Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

George Floyd Protests and Riots

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Ozys Nepimpis

    On behalf of all Europe i would like to thank President Trump and hard working American taxpayers for keeping us safe....so that we can spend our money on more important stuff ...like free healthcare free universities (unfortunately not in every country ) free housing for everyone as homelessness is bad and other good stuff...THANK YOU MR TRUMP.
    The US Military has indeed protected Europe and the rest of the free world for decades. Those days are over. The US isn't so dominant now that they can do that, so the days of freedom may be coming to an end for some "freeloaders"...along with all those "government benefits" made possible because the US military was defending against Russia.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
      Why is there this demonization of rich people. They make the following government services available to the masses:

      1) City, State and National Parks
      2) K-12 Schools
      3) Public libraries
      4) Fire Departments
      5) Police and Sheriff Departments (yes, you need them)
      6) State Social Services. This is the biggest segment of the state budgets. You have no idea how much is spent on this and almost all goes to the poor.
      7) Federal programs including Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, SSI, SSDI, etc. Yes, a massive amount of money transferred from the wealthy to the poor.
      8) National Defense
      9) Roads and Highways throughout the nation
      10) Dams and other water management programs that make your life much better
      11) Workforce Development - unemployed? They will pay you.
      12) Department of Revenue and IRS - organizations the rich pay for so that liberals who work there can take MORE of their money to distribute to the masses.

      This is really just a start. But no. The rich never get thanked. They are just demonized because they don't give more.
      The ignorance has to be trolling at this point.
      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

      Comment


      • Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post

        The ignorance has to be trolling at this point.
        Is that all you got? You know it's true that the rich give so much they even fund the organizations that make them give even more of their money to people who just have their hands out. Considering the rich already fund everything going on in the nation, why don't they get a little thank you. ...or perhaps the poor should kneel to them?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Ozys Nepimpis

          What are you talking about?....USA is the Greatest country by a lot in all human history ...always will be ....to call "US isn't so dominant"....is simply TREASON
          At one time, that was true. Not so much now. At one time, the vast majority of Americans believed in things like capitalism, family values and personal responsibility. That's not at all true now. Now it's about socialism, community values and the blame culture. America was always bigger than a sum of its parts. It's now divided and smaller than a sum of its parts.

          The only potential hope of the US not falling is for younger people to wake up and return to the roots that made America the greatest country in the history of the world. At the top of the list if fixing the family unit, eradicating the Democratic-Socialist wing of the Democrat Party and for the vast majority of people to find a way to work hard and accept their lot in life.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
            I would hope they obtained their assets from lawsuits. Both are attorneys.
            This confuses me on so many levels. I have some friends who are lawyers. Most (all?) of them have not obtained their homes, cars, etc, from lawsuits. Instead they obtained them via the more traditional means of paying for it with hard earned cash.

            Not only that, McCloskey represented a black man in St. Louis who claimed police brutality.
            Totally irrelevant

            But instead of a thanks, his property is invaded.
            Hahahaha. You are still sticking with the “invaded” story.

            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
            On top of that, why are we judging character here?
            EDITED to add unless I mis-read you are the one who brought the McCloskeys up as “role models” in this thread.

            As far as why most people are judging I will simply point to this article:

            https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...0225dd287.html

            Personal-injury attorneys Mark and Patricia McCloskey became instant national figures when they intercepted protesters marching past their marble-faced palazzo at One Portland Place, aimed guns at them and demanded they get out.

            Americans saw the story they wanted to see. Some saw respected professionals fearing for their safety, reasonably exercising their Second Amendment rights to defend their home from violent trespassers. Others saw an overwrought, older affluent couple, recklessly pointing their weapons and asserting their white privilege.

            But public records and interviews reveal a fuller picture than emerged two weeks ago. They show the McCloskeys are almost always in conflict with others, typically over control of private property, what people can do on that property, and whose job it is to make sure they do it.

            They filed a lawsuit in 1988 to obtain their house, a castle built for Adolphus Busch’s daughter and her husband during St. Louis’ brief run as a world-class city in the early 20th century. At the McCloskeys’ property in Franklin County, they have sued neighbors for making changes to a gravel road and twice in just over two years evicted tenants from a mMark McCloskey sued a former employer for wrongful termination and his sister, father and his father’s caretaker for defamation.

            The McCloskeys have filed at least two “quiet title” suits asserting squatter’s rights on land they’ve occupied openly and hostilely — their terms — and claimed as their own. In an ongoing suit against Portland Place trustees in 2017, the McCloskeys say they are entitled to a 1,143-square-foot triangle of lawn in front of property that is set aside as common ground in the neighborhood’s indenture.

            It was that patch of green protesters saw when they filed through the gate. Mark McCloskey said in an affidavit that he has defended the patch before by pointing a gun at a neighbor who had tried to cut through it.

            The McCloskeys have filed many other lawsuits. They sued a man who sold them a Maserati they claimed was supposed to come with a box of hard-to-find parts. In one trip to the courthouse in November 1996, Mark McCloskey filed two lawsuits, one against a dog breeder whom he said sold him a German shepherd without papers and the other against the Central West End Association for using a photo of their house in a brochure for a house tour after the McCloskeys had told them not to.

            “I guess we were saving gas,” he would quip in a deposition in another case about why he filed two lawsuits at once.
            ........
            Mark McCloskey’s first taste of ownership may have been on his 20th birthday, in 1976. A card from his parents, Bruce and Lois “Carol” McCloskey, would much later become an exhibit in a lawsuit against his father and his father's trust.

            On his 20th birthday, in 1976, Mark McCloskey received this birthday card from his parents. The card said: “You are now the sole & only owner of 5 acres of the Phelps County Farm. Papers to follow. This is on the river — Luck! Happy Birthday! Mom + Dad.” It would later become an exhibit in a lawsuit over property.

            The card said: “You are now the sole & only owner of 5 acres of the Phelps County Farm. Papers to follow. This is on the river — Luck! Happy Birthday! Mom + Dad.”

            He also got a small box of earth from the family’s 240-acre property to make it official.

            His parents divorced in 1985. Bruce McCloskey never filed proper documents with Phelps County to transfer the title. When Mark McCloskey inquired with the Phelps County assessor in 1997, he got a letter indicating that what his father had filed was “not a legal conveyance of land.”

            Mark McCloskey would not let real estate slip through his fingers again.

            In a May 2019 deposition in his ongoing lawsuit against Portland Place trustees, he explained how he and his wife came to own their home: through a lawsuit.
            Last edited by vapacersfan; 07-26-2020, 02:18 AM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
              Why is there this demonization of rich people.
              I have no clue if this was address at my previous post but personally I have no problem with the family. I do, however, have a lot of questions about their judgement (and frankly lack of good judgement). A big part of that is the comment(s) that came out after he handed his wife a pistol that both admitted she had no training on and had no business handling.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post

                This confuses me on so many levels. I have some friends who are lawyers. Most (all?) of them have not obtained their homes, cars, etc, from lawsuits. Instead they obtained them via the more traditional means of paying for it with hard earned cash.



                Totally irrelevant



                Hahahaha. You are still sticking with the “invaded” story.



                EDITED to add unless I mis-read you are the one who brought the McCloskeys up as “role models” in this thread.

                As far as why most people are judging I will simply point to this article:

                https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...0225dd287.html
                All I said bro is that they (and many people like them) provide the lion’s share of money to fund schools and government services in this country. I am sure one and possibly both are jerks. They are attorneys for goodness sakes. I realize people want to demonize them but that doesn’t matter. And yes their property was invaded and we already established that. By definition. For goodness sakes hundreds of people came onto their private property and they did that not to get to the governor’s mansion but to intimidate “those darned rich people” who pay for everything handed to them by the govment.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post

                  I have no clue if this was address at my previous post but personally I have no problem with the family. I do, however, have a lot of questions about their judgement (and frankly lack of good judgement). A big part of that is the comment(s) that came out after he handed his wife a pistol that both admitted she had no training on and had no business handling.
                  They were rightly frightened. I mean, what world do you live in? Protesters are angry. They have been damaging property, burning down buildings and attacking police. If they came on my property I would be pulling out my weapons too.

                  But again let me emphasize I didn’t bring up anything but taxes and government services. The McCloskey’s by renovating a mansion in the city are handing money to the residents in that area. They could have and should have moved far away so they wouldn’t have been invaded. Not sure why any rich people want to live around the ungrateful, angry poor people who don’t pay a thin dime for anything in this country.

                  Comment


                  • Nah bro - we never established they were “invaded”. Perhaps if the protesters broke in and stole all their billion dollar Picasso paintings I would agree. Getting mad because folks are walking by your house does not equate to being invaded.

                    To add to that, none of those folks gave two ***** about “those darned rich people”. They specifically were going to the governors mansion to protest her FB live posting earlier in the day. (https://www.latimes.com/world-nation...is-mayors-home)

                    How you can argue otherwise is confusing to me. Didn’t they even make their way on to the governors mansion after the incident with the lawyers, hence why no one was around when the police showed up?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                      They were rightly frightened. I mean, what world do you live in? Protesters are angry. They have been damaging property, burning down buildings and attacking police. If they came on my property I would be pulling out my weapons too.
                      I live in a world where I am very cautious about if/when I draw my weapon(s). I live in a world where if I draw my weapon my finger is not on the trigger until I am ready to fire. I live in a world where I know what is in front of my target, behind my target, and around my target. I live in a world where I do not “Hollywood” swing my weapon around endangering myself, my spouse, and innocent protesters who are not armed.

                      Now if a protestor made a threat or came charging at me? 100% different story. But the video does not portray that, AT ALL. Instead it shows upset protestors walking by the house and the couple yelling at them before returning to the house and coming back outside with weapons.

                      But again let me emphasize I didn’t bring up anything but taxes and government services. The McCloskey’s by renovating a mansion in the city are handing money to the residents in that area. They could have and should have moved far away so they wouldn’t have been invaded. Not sure why any rich people want to live around the ungrateful, angry poor people who don’t pay a thin dime for anything in this country.
                      Yes, the good ole “poor people don’t pay for anything”. I am sure all of those protestors (who’s cause the family has said they support I might remind you) don’t pay any taxes. GTFO

                      Comment


                      • Saw this on the news this morning. I am sure other outlets picked it up but this was the first Google result I found

                        https://www.theblaze.com/news/gun-co...uis-prosecutor


                        The handgun Patricia McCloskey was armed with when a large group of protesters marched near her home in St. Louis was inoperable when seized by police. A St. Louis prosecutor ordered the crime lab to dismantle and then reassemble the firearm to make it functional, according to a report from KSDK-TV.
                        .........
                        The McCloskeys said that the handgun was purposely made inoperable. The firearm was allegedly used as a "prop" so that it could be brought into a courtroom for a lawsuit the couple once filed against a gun manufacturer. The handgun had its firing pin rendered inoperable to make it safe to bring into the courtroom. The couple claim they never reassembled the gun to enable it to be functional.

                        Comment


                        • Considering it was inoperable, and we know she knew that, perhaps it was safe to swing it around.

                          Fact is those protesters should have NEVER stepped foot on their property. Hundreds of them. They would be nuts NOT to get weapons. It was their house and they had the right to defend it and no I fully disagree if you think they were not being threatened.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                            Considering it was inoperable, and we know she knew that, perhaps it was safe to swing it around.
                            First off you treat every weapon as if it is a live weapons. What if, lord forbid, it did fire. “Oh, but your honor, I thought it was fine to swing it around like an idiot”

                            Also, (s)he is an idiot if they knew it they knew it was inoperable. What are you going to do if a protestor(s) has a weapon(s) and decides to defend themselves.

                            ”No, please dont shoot your live weapon. The most mine can do is go “bang, bang, bang”. See, I promise.

                            Fact is those protesters should have NEVER stepped foot on their property. Hundreds of them. They would be nuts NOT to get weapons. It was their house and they had the right to defend it and no I fully disagree if you think they were not being threatened.
                            I could not disagree more. The protestors were WALKING by the house before they were addressed. The family was in no way,shape or fashion being threatened until they decided to address the protestors for being in their “private, upscale community”.

                            You can disagree all you want, if the two lawyers stay inside and let the protestors march by not their way to the mayors house this is a non story and we are not talking about it today.

                            They would be nuts NOT to get weapons
                            This only works if you know what the hell you are doing. Even then it is a stretch. At the end of the day the bottom line is weapons are not a toy. The fact they knew one was inoperable and still decided to go waving it around makes it even more foolish,.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post

                              First off you treat every weapon as if it is a live weapons. What if, lord forbid, it did fire. “Oh, but your honor, I thought it was fine to swing it around like an idiot”

                              Also, (s)he is an idiot if they knew it they knew it was inoperable. What are you going to do if a protestor(s) has a weapon(s) and decides to defend themselves.

                              ”No, please dont shoot your live weapon. The most mine can do is go “bang, bang, bang”. See, I promise.



                              I could not disagree more. The protestors were WALKING by the house before they were addressed. The family was in no way,shape or fashion being threatened until they decided to address the protestors for being in their “private, upscale community”.

                              You can disagree all you want, if the two lawyers stay inside and let the protestors march by not their way to the mayors house this is a non story and we are not talking about it today.



                              This only works if you know what the hell you are doing. Even then it is a stretch. At the end of the day the bottom line is weapons are not a toy. The fact they knew one was inoperable and still decided to go waving it around makes it even more foolish,.
                              I am not sure why you barged into the discussion and changed the topic from one of paying for government services to this. My point for bringing up that couple living in the middle of cesspool St. Louis in a gigantic mansion they had been renovating for decades is that they are paying for a huge amount of government services for the residents as compared to the average person there. Yet their property is invaded.

                              Yes, it was an invasion of their private property and their privacy and any time hundreds of angry protesters show up and have already demonstrated they will break into your private land, it immediately reminds people of the instances of graffiti, looting, burning and destruction this movement has been guilty of in the past. So no, you cannot trust they will be peaceful.

                              Also, you weren't there. You don't know what was said. What I see is an angry mob, hundreds of them for goodness sakes, trespassing on private property and that's ALL it takes for me to go for my weapon. There has been destruction all over this country man. Did you not know that?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                                I am not sure why you barged into the discussion and changed the topic from one of paying for government services to this. My point for bringing up that couple living in the middle of cesspool St. Louis in a gigantic mansion they had been renovating for decades is that they are paying for a huge amount of government services for the residents as compared to the average person there. Yet their property is invaded.

                                Yes, it was an invasion of their private property and their privacy and any time hundreds of angry protesters show up and have already demonstrated they will break into your private land, it immediately reminds people of the instances of graffiti, looting, burning and destruction this movement has been guilty of in the past. So no, you cannot trust they will be peaceful.

                                Also, you weren't there. You don't know what was said. What I see is an angry mob, hundreds of them for goodness sakes, trespassing on private property and that's ALL it takes for me to go for my weapon. There has been destruction all over this country man. Did you not know that?
                                Apologies, I was not aware we had to stick to the sole topic and talking points you want to.

                                1. It was not an invasion.

                                2. While I was not there you were not either.

                                3. You can get your firearms when you please. I hope you are smart enough to know A. The repercussions for brandishing said firearms and B. how to safely operate your firearms

                                4. I did know there was destruction all over the country. Now please, point out the destruction caused from this group of peaceful protestors

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X