'Take your a** home!' Heavily-armed black rights groups march through Austin chanting anti-illegal m

There is really no circumstance involving protests that I know of to threaten to kill someone at all that is considered "perfectly legal" as you put it. This is not someone who is, quite literally, breaking into your home or making a similar threat to you. And for police officers, their job is to protect the public and themselves. And if you want to aim a firearm at a police officer, they will warn you at least once, in most circumstances, before they start firing at you. That includes identifying themselves as police officers, demanding you put the firearm down and getting on the ground. Otherwise, you are violating local laws which may include attempted assault with a deadly weapon at a police officer, among other things.

 

Still, the legislation was signed by Reagan. So yes, he did constrain the 2nd Amendment.

 

That wasn't my argument with the post you quoted. I was merely pointing out that they are a fringe group within the Black community and are not Democrats or Republicans.

If you are referring to my other posts, then read what I said, not what you think I said.

<Mod Edit>

 

then you don't support the US Constitution and something called the 8th amendment. Sounds like you are the fascist, anti-Democratic, Anti Constitution, Anti American around these parts.

 

So, you admit that there are times when its legal to threaten. Good. As for a circumstance involving protests...well...you just saw one in the OP. Nothing that they did was illegal.

 

Yes, after looking back on it, you are mostly correct. The OP headline was making a thing of it, and I attributed it to the OP.
Additionally, the idea that jobs are being taken away by illegal immigrants is completely false, in the region I live in, and we have a significant amount of immigrants here.
There are plenty of jobs here, but one must apply themselves, and many don't want the responsibility of actually holding down a job.

 

And it sounds like you are gas lighting. I'm totally okay with bail... Could we use the money from the bail fund, championed by Biden, Kamala and Democratic staffers to pay for January 6th bails?

 

I don’t think the guy made a terroristic threat. I think he made a stupid comment that will only increase tension and get himself shot now that people know his mindset. He’s telling the cops he won’t go down without taking some of them with him, now it’s possible every cop in the area knows to shoot him first rather than wait for him to shoot.

 

Right. When Ukraine was attacked, all the lefties were crying about how wrong it was that Ukranians had to meet at the police offices to get weapons to fight back with, and how wrong it was that they had to turn to Google to learn how to shoot those guns because they didn't know how to shoot them. But yeah, sure, nobody here should have one. How ingenious of you to think ahead.

Yeah, would you just look at these terrible Trump supporters...















Do you want me to stop here or keep going? There are thousands of pictures of these mostly peaceful protests.

 

IMO, race should have nothing to do with it, and we need a lot of legal immigration to make up for our low birth rate.
But they are right -- the border should be under control, and the 2nd amendment is not negotiable.

 

The surge in black American, Latino and Asian support for Trump is the best explanation for the "massive" "organized" voter fraud" used to rig the last election for our corrupt bipartisan ruling political class. They can't win without it.

"The new Emerson poll puts Trump at 35 percent with black voters and 38 percent with Hispanics. “If you add in Asian voters at 28 percent approval,” notes Emerson’s director of polling Spencer Kimball, “our number is very close to the new Marist poll,” which finds Trump’s approval at 33 percent among non-white voters. A recent RasmussenReports poll has Trump support among black voters at 34 percent, and even the new CNN poll has Trump’s approval among non-white voters at 26 percent.

Why is losing black voters by a two-to-one margin something to shout about? Because if Donald Trump came anywhere close to those numbers on Election Day, he’d likely win a 50-state sweep. Minority voters — and black voters in particular — are an absolutely vital part of the Democratic base. And they don’t vote for Republicans, particularly for president."
NEWSDAY, New polls show black support for Trump surging, By Michael Graham, 12/3/19.
https://www.newsday.com/opinion/commentary/black-voters-donald-trump-support-1.39184208

 

And if that's what the polls show, you can bet they're several points higher in reality.

 

1967 Assembly 42 -38 Dems VS Repugs
1967 Senate 20-19 D VS R

Guv Ronnie Raygun

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Members_of_the_California_State_Legislature

https://clerk.assembly.ca.gov/sites...s/archive/FinalHistory/1967/Volumes/67ahr.PDF

Yes THAT Calif decided black guys with guns were a concern

The Mulford Act was a 1967 California bill that prohibited public carrying of loaded firearms without a permit. Named after Republican assemblyman Don Mulford, and signed into law by governor of California Ronald Reagan, the bill was crafted with the goal of disarming members of the Black Panther Party who were conducting armed patrols of Oakland neighborhoods, in what would later be termed copwatching. They garnered national attention after Black Panthers members, bearing arms, marched upon the California State Capitol to protest the bill.


A.B 1591 was made an “urgency statute” under Article IV, §8(d) of the Constitution of California after “an organized band of men armed with loaded firearms [...] entered the Capitol” on May 2, 1967; as such, it required a 2/3 majority in each house. On June 8th, before the third reading in the Assembly (controlled by Democrats, 42:3,the urgency clause was adopted, and the bill was then read and passed. It passed the Senate (controlled by Democrats, 20:19) on July 26 by 29 votes to 7, and was signed by Governor Ronald Reagan on July 28, 1967.


Both Republicans and Democrats in California supported increased gun control, as did the National Rifle Association of America. Governor Ronald Reagan, who was coincidentally present on the capitol lawn when the protesters arrived, later commented that he saw "no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons" and that guns were a "ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will." In a later press conference, Reagan added that the Mulford Act "would work no hardship on the honest citizen."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act

 

Correct, the Marist, Emerson and CNN polls are anti-Trump.

 

Yes, there are definitely many that don't want the responsibility of holding down a job. Which is why the welfare system needs to be reformed. NOT gotten rid of. But reformed. Start kicking people off of it that can work, but refuse to. Or working with manual labor employers (such as farming) and making working at such places a condition for receiving welfare benefits. Make welfare offices a job placement program for those that can work.

 

That's a pretty spicy way to say you hate black people

 

no it is saying i know my history with california and the NRA aproving gun control and the black panthers

 

What I'm talking about welfare has little to do with it. Many young people will live a lower life style, or off their friends and family before they'll actually apply themselves to a job they have to maintain.

 

California is anti 2a.
The NRA is a collection of people preying upon 2a supportive persons who don't know any better.

 

Can’t be as bad as the Clinton foundation. If the NRA is a scam, then why are libs so afraid of it?

 

Im not left, but my input anyway: Im always glad to see fellow Americans exercising their right to bear arms. I dont appreciate the threatenning position (veiled though it may or may not be...) that they're bearing arms for (or with). And I certainly take issue with the concept that the illegals are to be blamed. Squatting in America is better for them and their families than suffering the shitholes they came from. The fault is with our own policies that bring them here, not their fault for wanting a better life in our better system. Its up to us to protect it from being overburdenned, not up to them to not overburden it for us. They're being taken advantage of just as much as we are, partially to create the very animosity these marchers are displaying. But thats really the crux of most of our problems here: fighting eachother for the **** our political elitesdo while they hide segregated both from us and from the social effects of their corruption. So I understand the anger, I just see it as misplaced.

But at the end of the day, all who support the right to bear arms are my allies, up until they use those arms offensively... hopefully these folks remember what self defense means. So long as they do, march on!

 

Take away the calls for free money ..... I mean "reparations".... (Money given to people who never had anything done against them, by people who never did anything to them....)
And they almost sound like these right wing domestic terrorists we hear so much about these days!!!

They're not racist and xenophobic too are they?

 

He is totally correct and you giving your misguided opinion doesn't change that.

 

Would you care to elaborate on why you think that is?

 

Could you please highlight the part in his post where your supposition that he supports it comes from?