.
Antifa in America goes all the way back to the 1990s. Their first riot that I can recall was in the 1990s in Seattle, during a G5 summit or something like that. Non-violent containment isn't working.

Edit: It was 1999, and was called "The Battle of Seattle".
Read up and educate yourself. Non-violence is never going to work with these evil *******s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Seattle_WTO_protests

---

Arrest and detention is not "non-violence."

Law and Order means enforcing the law. The law includes the right to a trial by jury before punishment and the duty of law enforcement to use lethal force only when there is imminent danger of serious injury or death to the LEO or the public.

If you want to disregard those principles there is not much difference between you and the rioters.

I'm trying to understand Antifa and it is not very difficult. Their platform is apparently anti fascists and racists such as neo-Nazis, white supremacists and far-right extremists per Wiki.

Individuals involved hold anti-authoritarian and anti-capitalist viewpoints. They subscribe to anarchism, communism, Marxism, social democracy and socialism. Rose City Antifa (RCA) was founded in 2007 in Portland, OR. It is the oldest active Antifa group in the nation. The Anti-Racist Action Network (ARA) was founded in Minneapolis, MN in the 1980's.

Who are their avowed enemies? WTO, a capitalist organization. White Supremacists. Authoritarian types such as government and police.

A significant proportion of anti-fascists are women, people of color, members of LGBTQ communities or anyone that has some characteristics fascists seek to control or eliminate.

All of the above make places like churches and governments and far right-winged fundamentalists easy targets, including those who abide by doctrine of place and order.

People like Trump who like to flex power are perfect targets for the group. They rekindled because of his election in 2016 and they are determined to bring him into the chaos currently happening in Portland.

It looks to me that Antifa is a VERY SMALL GROUP of dissenters who have enjoyed a tolerant society in Portland and Seattle. If those two cities do not care about the destruction of Federal Buildings then the local police would hopefully curtail arson and weaponry. Perhaps the police feel if they arrest the judiciary will release the arsonists along with the more peaceful protesters. Peaceful protest is not the name of Antifa.

Then we have Trump. What a mystery. A born and bred New Yorker yankee who apparently abides by good ole southern boy characteristics concerning law and order (but only those laws you agree with). He has found his hornets nest using Antifa to get back at the liberal dissidents like the governors and mayors of those cities.

Those of us old enough to remember the Chicago riots of the 1968 Democratic National Convention understand these Antifa types are tiny when compared to the anti-Vietnam riots during those days. I never believed the riots cause the election of Nixon, it was more than likely Hubert Humphrey's semi-socialism viewpoints that defeated him in the election of "law and order".

In summary whatever happens between the Federal troops and the Antifa in Portland will have little to no direction in the upcoming November elections. Most progressive voters viewpoints will Trump Trumps aggressive behavior and most red state voters will continue to back a man they do not personally like.

Jack Bauer said:

---

Booray said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Booray said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Booray said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Booray said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Who in this discussion suggested shooting people? Good grief you are as disingenuous as can be. And btw, when does someone cease to be a protestor? When they light a fire? Blind a police officer? Break a skull with a chunk of ice? Kill someone with an explosive device?

This isn't a sit-in at the Chancellor's office.

---

No one on this thread. But I had an extended discussion on another thread where Canada and one other poster suggested specifically that, When I called them out and asked for other conservatives to do the same only Mothra and Sam would do it.

---

Do you see Canada in my nameplate? If not, don't ascribe his opinions to me or anyone else who has not advocated for such. Thank you.

---

I wasn't and I am sorry that it wasn't clear.

But having Canada and Florida openly advocate for shooting protesters and garnering support for that idea, I think it is worth pointing out that "what would Reagan do?" would exclude shooting protesters.

---

Have you watched the videos from around the nation of these "protestors"?? They are rioters and thugs, and they won't stop until force is used against them.
I pray that it isn't bullets... but some of them are just asking to be shot. I think we've passed the opportunity for a good ole ass whippin.

---

First, the riots are limited in place: to a couple of blocks in selected cities, and in time: later in the evening. They are not that large.

Second, and I can't believe I have to keep making this point: yes, if someone is breaking the law, arrest them. Impose a curfew so being in an impacted area is breaking the law. But don't shoot them unless you want riots that are not limited in place or time.

---

You really have no idea what you are talking about. The size of area is irrelevant, when you make a wrong turn and your car is surrounded by thugs. And they are NOT limited in place, as you can see in the video, they marched across about a dozen city blocks within an hour or so.

You do realize that the local politicians are JOINING the riots... er "protestors"... right? They have no desire to stop or arrest anyone involved.... it is their voting base.
At best, they are captured, arrested, and then released within an hour or so. This has NO effect on the riots at all. The cops do the arresting, but the politicians do the releasing.

They want violence, and they are going to get it.

---

There is a reason the cops and federal LEO have shown such great restraint. They know how awful it will be if something tragic happens at their hands.

I agree with your last sentence. The hardcore want violence. Why in the world would you give it to them?

My comments are a criticism of the politicians you are talking about. I agree that what they are (not) doing is not working. They need to impose a curfew and start arresting the ringleaders. Do it enough and the violence/property destruction will stop.

But going from hands off to shooting people is not the answer.

---

Honest question- when a protestor make a clear attack on federal agents and throws essentially a pipe bomb as seen in the tweet above what should be done? What if they are blinding agents with lasers? Should the Portland Police arrest this person?

---

Of course they should. I have only said about 20 times-literally, 20 times-that lawbreakers should be arrested and that I condemn the politicians who are avoiding that fact. The bolded above is only my latest attempt to convey that sentiment.

But this is what I am talking about when I say that the LEO know what they are doing by being restrained; they understand the situation:

https://theweek.com/speedreads/927824/feds-say-wont-leave-portland-until-violence-stops-privately-concede-theyre-fueling-that-violence

Booray said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Booray said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Booray said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Booray said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Booray said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Who in this discussion suggested shooting people? Good grief you are as disingenuous as can be. And btw, when does someone cease to be a protestor? When they light a fire? Blind a police officer? Break a skull with a chunk of ice? Kill someone with an explosive device?

This isn't a sit-in at the Chancellor's office.

---

No one on this thread. But I had an extended discussion on another thread where Canada and one other poster suggested specifically that, When I called them out and asked for other conservatives to do the same only Mothra and Sam would do it.

---

Do you see Canada in my nameplate? If not, don't ascribe his opinions to me or anyone else who has not advocated for such. Thank you.

---

I wasn't and I am sorry that it wasn't clear.

But having Canada and Florida openly advocate for shooting protesters and garnering support for that idea, I think it is worth pointing out that "what would Reagan do?" would exclude shooting protesters.

---

Have you watched the videos from around the nation of these "protestors"?? They are rioters and thugs, and they won't stop until force is used against them.
I pray that it isn't bullets... but some of them are just asking to be shot. I think we've passed the opportunity for a good ole ass whippin.

---

First, the riots are limited in place: to a couple of blocks in selected cities, and in time: later in the evening. They are not that large.

Second, and I can't believe I have to keep making this point: yes, if someone is breaking the law, arrest them. Impose a curfew so being in an impacted area is breaking the law. But don't shoot them unless you want riots that are not limited in place or time.

---

You really have no idea what you are talking about. The size of area is irrelevant, when you make a wrong turn and your car is surrounded by thugs. And they are NOT limited in place, as you can see in the video, they marched across about a dozen city blocks within an hour or so.

You do realize that the local politicians are JOINING the riots... er "protestors"... right? They have no desire to stop or arrest anyone involved.... it is their voting base.
At best, they are captured, arrested, and then released within an hour or so. This has NO effect on the riots at all. The cops do the arresting, but the politicians do the releasing.

They want violence, and they are going to get it.

---

There is a reason the cops and federal LEO have shown such great restraint. They know how awful it will be if something tragic happens at their hands.

I agree with your last sentence. The hardcore want violence. Why in the world would you give it to them?

My comments are a criticism of the politicians you are talking about. I agree that what they are (not) doing is not working. They need to impose a curfew and start arresting the ringleaders. Do it enough and the violence/property destruction will stop.

But going from hands off to shooting people is not the answer.

---

This group of violent thugs has been active for over 20 years now.
They were called the Black Block and now they are Antifa. Non-violent tactics have been used over and over again. The group has continued to act, and continued to grow. Non-violence isn't working... at all!
Non-violence didn't work with muslim terrorists, and it won't work with Socialist terrorists either. They are calling for a war, and they want a war. They used to march in the streets with rocks, knives & smoke bombs; now they are marching in the streets with AK-47s and molotov cocktails. It is better to snuf them out now, than to wait until they have an actual makeshift army or some kind.
At their core, they are wussies. So if you take out their leaders in the streets now... the rest will run for mama. Do you want a few dead now, or do you want thousands dead later... those are your only options.
Antifa in America goes all the way back to the 1990s. Their first riot that I can recall was in the 1990s in Seattle, during a G5 summit or something like that. Non-violent containment isn't working.

Edit: It was 1999, and was called "The Battle of Seattle".
Read up and educate yourself. Non-violence is never going to work with these evil *******s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Seattle_WTO_protests

---

Arrest and detention is not "non-violence."

Law and Order means enforcing the law. The law includes the right to a trial by jury before punishment and the duty of law enforcement to use lethal force only when there is imminent danger of serious injury or death to the LEO or the public.

If you want to disregard those principles there is not much difference between you and the rioters.

---

Would you consider blindness a serious injury?

The moment those feds leave, that courthouse is getting torched. I'd bet my kids tuition on it.

The feds will leave one day, the Portland citizens won't.

Friscobear said:

---

Booray said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Booray said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Booray said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Booray said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Booray said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Who in this discussion suggested shooting people? Good grief you are as disingenuous as can be. And btw, when does someone cease to be a protestor? When they light a fire? Blind a police officer? Break a skull with a chunk of ice? Kill someone with an explosive device?

This isn't a sit-in at the Chancellor's office.

---

No one on this thread. But I had an extended discussion on another thread where Canada and one other poster suggested specifically that, When I called them out and asked for other conservatives to do the same only Mothra and Sam would do it.

---

Do you see Canada in my nameplate? If not, don't ascribe his opinions to me or anyone else who has not advocated for such. Thank you.

---

I wasn't and I am sorry that it wasn't clear.

But having Canada and Florida openly advocate for shooting protesters and garnering support for that idea, I think it is worth pointing out that "what would Reagan do?" would exclude shooting protesters.

---

Have you watched the videos from around the nation of these "protestors"?? They are rioters and thugs, and they won't stop until force is used against them.
I pray that it isn't bullets... but some of them are just asking to be shot. I think we've passed the opportunity for a good ole ass whippin.

---

First, the riots are limited in place: to a couple of blocks in selected cities, and in time: later in the evening. They are not that large.

Second, and I can't believe I have to keep making this point: yes, if someone is breaking the law, arrest them. Impose a curfew so being in an impacted area is breaking the law. But don't shoot them unless you want riots that are not limited in place or time.

---

You really have no idea what you are talking about. The size of area is irrelevant, when you make a wrong turn and your car is surrounded by thugs. And they are NOT limited in place, as you can see in the video, they marched across about a dozen city blocks within an hour or so.

You do realize that the local politicians are JOINING the riots... er "protestors"... right? They have no desire to stop or arrest anyone involved.... it is their voting base.
At best, they are captured, arrested, and then released within an hour or so. This has NO effect on the riots at all. The cops do the arresting, but the politicians do the releasing.

They want violence, and they are going to get it.

---

There is a reason the cops and federal LEO have shown such great restraint. They know how awful it will be if something tragic happens at their hands.

I agree with your last sentence. The hardcore want violence. Why in the world would you give it to them?

My comments are a criticism of the politicians you are talking about. I agree that what they are (not) doing is not working. They need to impose a curfew and start arresting the ringleaders. Do it enough and the violence/property destruction will stop.

But going from hands off to shooting people is not the answer.

---

This group of violent thugs has been active for over 20 years now.
They were called the Black Block and now they are Antifa. Non-violent tactics have been used over and over again. The group has continued to act, and continued to grow. Non-violence isn't working... at all!
Non-violence didn't work with muslim terrorists, and it won't work with Socialist terrorists either. They are calling for a war, and they want a war. They used to march in the streets with rocks, knives & smoke bombs; now they are marching in the streets with AK-47s and molotov cocktails. It is better to snuf them out now, than to wait until they have an actual makeshift army or some kind.
At their core, they are wussies. So if you take out their leaders in the streets now... the rest will run for mama. Do you want a few dead now, or do you want thousands dead later... those are your only options.
Antifa in America goes all the way back to the 1990s. Their first riot that I can recall was in the 1990s in Seattle, during a G5 summit or something like that. Non-violent containment isn't working.

Edit: It was 1999, and was called "The Battle of Seattle".
Read up and educate yourself. Non-violence is never going to work with these evil *******s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Seattle_WTO_protests

---

Arrest and detention is not "non-violence."

Law and Order means enforcing the law. The law includes the right to a trial by jury before punishment and the duty of law enforcement to use lethal force only when there is imminent danger of serious injury or death to the LEO or the public.

If you want to disregard those principles there is not much difference between you and the rioters.

---

Would you consider blindness a serious injury?

---

Of course I would. Anyone who did that should be arrested and prosecuted.

If LEO can identify someone whose actions will potentially blind someone else and take them out without harming others, they should do so. In that situation, I would think a rubber bullet would be sufficient and prudent.

Jack Bauer said:

---

---

At least shoot em with rubber bullets as a warning!

If that doesn't work arrest em on federal charges or worse