Mickey wrote:The photo article that picture is from contains the funniest statue related caption I have ever seen
Mark Williams, left, of Sullivan, Missouri, debates the worthiness of a statue of King Louis IX in Forest Park with a man who gave his name as Horus during a rally that brought various opinions to the top of Art Hill on Saturday, June 27, 2020. "This is hate against the Catholic church," said Williams, calling for a conversion of St. Louis residents. "If 99 percent of people are Catholic, our racial problems go away."
About 200 people in opposition to and in support of the King Louis IX statue atop Art Hill in Forest Park gathered to debate the issue on Saturday, June 27, 2020.
Lol well one side showed up to debate maybe. Maybe if they brought AR15s, the other side would have showed up to debate, too.
And of course 90% of what we were told about this couple is a lie.
Wow, 90% of what you heard was that they're good, decent people?
Believing that private property should exist makes them monsters in your eyes. I get it.
You can believe in private property and not support waiving a rifle at the people protesting in front of your neighbors house, for most of us it is not that hard to hold two concepts in your brain at once!
When large groups of people (allegedly break and enter) and flagrantly tresspass after being confronted, its not unreasonable to expect that they have as little regard for your safety as they do for your property. This would be akin to a large protest in a gated driveway shared with your neighbor. If people are on your property screaming threats at you, its best to take them seriously.
Hilariously, they have donated on multiple occasions to ACTBlue.
Seems to be some disagreement on whether the sidewalk is public or private. If there is an easement on the sidewalk, many of the protesters were still tresspassing.
Anders Walker, a constitutional law professor at St. Louis University, said that although it's "very dangerous" to engage protesters with guns, the homeowners broke no laws by brandishing or pointing weapons at them because Portland Place is a private street. He said the McCloskeys are protected by Missouri's Castle Doctrine, which allows people to use deadly force to defend private property.
"At any point that you enter the property, they can then, in Missouri, use deadly force to get you off the lawn," Walker said, calling the state's Castle Doctrine a "force field" that "indemnifies you, and you can even pull the trigger in Missouri."
Luckily, Walker said, no one got shot.
"There's no right to protest on those streets," Walker said. "The protesters thought they had a right to protest, but as a technical matter, they were not allowed to be there. ... It’s essentially a private estate. If anyone was violating the law, it was the protesters. In fact, if (the McCloskeys) have photos of the protesters, they could go after them for trespassing."
I get the want to protect yourself in a situation where people are trespassing on your property, but surely a move to go out and chant in support of the protesters would have been a better option than heading out with guns.
This is one of the things about the US fascination with guns that the rest of the world can't understand - they are the ultimate escalation device.
If they came outside with a sign on a piece of cardboard the media never even hear about these two. Instead we have this:
Higgs wrote:
I get the want to protect yourself in a situation where people are trespassing on your property, but surely a move to go out and chant in support of the protesters would have been a better option than heading out with guns.
oooh why don't they just go out and kneel, too! Why don't they simply grovel for the herd's acceptance!? That would be safer! Just go with the flow, brah!
Higgs wrote:If they came outside with a sign on a piece of cardboard the media never even hear about these two. Instead we have this:
and likely they would have been surrounded and beaten. I don't care about "escalation", or "proportional responses" or any of that shit. and the rest of the world is wrong about guns.
Higgs wrote:
I get the want to protect yourself in a situation where people are trespassing on your property, but surely a move to go out and chant in support of the protesters would have been a better option than heading out with guns.
oooh why don't they just go out and kneel, too! Why don't they simply grovel for the herd's acceptance!? That would be safer! Just go with the flow, brah!
Higgs wrote:If they came outside with a sign on a piece of cardboard the media never even hear about these two. Instead we have this:
and likely they would have been surrounded and beaten. I don't care about "escalation", or "proportional responses" or any of that shit. and the rest of the world is wrong about guns.
How many protesters are actively beating civilians these days? Genuine question - is this something that's actually happening? I haven't heard much of this until these two popped up on my newsfeed.
But you guys are wrong - guns really are retarded. Hey - you do you though.
Only the vanguard of the Communist Revolution is allowed to use guns!
Anyone else who does is wrong!
Because Communism is cool / smarter than Capitalism!
Get with the movement!
All posts by this account, even those referencing real things, are entirely fictional and are for entertainment purposes only; i.e. very low-quality entertainment. These may contain coarse language and due to their content should not be viewed by anyone
Higgs wrote:
I get the want to protect yourself in a situation where people are trespassing on your property, but surely a move to go out and chant in support of the protesters would have been a better option than heading out with guns.
oooh why don't they just go out and kneel, too! Why don't they simply grovel for the herd's acceptance!? That would be safer! Just go with the flow, brah!
Higgs wrote:If they came outside with a sign on a piece of cardboard the media never even hear about these two. Instead we have this:
and likely they would have been surrounded and beaten. I don't care about "escalation", or "proportional responses" or any of that shit. and the rest of the world is wrong about guns.
How many protesters are actively beating civilians these days? Genuine question - is this something that's actually happening? I haven't heard much of this until these two popped up on my newsfeed.
But you guys are wrong - guns really are retarded. Hey - you do you though.
How many would be required? I don't know. Plenty. It's happened on camera tons of times in the last few weeks. It's obvious that you wouldn't disagree with the mob and not expect to be mobbed. You're answer is to just agree with them. That's cuckery.
Higgs wrote:
I get the want to protect yourself in a situation where people are trespassing on your property, but surely a move to go out and chant in support of the protesters would have been a better option than heading out with guns.
oooh why don't they just go out and kneel, too! Why don't they simply grovel for the herd's acceptance!? That would be safer! Just go with the flow, brah!
Higgs wrote:If they came outside with a sign on a piece of cardboard the media never even hear about these two. Instead we have this:
and likely they would have been surrounded and beaten. I don't care about "escalation", or "proportional responses" or any of that shit. and the rest of the world is wrong about guns.
How many protesters are actively beating civilians these days? Genuine question - is this something that's actually happening? I haven't heard much of this until these two popped up on my newsfeed.
But you guys are wrong - guns really are retarded. Hey - you do you though.
How many would be required? I don't know. Plenty. It's happened on camera tons of times in the last few weeks. It's obvious that you wouldn't disagree with the mob and not expect to be mobbed. You're answer is to just agree with them. That's cuckery.
I don't hold that you must always meet force with force. The aim is to stay safe, however you go about it. In this case I guess I can't argue that the homeowner's bringing out the guns did the job for them, which I'm actually thankful for.
I wan't aware things were turning so violent against civilians tbh. That's a fucked up situation, and absolutely colours my view of the protestors in those situations. I learn, Mr Fawlty, I learn.
Higgs wrote:
I get the want to protect yourself in a situation where people are trespassing on your property, but surely a move to go out and chant in support of the protesters would have been a better option than heading out with guns.
oooh why don't they just go out and kneel, too! Why don't they simply grovel for the herd's acceptance!? That would be safer! Just go with the flow, brah!
Higgs wrote:If they came outside with a sign on a piece of cardboard the media never even hear about these two. Instead we have this:
and likely they would have been surrounded and beaten. I don't care about "escalation", or "proportional responses" or any of that shit. and the rest of the world is wrong about guns.
How many protesters are actively beating civilians these days? Genuine question - is this something that's actually happening? I haven't heard much of this until these two popped up on my newsfeed.
But you guys are wrong - guns really are retarded. Hey - you do you though.
How many would be required? I don't know. Plenty. It's happened on camera tons of times in the last few weeks. It's obvious that you wouldn't disagree with the mob and not expect to be mobbed. You're answer is to just agree with them. That's cuckery.
I don't hold that you must always meet force with force. The aim is to stay safe, however you go about it. In this case I guess I can't argue that the homeowner's bringing out the guns did the job for them, which I'm actually thankful for.
I wan't aware things were turning so violent against civilians tbh. That's a fucked up situation, and absolutely colours my view of the protestors in those situations. I learn, Mr Fawlty, I learn.
The aim isn't just to stay safe, though. That's what you guys never get. It's not about safety at all costs. It's about having the freedom to do what you want, to be dangerous to aggressors, standing up for yourself, having the will to meet force with force so you can disagree with people and not get your head caved in, etc. It's a fundamentally different worldview.
For all of the ubermensch memes he's deeply afraid of anything beyond the horizon of his drawings of mice.
VinylGuy wrote:its really tiresome to see these ¨good guys¨ talking about any political stuff in tv while also being kinda funny and hip and cool....its just...please enough of this shit.
Higgs wrote:
I get the want to protect yourself in a situation where people are trespassing on your property, but surely a move to go out and chant in support of the protesters would have been a better option than heading out with guns.
oooh why don't they just go out and kneel, too! Why don't they simply grovel for the herd's acceptance!? That would be safer! Just go with the flow, brah!
Higgs wrote:If they came outside with a sign on a piece of cardboard the media never even hear about these two. Instead we have this:
and likely they would have been surrounded and beaten. I don't care about "escalation", or "proportional responses" or any of that shit. and the rest of the world is wrong about guns.
How many protesters are actively beating civilians these days? Genuine question - is this something that's actually happening? I haven't heard much of this until these two popped up on my newsfeed.
But you guys are wrong - guns really are retarded. Hey - you do you though.
How many would be required? I don't know. Plenty. It's happened on camera tons of times in the last few weeks. It's obvious that you wouldn't disagree with the mob and not expect to be mobbed. You're answer is to just agree with them. That's cuckery.
I don't hold that you must always meet force with force. The aim is to stay safe, however you go about it. In this case I guess I can't argue that the homeowner's bringing out the guns did the job for them, which I'm actually thankful for.
I wan't aware things were turning so violent against civilians tbh. That's a fucked up situation, and absolutely colours my view of the protestors in those situations. I learn, Mr Fawlty, I learn.
The aim isn't just to stay safe, though. That's what you guys never get. It's not about safety at all costs. It's about having the freedom to do what you want, to be dangerous to aggressors, standing up for yourself, having the will to meet force with force so you can disagree with people and not get your head caved in, etc. It's a fundamentally different worldview.
Yeah, that shit you can keep Burt. FREEDOM! What a total crock. Because you guys are oh so very free.
Higgs wrote:
I get the want to protect yourself in a situation where people are trespassing on your property, but surely a move to go out and chant in support of the protesters would have been a better option than heading out with guns.
oooh why don't they just go out and kneel, too! Why don't they simply grovel for the herd's acceptance!? That would be safer! Just go with the flow, brah!
Higgs wrote:If they came outside with a sign on a piece of cardboard the media never even hear about these two. Instead we have this:
and likely they would have been surrounded and beaten. I don't care about "escalation", or "proportional responses" or any of that shit. and the rest of the world is wrong about guns.
How many protesters are actively beating civilians these days? Genuine question - is this something that's actually happening? I haven't heard much of this until these two popped up on my newsfeed.
But you guys are wrong - guns really are retarded. Hey - you do you though.
How many would be required? I don't know. Plenty. It's happened on camera tons of times in the last few weeks. It's obvious that you wouldn't disagree with the mob and not expect to be mobbed. You're answer is to just agree with them. That's cuckery.
I don't hold that you must always meet force with force. The aim is to stay safe, however you go about it. In this case I guess I can't argue that the homeowner's bringing out the guns did the job for them, which I'm actually thankful for.
I wan't aware things were turning so violent against civilians tbh. That's a fucked up situation, and absolutely colours my view of the protestors in those situations. I learn, Mr Fawlty, I learn.
The aim isn't just to stay safe, though. That's what you guys never get. It's not about safety at all costs. It's about having the freedom to do what you want, to be dangerous to aggressors, standing up for yourself, having the will to meet force with force so you can disagree with people and not get your head caved in, etc. It's a fundamentally different worldview.
Yeah, that shit you can keep Burt. FREEDOM! What a total crock. Because you guys are oh so very free.
Like I said. Fundamentally different worldviews. We are not the same.
Higgs wrote:
I get the want to protect yourself in a situation where people are trespassing on your property, but surely a move to go out and chant in support of the protesters would have been a better option than heading out with guns.
oooh why don't they just go out and kneel, too! Why don't they simply grovel for the herd's acceptance!? That would be safer! Just go with the flow, brah!
Higgs wrote:If they came outside with a sign on a piece of cardboard the media never even hear about these two. Instead we have this:
and likely they would have been surrounded and beaten. I don't care about "escalation", or "proportional responses" or any of that shit. and the rest of the world is wrong about guns.
How many protesters are actively beating civilians these days? Genuine question - is this something that's actually happening? I haven't heard much of this until these two popped up on my newsfeed.
But you guys are wrong - guns really are retarded. Hey - you do you though.
How many would be required? I don't know. Plenty. It's happened on camera tons of times in the last few weeks. It's obvious that you wouldn't disagree with the mob and not expect to be mobbed. You're answer is to just agree with them. That's cuckery.
I don't hold that you must always meet force with force. The aim is to stay safe, however you go about it. In this case I guess I can't argue that the homeowner's bringing out the guns did the job for them, which I'm actually thankful for.
I wan't aware things were turning so violent against civilians tbh. That's a fucked up situation, and absolutely colours my view of the protestors in those situations. I learn, Mr Fawlty, I learn.
The aim isn't just to stay safe, though. That's what you guys never get. It's not about safety at all costs. It's about having the freedom to do what you want, to be dangerous to aggressors, standing up for yourself, having the will to meet force with force so you can disagree with people and not get your head caved in, etc. It's a fundamentally different worldview.
Yeah, that shit you can keep Burt. FREEDOM! What a total crock. Because you guys are oh so very free.
Like I said. Fundamentally different worldviews. We are not the same.
do you think the adrenaline was so amped for these two that they did it in the snooker room or the smoking room?
their problem was that they didn't have hounds on their grounds
if they just had hounds like most noblemen no intruder would dare attempt to cross that lawn
All posts by this account, even those referencing real things, are entirely fictional and are for entertainment purposes only; i.e. very low-quality entertainment. These may contain coarse language and due to their content should not be viewed by anyone
Higgs wrote:
I get the want to protect yourself in a situation where people are trespassing on your property, but surely a move to go out and chant in support of the protesters would have been a better option than heading out with guns.
oooh why don't they just go out and kneel, too! Why don't they simply grovel for the herd's acceptance!? That would be safer! Just go with the flow, brah!
Higgs wrote:If they came outside with a sign on a piece of cardboard the media never even hear about these two. Instead we have this:
and likely they would have been surrounded and beaten. I don't care about "escalation", or "proportional responses" or any of that shit. and the rest of the world is wrong about guns.
How many protesters are actively beating civilians these days? Genuine question - is this something that's actually happening? I haven't heard much of this until these two popped up on my newsfeed.
But you guys are wrong - guns really are retarded. Hey - you do you though.
How many would be required? I don't know. Plenty. It's happened on camera tons of times in the last few weeks. It's obvious that you wouldn't disagree with the mob and not expect to be mobbed. You're answer is to just agree with them. That's cuckery.
I don't hold that you must always meet force with force. The aim is to stay safe, however you go about it. In this case I guess I can't argue that the homeowner's bringing out the guns did the job for them, which I'm actually thankful for.
I wan't aware things were turning so violent against civilians tbh. That's a fucked up situation, and absolutely colours my view of the protestors in those situations. I learn, Mr Fawlty, I learn.
Good news: they're not!
VinylGuy wrote:its really tiresome to see these ¨good guys¨ talking about any political stuff in tv while also being kinda funny and hip and cool....its just...please enough of this shit.
BurtReynolds wrote:The aim isn't just to stay safe, though. That's what you guys never get. It's not about safety at all costs. It's about having the freedom to do what you want, to be dangerous to aggressors, standing up for yourself, having the will to meet force with force so you can disagree with people and not get your head caved in, etc. It's a fundamentally different worldview.
Don't worry Burt you can parrot Andy Ngo from your basement and no one's going to, lol, Andy Ngo you.
VinylGuy wrote:its really tiresome to see these ¨good guys¨ talking about any political stuff in tv while also being kinda funny and hip and cool....its just...please enough of this shit.
Higgs wrote:
I get the want to protect yourself in a situation where people are trespassing on your property, but surely a move to go out and chant in support of the protesters would have been a better option than heading out with guns.
oooh why don't they just go out and kneel, too! Why don't they simply grovel for the herd's acceptance!? That would be safer! Just go with the flow, brah!
Higgs wrote:If they came outside with a sign on a piece of cardboard the media never even hear about these two. Instead we have this:
and likely they would have been surrounded and beaten. I don't care about "escalation", or "proportional responses" or any of that shit. and the rest of the world is wrong about guns.
How many protesters are actively beating civilians these days? Genuine question - is this something that's actually happening? I haven't heard much of this until these two popped up on my newsfeed.
But you guys are wrong - guns really are retarded. Hey - you do you though.
How many would be required? I don't know. Plenty. It's happened on camera tons of times in the last few weeks. It's obvious that you wouldn't disagree with the mob and not expect to be mobbed. You're answer is to just agree with them. That's cuckery.
I don't hold that you must always meet force with force. The aim is to stay safe, however you go about it. In this case I guess I can't argue that the homeowner's bringing out the guns did the job for them, which I'm actually thankful for.
I wan't aware things were turning so violent against civilians tbh. That's a fucked up situation, and absolutely colours my view of the protestors in those situations. I learn, Mr Fawlty, I learn.
Good news: they're not!
this is the part where Micker assures you that nothing is really happening.
