• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

St. Louis Couple Loses their AR15 (1 Viewer)

CLAX1911 said:
I can't prove the Second Amendment exists? And I can't prove a violent mob is violent.

I guess I can't prove reality to someone who decides to reject it.
Click to expand...

Sure you can; read the constitution.
 
jet57 said:
What really surprises me here is that big gummit did indeed enter someone's home and take their AR15 away, and you aren't screamin about it...
Click to expand...

that's really stupid jet. I don't know all the facts. I did say that if it was wrongful, then those who did this should be sued civilly.
 
jet57 said:
IT was brandishing dude, full stop.
Click to expand...

You missed half the argument. You may engage in activity that may be called "brandishing" in some circumstances legally. This is true with most things you do with a gun. For example, when I shot a mugger, it was justifiable. If it had not been, the very same action would have been deemed "felonious assault with a deadly weapon". But since I had a legally sufficient reason to shoot, it was ruled "justifiable self defense".

If this couple had absolutely no grounds to display the firearms as they did, it might be seen as "menacing" or even "assault" However, there is a strong possibility that they were justified and thus no crime was committed.
 
Court Jester said:
Are you 100% sure what that means?
Click to expand...

I doubt that you can be 100% sure of anything

But for our amusement please give an alternative meaning for MAGA

"Mothers Against GOP A*******s" ?



In other words it triggered your feelings in a certain way. So what does that have to do with me?
Click to expand...

Because you wrote it


I'm not really concerned about Russia. Russia is only a regional power with certain energy interests in a very limited part of the middle east--- mostly in some parts of Syria.
Click to expand...


Neither is Trump, he feels he knows better than his own intelligence services

A Call to Arms: Taking the Russia Threat Seriously - Just Security

Sound the alarm on deadly US-Russia nuclear threat (Opinion) - CNN

Russia threat: Putin pushes towards West - as Trump pulls troops out of Germany | World | News | Express.co.uk

Russia | The Heritage Foundation


Russia is a HUGE threat to the USA, your complacency is breath taking


Everything with you liberal Jan Bradys is always "Russia, Russia, Russia!"
Click to expand...

Is the Pentagon to be regarded as liberals now ?


"A new report prepared for the Joint Chiefs has found that the U.S. needs an urgent change of strategy to deal with Russia's growing influence on the world. The Kremlin is deploying an increasingly sophisticated strategy of propaganda, political manipulation, economic exploitation and provocation to disrupt U.S. influence and restore Russia's global standing—Washington needs to change its approach or risk falling further behind...."


Pentagon Report Warns On Threat To U.S. From Russia's Dangerous Global Influence
 
Moon said:
No, I don't see why it would. Either they felt they were being threatened and were defending themselves, or they weren't.
Click to expand...

Post #179


"In comments...attorneys have attempted to develop something of a defense, seemingly in anticipation of criminal charges.
...that Mark McCloskey had the rifle’s safety engaged at all times and ...never had his finger on the trigger.....saying that Patricia McCloskey’s gun was never “operable” during the incident and is still not capable of firing.

...according to Missouri criminal law, a person “commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons” if they exhibit “in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner.”
The defense strategy appears to be an attempt to dispute that the McCloskey’s weapons were “readily capable of lethal use” at the time they were used to menace protesters by claiming that the guns could not have hurt anyone for the various reasons noted above.

But the law doesn’t appear to make such distinctions.
Under case law on point here, which was recently relied upon by the Missouri Supreme Court, the state does not have to actually prove that a weapon was even loaded during a criminal incident in order to satisfy the “readily capable of lethal use” language in the statute.
During that case, State v. Lutjen, a defendant argued that the Show Me State’s criminal code “intends to impose upon the prosecution the proof of a loaded firearm in order to sustain conviction of the offense under § 571.030.” An appeals court ruled that was not so...."


Police Have Mark McCloskey and Patricia McCloskey's Guns | Law & Crime


Looks like a VERY weak defense to me...if acquitted it means that in Missouri, you can threaten someone with a gun provided the safety was on...somehow I don't think so.
 
jet57 said:
Sure you can; read the constitution.
Click to expand...

The Constitution in the reality the rest of us live in says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

when you use a firearm defensively like this couple did in the government takes it away that is a clear violation of the Second Amendment.


so I don't know what reality you live in where the Constitution says something else. I'm not familiar with alternate realities.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Bull**** full stop
Click to expand...


"Mark and Patricia McCloskey, who are personal injury lawyers, were caught on video brandishing guns as demonstrators walked past their Renaissance palazzo-style home on June 28 while headed to protest outside of the mayor’s home nearby. The video showed Mark McCloskey, 61, wielding a long-barreled gun and Patricia McCloskey, 63 standing next to him waving a handgun..."

Police execute search warrant at St. Louis home of gun-toting couple | FOX6Now.com.



You should be their lawyer, you could enter you own legally trained opinion as evidence.
 
Rich2018 said:
"Mark and Patricia McCloskey, who are personal injury lawyers, were caught on video brandishing guns as demonstrators walked past their Renaissance palazzo-style home on June 28 while headed to protest outside of the mayor’s home nearby. The video showed Mark McCloskey, 61, wielding a long-barreled gun and Patricia McCloskey, 63 standing next to him waving a handgun..."

Police execute search warrant at St. Louis home of gun-toting couple | FOX6Now.com.



You should be their lawyer, you could enter you own legally trained opinion as evidence.
Click to expand...

Lol this police department is going to get sued. And they deserve it.
 
TurtleDude said:
that's really stupid jet. I don't know all the facts. I did say that if it was wrongful, then those who did this should be sued civilly.
Click to expand...

No it's not stupid, it's a question that fits your profile on the second amendment; just sayin.
 
TurtleDude said:
You missed half the argument. You may engage in activity that may be called "brandishing" in some circumstances legally. This is true with most things you do with a gun. For example, when I shot a mugger, it was justifiable. If it had not been, the very same action would have been deemed "felonious assault with a deadly weapon". But since I had a legally sufficient reason to shoot, it was ruled "justifiable self defense".

If this couple had absolutely no grounds to display the firearms as they did, it might be seen as "menacing" or even "assault" However, there is a strong possibility that they were justified and thus no crime was committed.
Click to expand...

No, I see no possibility that they were justified in their actions. They were overreacting by a country mile. Reasonable people just don't act that way. Your situation was different and I agree with your action. These guys on the other hand were showboating and it's going to cost them.
 
CLAX1911 said:
The Constitution in the reality the rest of us live in says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

when you use a firearm defensively like this couple did in the government takes it away that is a clear violation of the Second Amendment.


so I don't know what reality you live in where the Constitution says something else. I'm not familiar with alternate realities.
Click to expand...

There was no defense. There was brandishing weapons and the second amendment does not cover illegal acts with a gun.
 
jet57 said:
No, I see no possibility that they were justified in their actions.
Click to expand...
An angry mob shows up on their doorstep? A group notorious for violence and distraction if property?


They were overreacting by a country mile. Reasonable people just don't act that way.
Click to expand...
Why because you say so? Show that you are reasonable.
Your situation was different and I agree with your action. These guys on the other hand were showboating and it's going to cost them.
Click to expand...

There was literally an angry mob on their doorstep I think they showed great restraint.
 
CLAX1911 said:
I'm sure you suggest such things about everybody that disagrees with you.

It's called narcissism.
Click to expand...

No, it's called ignorance, and its on your behalf


You never did allude to your legal training and experience but the apparent lack of either didn't stop you from voicing a baseless opinion.
 
Rich2018 said:
No, it's called ignorance, and its on your behalf


You never did allude to your legal training and experience but the apparent lack of either didn't stop you from voicing a baseless opinion.
Click to expand...

My credentials are 100% equal to the credentials you presented.

So if my statements are not relevant you're questioning of them are not relevant.

now that we've got your pathetic little Dodge out of the way let's get back to the topic.
 
Last edited:
CLAX1911 said:
My credentials are 100% equal to the credentials you presented.
Click to expand...

But sadly not up to the standard required to voice a legal worthwhile opinion on the recent incident in St Louis

So if my statements are not relevant you're questioning of them are not relevant.
Click to expand...

That you're spewing unsubstantiated personal opinion and pretending you know what you're talking about ?

I mean I am right, in that you ***DO*** pretend to know what you're talking about don't you ?
(despite a total absence of legal training or experience)


now that we've got your pathetic little Dodge out of the way let's get back to the topic.
Click to expand...

That you're voicing your ignorant opinion and pathetically trying to pass it off as fact, when in reality you don't know what you're talking about.
 
Rich2018 said:
But sadly not up to the standard required to voice a legal worthwhile opinion on the recent incident in St Louis



That you're spewing unsubstantiated personal opinion and pretending you know what you're talking about ?

I mean I am right, in that you ***DO*** pretend to know what you're talking about don't you ?
(despite a total absence of legal training or experience)




That you're voicing your ignorant opinion and pathetically trying to pass it off as fact, when in reality you don't know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...
If you have no credibility of your own you have no grounds on which to attack The credibility of others.



And also you have abandoned the argument to attack my credibility. That's an ad hominem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom