If we believe that some people shouldn’t be able to defend themselves against violent crime because of their political views, then there’s no reason that others can’t believe we shouldn’t be able to defend ourselves because of our views. That’s not just a slippery slope, it’s jumping off a cliff with rocks at the bottom.

quote:

Originally posted by chongosuerte:
Emotions aside, my home defense plan does not involve a confrontation outside. I’ll stay concealed and keep the element of surprise.

Yup. The moment BOTH of them stepped outside and showed their firearms, they made themselves targets, and were immediately at a disadvantage. They said some members of the mob had guns. Well, what was stopping any one of them from firing shots (either into the crowd or at the home owners)? Would the homeowners return fire, almost certainly hitting unarmed rioters (and we KNOW how the media would have spun this)?

Sure, protect your property, but don't be stupid about it. Two people against an armed mob is a poor bet. The homeowners had no cover, no concealment, and were hopelessly outnumbered.

I don't care what their politics were, either. The violation of any man's rights hurts us all.

You are absolutely right Sigfreund!

quote:

I don't give a shit bout the McCloskey's politics. It has nothing at all to do with their God given rights to protect and defend themselves and their home.

It sure doesn't. They have every right to defend themselves and their property.

quote:

If we believe that some people shouldn’t be able to defend themselves against violent crime because of their political views,

They should be able to defend themselves. What they shouldn't defend themselves with are the very things they claim to be against. You shouldn't be part of the group that says private ownership of evil black rifles should be illegal AND then defend yourself with an evil black rifle.

My problem isn't with what they did, it's with how they did it. Why weren't they blowing their rape whistle?

quote:

Originally posted by Keystoner:

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:
I don't give a shit bout the McCloskey's politics. It has nothing at all to do with their God given rights to protect and defend themselves and their home.

Point taken.

Nevertheless, I've ceased caring about these two litigious losers.

https://www.stltoday.com/news/...cb-ecd0225dd287.html

Just remember that every single news piece or article in any and all newspapers, etc is full of falsehoods, innuendo, misinformation, and outright lies. This is an immutable fact of life. And that is more true today than likely in any time in history

So today we are gonna believe the news? The same news that has been lying to us about nearly everything?
And because of some article you don't care what happens to these people who were exercising their rights?

Also, don't kid yourselves, them out on their lawn did not make them a target. Them wearing bedazzled crocs did not make them a target. Them not sitting in a rocking chair with a gun propped against the wall did not make them a target. They were targets long before without even knowing it.

There's no truth in the news, and no news in the truth.

quote:

Originally posted by Keystoner:

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:
I don't give a shit bout the McCloskey's politics. It has nothing at all to do with their God given rights to protect and defend themselves and their home.

Point taken.

Nevertheless, I've ceased caring about these two litigious losers.

https://www.stltoday.com/news/...cb-ecd0225dd287.html

We should care about the cause.
Nobody is feeling sorry for these ganof lawyers or their business practices.
What counts is that we stand with their right to defend themselves and the second amendment is not infringed.

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:

quote:

Originally posted by Keystoner:

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:
I don't give a shit bout the McCloskey's politics. It has nothing at all to do with their God given rights to protect and defend themselves and their home.

Point taken.

Nevertheless, I've ceased caring about these two litigious losers.

https://www.stltoday.com/news/...cb-ecd0225dd287.html

We should care about the cause.
Nobody is feeling sorry for these ganof lawyers or their business practices.
What counts is that we stand with their right to defend themselves and the second amendment is not infringed.

My posts in this thread thoroughly encompass my thoughts on this case.

quote:

Originally posted by Keystoner:

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:
I don't give a shit bout the McCloskey's politics. It has nothing at all to do with their God given rights to protect and defend themselves and their home.

Point taken.

Nevertheless, I've ceased caring about these two litigious losers.

https://www.stltoday.com/news/...cb-ecd0225dd287.html

So the local paper decides to do a hit piece on the people defending their property, and its purpose is to turn people against them even more so for the act of defending their property. Typical, hit piece, who cares what the guy does for a living, this type of journalism is designed to do just what it did here, turn someone against the couple...

Sure, the ‘hit piece’ on the McCloskey’s may bring to light why so many despise the overly litigious behavior of some in the legal profession, but if there were someone I had to pick to fight this case out in defense of themselves and the 2A, it would be these two sharks.

Although they did make ‘tactical’ errors as discussed here, and perhaps the wife committed some sort crime of by by pointing her weapon towards the crowd, but the mob broke down their gate, was trespassing on their property and threatening them with violence, arson and intent to kill them, and they have every right to defend themselves, their property and their dog.

quote:

Originally posted by Keystoner:
My posts in this thread thoroughly encompass my thoughts on this case.

Then why pile on to the innuendos of the article?

Hmmm. I would say that they could be described as vexatious litigants. Probably are not nice neighbors. That is largely irrelevant when it comes to their actions. I agree it was a hit piece that took considerable time to research.

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:

quote:

Originally posted by Keystoner:
My posts in this thread thoroughly encompass my thoughts on this case.

Then why pile on to the innuendos of the article?

For the same reason you have no sympathy for those two losers.

Enough

The media cartel and swamp can't let pesky details like facts get in the way of their warped perception of the truth.

Truth for GDCs can include all forms of falsehood and any means needed to achieve their ends.

Everything we are seeing today is chapter and verse from Alinsky's Rules for Radicals.

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:
Typical, hit piece...this type of journalism is designed to do just what it did here, turn someone against the couple...

NOT just someone, but the entire public and, I suspect, sway the jury pool, should it come to that.

Isn't EVERYBODY missing a key element here? If there had been no mob with the intent on doing harm (when they broke through the gate, "HARM" was evident), then the McCloskeys wouldn't have been outside displaying a weapon...legally. Cause and effect? I'm sure I've read about that somewhere...

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé: . . . Just remember that every single news piece or article in any and all newspapers, etc is full of falsehoods, innuendo, misinformation, and outright lies. This is an immutable fact of life. And that is more true today than likely in any time in history

I took a class in college entitled "Informal Logic", ie, the methods used to spread falsehoods in our society. I would love to take the class again (assuming the prof wasn't a stereotypical arch-liberal).

What surprises me a bit, and hurts a bit, is people I know who willingly swallow the lies and distortions.

quote:

Originally posted by erj_pilot:
Isn't EVERYBODY missing a key element here? If there had been no mob with the intent on doing harm (when they broke through the gate, "HARM" was evident), then the McCloskeys wouldn't have been outside displaying a weapon...legally. Cause and effect? I'm sure I've read about that somewhere...

And part of the "cause and effect" is that if you blame the wrong cause, you will not solve the problem.