Off Topic Politics Thread

1. They weren't on the private property of that couple. They went through a gate into a gated community so that they could protest the mayor.

2. There is no such thing as "the antifa brigade". These protesters destroyed absolutely nothing.

3. They weren't going to need to call the police, because they weren't under any sort of threat. And believe you me, the one thing police will always do is defend white people in gated communities.

 

In that case they shouldn't be allowed to buy the bloody things . I'm with Osvaldorama on this one . I have several relatives dotted across the US , the further south you go , the scarier their attitudes are .

IIRC in Texas , if someone sets foot on your property without your permission , you can shoot them dead . Simple as that no prosecutions .

Don't get me wrong . I'm NOT saying it's right , but these people believe what they read / see . They live life in fear and if you can legally possess a crazy Firearm , why wouldn't you ?

 

TBF he never said they were on the Couples Private property . The people broke into a gated Community and that IS Private property . Come on , will all the Balck V White , would you not HONESTLY be scared ?

Who even know if the bloody thing was Loaded ?

 

Oh no, they were walking on a privately-owned sidewalk. Civilization as we know it has broken down.

And no, I wouldn't be scared by people walking down the sidewalk. Are you seriously suggesting that this is some sort of race war where white people need to fear being attacked in their homes every time a (partially) black crowd assembles?

 

Have you joined the Pragg party and become a Pragmatist?

 

No I am not totally suggesting the Latter . It was though a supposedly Secure place was it not ? Who knows what was going through peoples minds . Also IF it was totally peaceful , why did they break in ? If it was to Protest the Mayor , why not wait until he was driving past on his way to work ? Or a peaceful protest outside his place of work ?

 

We can tell that it was totally peaceful because after they passed Rambo and Ramboette, the protesters continued on to the mayor's house, where they proceeded to sit on the ground and chant for her to resign:



They did not storm her house, they did not destroy anything, they simply protested. Which is almost universally what the protesters have done everywhere, when they have not first been attacked by police.

 

And the couple didnt shoot anyone.

So it was, all in all, a peaceful day.

These sorts of things will always happen in a country that allows the public to carry guns. I actually believe that its a massive factor in the police brutality that BLM are highlighting. The presence of guns turns every police interaction into a potentially deadly one.

 

Check out the longer video. Where the guy who leads them in has a walkie talkie and they clearly cover the 'private, no tresspassing' sign that is situated at the gate the mob all came through. Why should private citizens have to put up with this intimidating behaviour? The more excuses we make for the mob, the worse this will get. Anyone keeping up to date on Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ)? Hmmm, turned out really well letting them police themselves didn't it...............

 

The couple pointed weapons at people while maintaining zero trigger or barrel discipline.There is nothing peaceful about that.

The prevalence of guns is absolutely an issue, though notably white people are far more likely to concealed carry weapons, yet far less likely to be automatically treated as a threat by police.

 

Apologies for interrupting what is a fascinating and important subject, but you might appreciate this brilliant piece in the New European which debunks the myth of British pluck overcoming insuperable odds. It has never happened, not once, and if people think it will happen during the Brexit Trade Deal negotiations, they are laughably deluded:

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/to...ck-and-why-it-s-a-symbol-of-decline-1-5157183

 

"Mob". "Intimidating behaviour". This is awfully loaded language for "violated the Homeowner's Association covenant".

 

One mans liberator is another mans terrorist.

 

If unarmed people demanding political change look like terrorists to someone, the someone is probably the problem.

 

Oh dear Chilcs can't we just stiffen our upper lips and take it on the chin? Dammed foreigners don't like it up em.

 

legally concealed or illegally ?

I don’t know the answer , but it would be interesting to know what percentage of coloured gun owners have legally got them , compared to whites .

 

I don't know that there are statistics kept on such, nor that there is a substantive enough difference to merit the differential treatment in any instance.

Beyond that, being a responsible gun owner with a valid permit doesn't actually help if you're black. Before George Floyd, a police department in Minnesota murdered Philando Castile. He was pulled over because he "matched the description" of a suspect in a robbery (he was in the car with his girlfriend and her four year old daughter, and had nothing to do with any robberies; the robbery had happened a week earlier, and apparently the police officer thought they had similar noses), and immediately announced to the officer that he had a concealed carry permit and a gun on his person.

When he reached for his driver's license -- after repeatedly telling the police officer that he was reaching for his license, and not a gun -- he was shot seven times and died.

The NRA, which is supposedly an organization for responsible gun owners, suggested that it was unfortunate but basically his fault. Gun rights are for white people.

 

What happened next? What proceedings were brought against those responsible for the death and ,as this isn't a one off, what happened in other similar circumstances? Are there hot spots, and countrywide analysis of incidents?

 

The city settled for $3.8m in a wrongful death suit. The police officer was acquitted, because historically it has been nigh on impossible to get convictions when cops commit crimes, despite clear evidence that the cop was lying: he claimed that Castile was holding the gun, but the gun was found untouched in a pocket on the other side of his body. There is absolutely no reason why Castile, whose evil-doing that day was going to get a haircut, would reach for his gun. He worked at a school, had no warrants, and was involved in no crimes that would result in his responding to a traffic stop by resorting to murder. A good indication of that? He'd been stopped 49 times in 13 years (because he was a black guy with dreadlocks in a very white area) and had shot precisely zero cops in that time.

That has been part of the problem in terms of reform: prosecutors are loath to go after police, as they need them, and juries are conditioned to believe that the police are telling the truth, despite incredible evidence that the police lie all the damned time. Consequently, police have a considerable incentive to respond with disproportionate, even lethal force in otherwise minor situations, because it has been all but assured that they would face few if any repercussions. They might get fired, but they don't even have to pay out for the wrongful death: owing to qualified immunity, it's the city that is on the hook.

 

Praggers of the World Unite

Certainly not, I am preaching(!?) Pragmatism as an Electoral Strategy and maybe even as a Political Strategy, not as a Political Doctrine

Once you're in power you don't need to be quite so pragmatic
The British people won't vote for 'Revolution' while most of the media brand anyone left of Blair a Marxist
but they might give a government a 2nd term if it is demonstrating improvement for the whole country
and that government might then be able to gradually deliver a Revolution by Evolution