spat
.700 Nitro Express
Even in the worst hit areas, they may not be a great idea, but it's still unconstitutional to outlaw them.Not arguing against congregations in areas not affected at all.
Even in the worst hit areas, they may not be a great idea, but it's still unconstitutional to outlaw them.Not arguing against congregations in areas not affected at all.
Did you read the last post I wrote?Even in the worst hit areas, they may not be a great idea, but it's still unconstitutional to outlaw them.
I would think the idea was that fires tend to spread.I not sure about that. (I don't want to test it to find out either). I honestly don't know either way.
The reason that was explained to me is every fire call puts firefighters lives in danger rushing to the call and fighting the fire they are at risk. Firefighters may not know whether a building is occupied or vacant and may put themselves in danger to search it.
Not sure if that's true but that was explained to me. But again, I wouldn't want to be on trial for that...
I hadn't when I responded, but I have now.Did you read the last post I wrote?
So I can continue to stay and pray in a church that had a fire in it where the beams are structurally unsound when the fire department orders me to leave?I hadn't when I responded, but I have now.
I still stand by my statement. Even if we were in the throes of the black death, and 100 million Americans were going to die from it, the constitution provides no exceptions.
The only person authorized to decide what's "too risky" for you, is you. You are welcome to hunker down in a bunker anytime you want. Nobody gets to order you to, no matter how dire things get.
They should not be able to order you to leave.So I can continue to stay and pray in a church that had a fire in it where the beams are structurally unsound when the fire department orders me to leave?
I get your point but you do not seem to get mine. There isn’t absolutes in anything in regards to lights.
Unfortunately, life isn’t that way. We have fire codes, EPA, Econ laws, ect. I get your argument. But it’s a Darth argument. Not realistic at all and never going to change.They should not be able to order you to leave.
Their only recourse should be to say "told you so" when the roof collapse on you, and then walk away.
But, as I have said, there is a world of difference between closing the building vs preventing the faithful from praying together.
Why should the government be allowed to order you to do something "for your own safety" ?
If they can order you to leave that church, can they order you to lose that extra weight you're carrying around ? It's sure to kill you one day too.
I could say the same about SAFE.Unfortunately, life isn’t that way. We have fire codes, EPA, Econ laws, ect. I get your argument. But it’s a Darth argument. Not realistic at all and never going to change.
I get that a citizen was needlessly killed during an arrest. Those responsible will hopefully be held accountable. Peaceful protest is in order, not the bullshit happening now. I have to ask, just how long should this violent protesting be allowed to continue unchecked? You want to protest fine, burning and looting is not protesting.
The death of that person is just an excuse. This violence has to stop. What would you do to stop it?
Anyone?
I already said: aggressive non-lethal crowd control. Rubber bullets, bean bags. Start with tear gas and when they start throwing it back and turning it into a fun game you break out the painful projectiles. And more arrests.The death of that person is just an excuse. This violence has to stop. What would you do to stop it?
Anyone?
Wait a minute? Curfew? Constitutional... Anyway, I agree with you. Intentional damage to property should be met with deadly force. I sure as hell would do it in my home.
I would like to think the civilized people we mingle with wont see enough desperation to burn down a police precinct. What does that fo to further a movement? Nothing good will come from it. Just because there may be a few scumbags that work in a building, you dont destroy it to make life hard for the good.That's my point. Where is the point of desperation that you, as a reasonable person would have to reach in order to think your best course of action is to burn down a police precinct?
A lot of that which is written above is argued against here.We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Although the preamble is not a source of power for any department of the Federal Government, the Supreme Court has often referred to it as evidence of the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution.
A lot of that which is written above is argued against here.
I have to ask, just how long should this violent protesting be allowed to continue unchecked? You want to protest fine, burning and looting is not protesting.
The death of that person is just an excuse. This violence has to stop. What would you do to stop it?
Anyone?
More Darth arguments seem to be more and more prevalent and accepted when the leash keeps tightening.Unfortunately, life isn’t that way. We have fire codes, EPA, Econ laws, ect. I get your argument. But it’s a Darth argument. Not realistic at all and never going to change.
Let me let you in on a little secret: If you have a bad heart, and I pull a gun on you cause your heart attack, I still murdered you.Ummm..
George Floyd died of police restraint combined with health problems, not asphyxiation: Autopsy
George Floyd died Monday from a combination of preexisting health conditions exacerbated by being held down by Minneapolis officers, not from strangulation or asphyxiation, based on the medical examiner’s initial report.www.washingtontimes.com
What did I say that’s incorrect? Are Darth arguments where no taxes, no cops, no fireman, no military, no public roads, ect ever going to come to effect?More Darth arguments seem to be more and more prevalent and accepted when the leash keeps tightening.
Imagine that.
Probably around the time SAFE act goes away, but that says nothing of its merit or legality.What did I say that’s incorrect? Are Darth arguments where no taxes, no cops, no fireman, no military, no public roads, ect ever going to come to effect?
Agreed.Probably around the time SAFE act goes away, but that says nothing of its merit or legality.
No orders to disperse, or "collective punishment" like tear gas, etc.No lies, no keyboard commando.
I would give enough warning to the terrorists. I would inform them of a curfew, I would let them know that if they did not disperse and leave the area, more extreme measures would be forth coming.
I would order the officers to load full with non-lethal, at first. If that did not work, I would bring in each and every firetruck and use the water cannons on the rioters and the ones performing terror attacks. High pressure water cannons work very well, I watched them in Frankfort Germany years ago. If none of those tools worked, I would use live ammunition. This is no different then when the terrorists try to take over an embassy,
Yes, I would open fire upon American citizens.