Jack Bauer said:

---

Booray said:

---

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.

---

Portland Police is nowhere to be found around the courthouse fence. How are they going to arrest someone?

---

Booray said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

Booray said:

---

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.

---

Portland Police is nowhere to be found around the courthouse fence. How are they going to arrest someone?

---

How many times do I have to say this: I condemn the Portland mayor and other city leaders for abdicating their responsibility to control these crowds.

The issue was whether we should start shooting the protesters. A few said yes, and many more favored those comments. I said no, we should start arresting those that break the law.

If the issue is now: what should federal authorities do if the Portland cops can't act ( I am sure they would if allowed to), my answer is still arrest them. I believe that federal officers have the right to arrest for state crimes; they certainly have the right to arrest for federal crimes. But if life or serious injury is an imminent threat, use force to protect yourself and the public--up to and including lethal force--but use it responsibly.

Whatever you do, don't shoot protesters to make a point, which it seems several on here are urging.

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Booray said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

Booray said:

---

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.

---

Portland Police is nowhere to be found around the courthouse fence. How are they going to arrest someone?

---

How many times do I have to say this: I condemn the Portland mayor and other city leaders for abdicating their responsibility to control these crowds.

The issue was whether we should start shooting the protesters. A few said yes, and many more favored those comments. I said no, we should start arresting those that break the law.

If the issue is now: what should federal authorities do if the Portland cops can't act ( I am sure they would if allowed to), my answer is still arrest them. I believe that federal officers have the right to arrest for state crimes; they certainly have the right to arrest for federal crimes. But if life or serious injury is an imminent threat, use force to protect yourself and the public--up to and including lethal force--but use it responsibly.

Whatever you do, don't shoot protesters to make a point, which it seems several on here are urging.

---

This is silly.

You admit that they will not arrest the rioters, but then you say the solution is for the politicians to do what you know they will not do... arrest them!

No one is saying that we should drive to downtown Portland and just start shooting people. What we ARE saying is that the ones who are attacking police and burning buildings MAY need to be shot. Just because someone walks down the street with a sign in there hands, is no reason to shoot someone. If someone throws a molotov cocktail at the cops... shoot him 3 times to make sure the job is done!

---

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.

---

Booray said:

---

No, you are not saying that. But at least two other posters said to engage in either random shooting (Florid Mike) or targeted sniping (Canada 17). Each post was favored several times. Those posts are what generated this part of the discussion.

My point that arrests are preferable to extra-judicial killings is not a consensus viewpoint, apparently.

LEOs are trained to make a distinction you and others refuse to accept. Shoot them if they are about to inflict serious injury or death, arrest them if they just did. The feds can do that as well as the Portland city police. Crossing that line is really dangerous.

---

Jack and DP said:

---

---

Malbec said:

---

Booray said:

---

No, you are not saying that. But at least two other posters said to engage in either random shooting (Florid Mike) or targeted sniping (Canada 17). Each post was favored several times. Those posts are what generated this part of the discussion.

My point that arrests are preferable to extra-judicial killings is not a consensus viewpoint, apparently.

LEOs are trained to make a distinction you and others refuse to accept. Shoot them if they are about to inflict serious injury or death, arrest them if they just did. The feds can do that as well as the Portland city police. Crossing that line is really dangerous.

---

Oftentimes people star a post for a specific comment within the post, and not for the entirety of its commentary.

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

Ho Lee ***!!

AWFL alert!!!

---

Dang. I just can't imagine why she is a single Mom!

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

Ho Lee ***!!

AWFL alert!!!

---

Dang. I just can't imagine why she is a single Mom!

---

Jack and DP said:

---

---

Jack and DP said:

---

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

---

I'm surprised he wasn't spotted and harassed weeks ago. This guy is truly the courageous one to be in that ****-show.

This happened to Andy almost a year ago...

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

"Some building in Portland"

"Some people did something"

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

"Some building in Portland"

"Some people did something"

---

nasty woman... just nasty.

---

Quote:

---

Jayapal has publicly referenced CHAZ via social media once, tweeting that its gardens are "planting the seeds of justice." Jayapal has not addressed violence by protesters, including three shootings leaving one dead over the nights of June 20 and June 21. In several tweets Jayapal supports protesters for "standing up and speaking out against police brutality, racism, and anti-Blackness."

---

nein51 said:

---

Lol if the riots keep going Trump is going to look like a damned genius which is hard to do.

---