It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Oh boy...this one's gonna get ugly

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 07:20 AM
link   
Ok, so I almost didn't want to post this one because it has to do with race, and I have to admit that I mostly actively stay away from such topics because they can be so inflammatory, but there's an incident that has happened near my home here in Texas that I don't see making national news but is making a good bit of local press here.

So here's the story, here in Arlington, TX (a city right between Dallas and Fort Worth, it's where the Cowboys stadium and Rangers Ballpark is located), there was a police shooting. Essentially, a policeman pulled over a car of young black people and whatever occurred, it ended up with an officer being shot and the shooter being shot and killed by the police. The shooter was a 20 year old young man with something of a criminal record, I guess he'd just been offered 5 years on a burglary charge he's facing.

Alrighty, so here's where things get a bit wonky and what was ultimately the impetus of this thread. The mothers (a lesbian couple who are calling themselves the man in questions 'mothers') have come out in that angry, righteous fashion characterized by police shootings of young black men arguing that the young man in question only fired at the police in self-defense. So, I decided to write this thread because, to me, this is a case of giving someone an inch they'll take a mile type of thinking and behavior. Make no mistake, I hate that a young man lost his life...hate it! He might have had troubles and anger, but he was only 20 and if he'd had some years to grow and wisen he may have worked past those things, so I don't write this to make light in any way the loss of a young life. However, to try and turn this one around and blame the police I think is just a bridge too far, and really why I think this story has failed to gain any sort of national coverage...this doesn't even come close to fitting the narrative.

I'll include a video of the women and a link to an article for y'alls perusal. Peace...

The Electric Priest

dfw.cbslocal.com...

www.star-telegram.com...



+1 more 
posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 07:31 AM
link   
a reply to: TheElectricPriest

If this young man was on parole, which it definitely sounds that way, he is not allowed to possess a gun.

Case closed in my opinion.



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 07:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: TheElectricPriest

If this young man was on parole, which it definitely sounds that way, he is not allowed to possess a gun.

Case closed in my opinion.


So you are in favor of limiting 2nd amendment rights? You are agreeing that the Government can take away a "god-given" rights enshrined in the bill of rights? What part of "Shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
/sarc
edit on 17-1-2019 by FilthyUSMonkey because: (no reason given)



edit on 17-1-2019 by FilthyUSMonkey because: Changed abridged to infringed



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 07:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: TheElectricPriest

If this young man was on parole, which it definitely sounds that way, he is not allowed to possess a gun.

Case closed in my opinion.


I'm watching the news now and they were just talking about it. Apparently they have now released the body cam footage and, from what is being said he fired first. Really, however, the point of this OP was simply my surprise that there was all of this civil rights buzz around this shooting, lumping it in with so many of these senseless shootings of black men by police (which is real and is absolutely abhorrent, so let there be no mistake about my position on this particular topic). Seeing the mothers coming out as if their son was this great victim after shooting a cop is, to me, a sense of group think that abrogates any sense of responsibility, and is truly emblematic of an institutional mindset inside of that community that is revealing itself as ridiculous, invalidating honest and sincere incidents of police overreach and brutality, and moves the whole cause back a major step. Live by the gun, die by the gun. If you don't want to get shot by the police, don't shoot at them.



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 07:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

While the police are no angels.

If you shoot at the cops expect to be shot back at.



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 07:43 AM
link   
a reply to: FilthyUSMonkey

Ha. That's funny.

Guns for all. Except if you're a criminal.

Obviously in some situations it's ok to take away guns from people.



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 07:44 AM
link   
a reply to: grey580

I agree.

Funny thing.
Why do none of these stories ever start with...

"Good evening officer"
"Why yes, here is my license and registration"



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 07:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: FilthyUSMonkey

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: TheElectricPriest

If this young man was on parole, which it definitely sounds that way, he is not allowed to possess a gun.

Case closed in my opinion.


So you are in favor of limiting 2nd amendment rights? You are agreeing that the Government can take away a "god-given" rights enshrined in the bill of rights? What part of "Shall not be abridged" do you not understand?
/sarc


Calm down high speed. This isn't a 2nd Amendment thread, and the poster is definitely right. If on parole he would be disallowed to carry a gun, the gun was most likely illegal (I doubt he had a permit to carry), and is this really the gun-toting that you want to defend with your Constitutional zeal? I don't think the founding fathers would exactly be lining up behind you saying, yeah, that's exactly what we meant.

Also, just as an aside, it's 'infringed'' not 'abridged'. When spitting fire, probably best to get that at least right. It's not a dictionary or the collected works of Shakespeare.



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 07:48 AM
link   
a reply to: TheElectricPriest
Thanks - changed it.

So you agree that for some reasons it is fine to take away people's guns?

Slippery slope there. They might come for yours if you post crazy things on a conspiracy site....



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 07:52 AM
link   
a reply to: TheElectricPriest

Frankly I am getting sick and tired of these people using race as defense. Utterly ridiculous. While admittedly some police are indeed bad apples, still if you pull a gun on the LEO you most likely gonna get shot, regardless of being white, black, purple or any other color in the rainbow. Pure effing stupidity...

And yes, these 'victims' are always pictured as saints after. Oh he was such a good boy...



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 07:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: FilthyUSMonkey
a reply to: TheElectricPriest
Thanks - changed it.

So you agree that for some reasons it is fine to take away people's guns?

Slippery slope there. They might come for yours if you post crazy things on a conspiracy site....




This has been true for decades.
Felons cant have guns or vote.

And parole is a deal, you agree to certain terms and conditions in order to stay out of jail.



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 07:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: FilthyUSMonkey
a reply to: TheElectricPriest
Thanks - changed it.

So you agree that for some reasons it is fine to take away people's guns?

Slippery slope there. They might come for yours if you post crazy things on a conspiracy site....



Ya I completely agree that it's alright to take guns away from criminals on parole especially if they are on parole for things like armed robbery, violence, etc
edit on 17-1-2019 by TheOnlyBilko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 08:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: FilthyUSMonkey
a reply to: TheElectricPriest
Thanks - changed it.

So you agree that for some reasons it is fine to take away people's guns?

Slippery slope there. They might come for yours if you post crazy things on a conspiracy site....

Yes, of course, there are good reasons to prohibit felons and parolees from having guns. This has been the case for decades.



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 08:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: FilthyUSMonkey
a reply to: TheElectricPriest
Thanks - changed it.

So you agree that for some reasons it is fine to take away people's guns?

Slippery slope there. They might come for yours if you post crazy things on a conspiracy site....



I'm definitely for gun control because I think that the 2nd Am has been woefully misinterpreted in our modern context. I don't think that the Am was written to protect the rights of criminals to carry guns, but was explicitly written for "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." I will never understand why this part of the Am seems to be so blatantly ignored. But to answer your question, no, I do not support this young man's perceived rights to carry a weapon, the reason is in evidence.



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 08:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: FilthyUSMonkey
a reply to: TheElectricPriest
Thanks - changed it.

So you agree that for some reasons it is fine to take away people's guns?

Slippery slope there. They might come for yours if you post crazy things on a conspiracy site....



Because generally speaking, criminals have shown they have zero respect for the rights of others in general society.

Robbery - You have no respect for the property rights of others.

Violent crime - No respect for the rights of person and even their right to life.

Etc.

And you have shown a willingness to use your rights to abuse the rights of others. So, using your right to keep and bear arms in order to infringe on or even outright take the rights of others - person, property, life, liberty, etc.

Since you have no respect for the rights of others, you tend to lose your own rights as part of the penalty. This has always been the case, and for far more than 2nd Amendment rights. What do you think prison is if not depriving someone of right to liberty, for example?



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 08:20 AM
link   
a reply to: TheElectricPriest

If the Second only applies to collectives and not individuals, a militia, then what other parts of the Bill of Rights only apply to collectives?

And you may recall that in the main body of the Constitution that both the Federal and the States are expressly forbidden to have and maintain a standing army during times of peace. That it was left to the militias to defend until Congress could raise and train an army, but respond by calling for volunteers to visit their local armory to reenforce the milia that initially engaged the threat.

Outdated and abused Amendment or maybe it is because fortunes were made by circumventing other parts of the Constitution?

As for this case, it is spelled out that possession of a firearm is a violation of parole.



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 08:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Ahabstar


Outdated and abused Amendment or maybe it is because fortunes were made by circumventing other parts of the Constitution?


Funny that be said today.

Because on this day, many years ago was a speech by a very wise man.



On topic...

If you point a gun at a cop, the cause of death should be written suicide.
edit on 17-1-2019 by CriticalStinker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 08:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Ahabstar

Not only that but if we're talking about a collective militia and one that has to be regulated, that implies that the state has to be heavily involved in its formation and existence, making it really more of a state entity and not a private or free one which undermines the purpose of having armed citizens which was to have a free, armed populace able to thwart all threats, foreign and domestic.

And one big domestic threat always remains the people's own government.



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 08:26 AM
link   
a reply to: TheElectricPriest

At this point, that young man -- rightly AND wrongly, for better AND worse -- had every reason to fear the cops. For the same exact reasons that the cops have -- rightly AND wrongly, for better AND worse -- to fear the public. Because both the cops and the people have shown themselves to be threats. We also don't know what previous contact this kid had with cops, and perhaps he had more specific reasons to be afraid.

But unlike the cops, who have unions and fellow cops and the full resources of the government to protect and defend them, the kid had only himself.

So here's the bottom line: The cops are the initiators of the contact, and it is therefore incumbent upon THEM to not create and not escalate any volatile situations. If the cop had just given the driver a warning, or even a ticket, I seriously doubt anything would have escalated. But instead it turned into what it did because the long arm of law couldn't stop there. At a time when cannabis is being legalized all across the country -- and the world -- and we now know the vital role cannabis plays in our immune system, the criminalization and persecution is a crime against all humanity. It is also an open invitation for bad cops to abuse their power.

Obviously, the kid never should have shot at the cops (if that is, in fact, what happened. For now, I'll accept it on its face). But neither should that kid ever have been put in that position. Nor should any of us be put in a position where we are scared for our lives, but have no right to self-defense or protection, while the cops with all the power can kill at will and get off by saying, "I was scared for my life."

ALL lives matter. Not just blue lives.

With great power comes greater responsibility. We need to rethink the power granted to authorities.



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 08:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: TheElectricPriest

If the Second only applies to collectives and not individuals, a militia, then what other parts of the Bill of Rights only apply to collectives?

And you may recall that in the main body of the Constitution that both the Federal and the States are expressly forbidden to have and maintain a standing army during times of peace. That it was left to the militias to defend until Congress could raise and train an army, but respond by calling for volunteers to visit their local armory to reenforce the milia that initially engaged the threat.

Outdated and abused Amendment or maybe it is because fortunes were made by circumventing other parts of the Constitution?

As for this case, it is spelled out that possession of a firearm is a violation of parole.


Then the Am needs to be clarified, explicitly, not via interpretation, through legislative means as outlined within the very document in question. And I do think that goes to individual rights, because it determines a level of responsibility, communally recognized, that determines a level of trust that allows for the wielding of such power. This power, the power of the gun, should not be allowed to all. I think that's ridiculous. This young man is but a case in point.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join