Ferguson Illustrates Why Gun Grabbers Want to Grab Guns

Ferguson-burning-flag

Reader Tim T. writes:

What does Ferguson show us? The antis admonish that in a hypothetical confrontation between gun owners and law enforcement or the military, a ragtag group of gun owners doesn’t stand a chance. But this week’s events show that argument to be just more foolishness from the progressive left. The organized militia and law enforcement want to go home at night. I cannot blame them. Imagine if every protester looter in every city was armed with a long gun of some sort. The Guard would be overwhelmed and law enforcement would probably develop a raging case of the “blue flu” since they would be well identified targets. As we all well know, this is the true reason for the push for civilian disarmament.

comments

  1. avatar John in Ohio says:

    Except for the trying to smear legitimate protesters with the cutesy strike through, it was a pretty good comment. I agree. That is the real reasoning behind disarming the People.

    1. avatar Sammy says:

      If I may ask, what do you believe to be the legitimate issues the protesters are addressing in Ferguson?

      1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

        Right to peacefully assemble is not subject to third party approval of legitimacy.

        This comment applies only the PEACEFUL protesters. For them, it does not matter what the issue is or what we might think about it.

        1. avatar Hannibal says:

          At what point does assembling with looters and rioters become nothing more than being part of a mob?

        2. avatar tdiinva says:

          If a “peaceful” protest interferes, either by accident or intent, with the police trying to contain a riot it is not longer protected by the First Amendment. They can be told to move their protest elsewhere, disperse or be arrested. It no longer a peaceful protest.

        3. avatar John in Ohio says:

          http://theantimedia.org/ferguson-how-protests-turned-to-riots/

          With their rights being violated by the police department, protesters began shaking a cop car. If the car had not been placed in the way of protesters engaged in an activity protected by the U.S. Constitution and the laws of the state of Missouri, it would not have been shook. This can’t be made clear enough: the officers ordering the crowd to disperse were in violation of the law.

        4. avatar neiowa says:

          I’m pretty sure our betters circa 1775 did not “peacefully assemble”. They did in during the decade or so before but came a time, a motivation, and a “common cause” that such went by the wayside.

        5. avatar LarryinTX says:

          And the original thread applied only to the looters, who merely pretend to be protesting something, I understand the Socialist Party of America was present and inciting riot, probably had no idea what the original protests were about, any more than the anarchists did. They were there to loot and burn, just as was stated.

        6. avatar MAC][ says:

          +1 Well said JR_in_NC

        7. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Respectfully, LarryinTX, you are mistaken. The original comment under which these replies were posted clearly states:

          Except for the trying to smear legitimate protesters with the cutesy strike through,

          Some were then questioning the legitimacy of any protesters. I could be wrong but I haven’t seen any comments in this particular reply thread supporting looters. The original article/post seemed to imply that protesters=looters and that was a smear by insinuation against legitimate peaceful protesters.

        8. avatar Sammy says:

          I’m not disputing their right to assembly. I’m questioning their complaint in regard to this particular instance.

        9. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Sammy, you and I probably agree regarding the initial complaint of the majority of the protesters. However, you seem to miss the point that JR_in_NC was making. It doesn’t matter if I agree with why they are peacefully assembling. I support their right to do so even if I might not agree with their initial complaint.

      2. avatar John in Ohio says:

        JR_in_NC stated it best.

        I don’t believe that the officer was necessarily unjustified in his use of force. More than likely, it was a good shoot. My beef is the way that some peaceful protesters and journalists had unjustified force used against them. I do not support looting. I do not support rioting. I do, however, support justified use of force against anyone (agent of government, rioter, looter, etc) who attempts to deprive them of their natural rights.

        1. avatar Mike n maryland says:

          Do not require any force to be used against you and then we won’t have to argue if the level of force was justified.

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Please elaborate, Mike n maryland, as it relates to what I wrote directly above your comment.

      3. avatar Geoff says:

        There is no legitimate reason. Black people will use ANY excuse to riot, loot and vandalize property.
        No rioting or looting or anything other than the sound of crickets when this happened:
        http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/27/white-teen-gilbert-collar-killed-by-black-cop-trev/

        1. avatar janklow says:

          might as well drop in some racial slurs while you’re at it, since you’re achieving the same effect already

      4. avatar Cuteandfuzzybunnies says:

        Legitimate issues there are several. Murder by a policeman is just not one of them. At issue is the terrible way the corpse was disrespected. At issue is the terrible way the community is treated by the police force that while sworn to serve and protect opts more to self serve and extort and repress. At issue is the horrible and unlawful response by the police to lawful protests. Also at issue is a police force that is always there to extort petty fines and oppressive searches BUT who’s officers are unwilling to protect the property of citizens when there is a protest. The police in furgeson have lost the support of the community they police and are therefore illigimant and inneffective. They should all be replaced.

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          At issue is the terrible way the corpse was disrespected.

          Not an issue, at all. First, from what I understand, processing a crime scene can easily take four hours. Second, the body was covered within mere minutes, and could not be picked up by the livery driver because the “peaceful” protesters at the scene were shooting at the police trying to process the scene.

          At issue is the terrible way the community is treated by the police force that while sworn to serve and protect opts more to self serve and extort and repress.

          Self-serve? Extort? Repress?

          [citation needed]

          Don’t like fines? Don’t commit the civil infractions that incur those fines.

          At issue is the horrible and unlawful response by the police to lawful protests.

          Which came first: the riots, looting, and arson; or the militarized police response to the riots, looting, and arson?

          From the beginning – i..e at the scene of the shooting – the “protests” were not “peaceful”.

          Also at issue is a police force that is always there to extort petty fines and oppressive searches BUT who’s officers are unwilling to protect the property of citizens when there is a protest.

          Why should citizens’ property be in jeopardy during a protest? That you mention this as a valid grievance is a tacit admission that what has taken place is not a first amendment-protected exercise of peaceable assembly.

          Further: if the police let the rioters riot, you claim a grievance about lack of police response. But if the police don riot gear and use appropriate means to quell and disperse a riot (that includes rioting, arson, and physical assault with rocks, bottles, Molotov cocktails, and gunfire), you claim a grievance about the militarized response of the police.

          In what way can the police respond without eliciting a grievance?

          The police in furgeson have lost the support of the community they police and are therefore illigimant and inneffective. They should all be replaced.

          Pure horse manure.

    2. avatar John Sauer says:

      What was a legitimate reason for any of the so called legitimate protestors?

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        That has already been answered in this thread above. Find it for yourself.

  2. avatar Frank Masotti says:

    People with guns can defend themselves against a tyrannical government. That is why they want to disarm everyone. IMHO

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Aye. It’s all about control.

    2. avatar Sammy says:

      And they can defend themselves from the tyrannical mob.

    3. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      Bingo! This is why the Antis who really are true Bolshevik Communist Statists and Nihilists want the citizens disarmed so that they may now be Serfs of the State. Of course it should be noted that ISIL disarmed the population for their pure Islamic State. They come from many directions, but all bow on bended knee and grovel prostrate to the golden fatted calf of gun control for the serfs and power for themselves.

  3. avatar jwm says:

    If all the people looting liqour stores and tv’s in Ferguson had been armed with rifles and shotguns it would have been a real blow against tyranny and the oppressive minions of the state. 8~(

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      If store owners, employees, and concerned friends were to arm themselves and protect the properties then the tyranny of looting would’ve been stopped in short order. I’m okay with that.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        They’ve had that opportunity, John. Missouri certainly is more gun friendly than CA. For some reason the “good” folks of Ferguson, for the most part, have elected to hide and let the police and gaurd handle the situation.

        Had the rioters(I won’t defame the real protestors) been armed to a man Ferguson would look like Mogadishu.

        We are at a time in our history where we need professional police forces and military units. Can we make those units more trouble free and rid them of bad people? YES! But we need them or we face a level of chaos that will bring about our downfall.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          We only slightly disagree so I don’t want this to come off as arguing.

          If the good people of Ferguson defer to their law enforcement and the National Guard then they are abdicating their sovereignty over their own self defense by refusing to be responsible for their own safety and security. I in no way blame the rioting and looting on those good citizens who defer to law enforcement. However, I cannot feel too badly for the outcome when they appear to not be all that interested in protecting themselves. Perhaps if the rioters were armed then the People would see, once and for all, that they alone are ultimately responsible for their own safety. If the good people of Ferguson were armed and determined to say, “Enough is enough!” then I believe that the rioting and looting would stop immediately. Additionally, I believe that rioters and looters in the future would think long and hard about such criminal acts anywhere that the People retain and use their right to keep and bear arms.

          As it stands, I don’t think any positive message was sent to future rioters and looters. The take-away message will be that the People are often unwilling to respond personally when their own lives and properties are at risk.

        2. avatar jwm says:

          I agree, John. I think a very bad message was sent when even the people who owned the businesses stood back and expected .gov to carry the whole load. There simply aren’t enough cops and apparently the guard wasn’t sent forward to stop it all.

          Armed citizens in conjunction with the local pd and .gov would have made a riot very bad for the rioters and sent a clear message.

          I think we’ve come to a point in our history where the majority want someone else to do their heavy lifting. That lifting will have to be done by cops and soldiers.

        3. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Well stated, jwm and I agree. I believe it is a dangerous point in history if the People of this nation defer completely to agents of government. After all, then whatever will separate us from old Europe? We all then become vassals to lords, barons, etc.

        4. avatar neiowa says:

          Yes Ferguson certainly DOES “look like” Mogadishu and that is why it has now descended into the reality of Mogadishu.

          Take a lack of a civilized “culture” mix in “gasoline” and add a match and there you are. Financed by you and I.

        5. avatar Indiana Tom says:

          For some reason the “good” folks of Ferguson, for the most part, have elected to hide and let the police and gaurd handle the situation.
          Which the cops and guard did poorly. I do think if this happened in another area that shall we say was culturally different, the citizens might have had a bit of a different reaction to the looters.

        6. avatar LarryinTX says:

          I don’t want this to come off as arguing, either, but we disagree a bunch. Bigger and more powerful government is not a legitimate answer to anything whatsoever. I want the populace armed and ready to take care of their own business. The poilce are good for investigating after the fact and determining if the survivors broke any laws, ie were the aggressors. If the shop owner survives and there are 5 or 10 bodies outside his store’s broken windows, nothing to see here, move along.

          You are arguing for a more powerful and controlling government. I can’t accept that.

        7. avatar John in Ohio says:

          I agree, LarryinTX. I don’t want to try and shift the responsibilities and risks of being free off onto government. I firmly believe that would be catastrophic for individual Liberty in our nation.

          I didn’t take jwm‘s statements as that was what he desired. I understood parts of his statements to be indicative of minarchist thinking common today. That’s not intended pejoratively.

      2. avatar Garrison Hall says:

        If anything, the complete abdication of authority and responsibility by “those in charge” make a strong case for asserting individual responsibility and being prepared to defend oneself. Government made a conscious, quite deliberate decision to let the rioters burn and loot the small businesses on Florissant Ave. in Ferguson. The fact is, the “first responders” didn’t respond. The example of the armed neighbors guarding the Conoco station is an isolated example of what COULD have happened all up and down that street. The gun-grabbers want us to believe that the all-powerful state can be counted on to protect us. All you have to do is call 911 and you’ll be saved? But 911 wasn’t getting answered in Ferguson. If you needed help to save your business from being destroyed, it wasn’t going to come because the state had decided to do something else. That’s the truth the gun-grabbers want everyone, including themselves, to ignore: the state just may decide, for its own reasons, not to help you. Rather than making a case for gun-control, Ferguson makes a case for self-reliance and an armed citizenry. Contrast what happened in Ferguson and on the Bundy rance, for instance.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          That has been my answer to anyone who approaches me about the situation in Ferguson. The message is: be armed and be prepared. You, and you alone, are responsible for your own property, safety, and life. Agents of government are to augment the individual exercising their natural rights. Government agencies cannot effectively substitute for the individual bearing the risks and responsibilities of being free.

        2. avatar Chaz says:

          According to Bearing Arms the Oath Keepers were also present albeit apparently out of sight.

        3. avatar Indiana Tom says:

          Government made a conscious, quite deliberate decision to let the rioters burn and loot the small businesses on Florissant Ave. in Ferguson. The fact is, the “first responders” didn’t respond.
          Bingo! You win!

        4. avatar Julio says:

          Oath Keepers were on-site, but threatened with arrest for protecting property.
          http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/on-rooftops-of-ferguson-volunteers-%e2%80%94-with-guns/ar-BBg9c2x

        5. avatar ThomasR says:

          That’s it Julio. The government has no problem with allowing rioting, looting and the destruction of property without making a serious effort to arrest the perpetrators; but have law abiding citizens offer to band together to just protect property by having an armed presence; suddenly they are all about saying they will arrest those citizens.

          The government is ultimately just another gang offering protection against violence, death and destruction. But then when they don’t provide their “protection” they don’t want the competition (the American citizen) to muscle into their racket.

          So in the end, the government has shown that it will not provide the protection we pay them for and have given up quite abit of civil rights for “safety and security” : but then they won’t allow citizens to band together to provide their own protection from marauders intent on looting, pillaging and burning and so we are left between a rock and a hard place.

          When a supposedly free citizenry are placed into this type of situation, they are left with a choice. Historically, that choice usually leads to revolution.

        6. avatar John in Ohio says:

          From Julio‘s link:

          But on Saturday, with the county police said to be threatening the Oath Keepers with arrest, the volunteers decided to abandon their posts and instead protest against the authorities. Late in the day on Saturday, a protest was being planned for that night.

          That’s another example of agents of government in Ferguson harassing peaceful people. As has been pointed out multiple times on TTAG, the reasons that people might be in support of protesting in Ferguson are many. Not everyone protesting was doing so because they believed that Mike Brown was a completely innocent victim of a law enforcement shooting. Law enforcement’s behavior since has raised the ire of diverse groups of people.

        7. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Spot on, ThomasR!

        8. avatar John in Ohio says:

          There are reports that a federal agency positioned snipers, with their rifles pointed at the Oath Keepers, prior to the Oath Keepers being asked to vacate.

          http://www.prisonplanet.com/feds-enable-arsonists-target-oath-keepers-protecting-ferguson-businesses.html

        9. avatar ThomasR says:

          So a group sworn to uphold and defend the constitution, (The Oath Keepers that are mostly currently working and retired police and military) are listed as a terrorist group by the federal government.

          Not much needs else needs to be said as to who is the true enemy to our constitution.

      3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        Do other Gangland communities have much of a track record of the law-abiding citizens rising up in armed resistance to gang activity?

        Make no mistake: the looted parts of Ferguson are gang-controlled areas. Louis Head gave the marching orders. The arson was organized and pre-meditated. Snitches get stitches – or, like Deandre Joshua, get shot to death and then burned.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          All the more reason.

  4. avatar AnhydrousWater says:

    I said this to someone on huffingtonpost. Some typical huffpost reader responded to someone else claiming that they are delusional if they think a group of people could take on the police. Look at Ferguson, this wasn’t really an armed protest and police were scrambling to get the hell out of the way of looters and rioters on Monday. Now if everyone, or most of them were armed, and looking to seek justice against a corrupt government, well, anyone with a brain would know how this would unfold in reality.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      Just keep in mind, the police were staying out of the way because they didn’t want anyone hurt. If them or, even more so, the Guard were to decide that the situation was worth using live ammo then there would have been a very different result there.

      1. avatar Mike n maryland says:

        Perhaps if they used some live ammo and dropped a few of them in the beginning it would have not escalated to the point it did. If it didn’t work, oh well, few more losers off the streets.

  5. avatar jug says:

    I am with John from Ohio.
    Except it shows that the gun grabbing has already gone too far! The public is already brainwashed!
    We are already way past the time of people even thinking about taking care of themselves.
    If they had all been like the white gas station owner, whose black friends stood guard, by volunteering to do so with their own guns, such riots wouldn’t happen!
    Or they would be over, damned quickly!

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      +1.

      Nobody is going to be as effective as the People themselves defending their own property and lives.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Absolutely. Not ever. No way, no day. And how long would it take for three storeowners, and then 5, plus afew nearby homeowners, and so on, to band together and defend each other’s properties as well. This is what used to happen, before govt. promised to take care of everybody, no risk to you, if you just pay for our bloated bureaucracy and mismanagement, and give us complete control over every aspect of your lives.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          I fear that a large portion of the People have been indoctrinated to the point that they actually believe that government alone holds such power. The People are foolishly relinquishing their sovereignty. The precepts upon which this nation was founded are being trampled upon. We are devolving as a people. Are law enforcement officers the new Knights of the coming Dark Age?

    2. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      I think it’s just a matter of time before there’s “a” Ferguson where armed private citizens are prepared to defend themselves. And when that happens the outcomes promise to be very different when looters suddenly find themselves staring down the barrel of an AK or .45 in the hands of someone prepared to defend their means of earning a living. If ever there was a wake-up call for people who own small businesses in not-so-great neighborhoods, the complete absence of police protection during the Ferguson riots ought to be it. Those people were ABANDONED by their government. by A lot of those people lost everything they had. After the first riots last summer, I’m sure their insurance was so expensive most couldn’t afford it this time around. It was sickening watching what happened to those poor people.

  6. avatar Don says:

    The thing missing was an armed presence INSIDE the many businesses that were destroyed. I think this would solve the problem of sorting out who is exercising their rights and who is exploiting the situation for criminal activity. It’s a pretty clear line of demarcation… If you are inside breached business, you get shot dead. The PD wouldn’t even need to interact with the crowds, they’d just have to go around and do the paperwork on all the dead criminals stacked up in the local businesses.

    1. avatar DJ9 says:

      A good theory, until the building is torched from an exterior blind spot, or someone tosses a couple of firebombs in through a broken window, and the previously ensconced defenders have to flee out into the crowd.

      1. avatar Don says:

        Some security camps out on the roof. Also fire extinguishers.

        1. avatar DJ9 says:

          A possibility, but not all roofs are suitable for manning, and video of the arsonists showed use of accelerants (primarily lighter fluid). Difficult to stop a juiced fire in multiple locations with small handheld extinguishers, and even harder to stop an exterior fire if the only defenders are on the roof or indoors.

          Back to ramparts/walls/moats in some areas, perhaps…

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        DJ9, if it were me having to “flee into the crowd”, the great najority of the crowd present at the time would be bleeding or dead. The rest would be running away faster than they ever dreamed they could. And first, as was just proven again in Ferguson, previously several other places in my lifetime, you’d have to find some looters who are even interested in TRYING to loot a place with armed citizens (not police) guarding it. I have never even heard of that happening. I’m gonna die for a flat-screen? I don’t think so. Witness the Conoco.

  7. avatar Ralph says:

    Ferguson proved that the only First Responder that anyone can truly count on is on one’s hip or slung over one’s shoulder.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Yep. If I would’ve been a law enforcement officer, fireman, or paramedic in Ferguson; it’s doubtful that I would’ve been responding. More than likely, I would been elsewhere defending myself, family, and friends.

  8. avatar pod says:

    The use and ownership of firearms is a multi-use situation for myself, and I suspect, most of the readership here.

    • Self-defense. The police cannot show up in time if the s–t hits the fan, nor are they obligated to. You are your own first responder.

    • Defense against tyranny. Sometimes you just have to fight. And for those who pooh-pooh the strength of a rifleman versus the government or police, all it takes is one. You use your rifle to get a machine gun, etc. And remember Captain Cook. Him and his men had muskets. The Pacific islanders still managed to kill him with their arrows.

    • And hell, the recreational use of firearms is fun.

    Truly a multi-purpose interest. What other hobby serves you in times of need so well?

  9. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    +1 Ralph. That is why stories of black men protecting a white business are so important. Put another way imagine if every legal gun owner in America marched for our 2nd amendment rights…or actually VOTED for pro 2A candidates. We have the power. Remember the Bundy Ranch? The powers that be wussed out this week.

  10. avatar tdiinva says:

    Dan, you are 180 degrees off base. The gun control lobby doesn’t want the citizenry to be armed because they can resist the mob without the assistance of law enforcement. Crime is the Progressive’s primary tool for social control. An armed population cannot be controlled by thugs like Michael Brown.

  11. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    This guy gets it. He also has the best argument over
    AK versus AR. Reportedly a store owner in Furgeson.

    http://i.imgur.com/dFrTvrU.jpg

    1. avatar DJ9 says:

      Yes, very impressive.

      Except that photo is from the first round of riots, back in Aug/Sep.
      Back then, the store was only trashed and lost thousands in merchandise.

      In the recent round of riots, the store was burned, just like many others.

      http://theweek.com/speedreads/index/272586/speedreads-police-fires-looting-and-shots-fired-in-ferguson

      http://www.breakingnews.com/item/2014/11/25/photo-smoke-coming-out-of-sams-meat-market-in-fe/

      http://www.gofundme.com/samsmeat

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Guess he succeeded in the acquisition, failed in the execution. You never know until the time comes what you will do, unless of course you’ve done it before, and that would be rare.

  12. avatar DerryM says:

    In Ferguson there was/is a variety of groups involved in the “Protests”. There was/is a variety of agendas., as well. They ranged from Ferguson Residents peacefully protesting to Ferguson Residents opportunistically looting and persons from the outside opportunistically looting and other persons from the outside bringing a racial/political/social agenda to the mix that encouraged the looting and arson while pretending to be peacefully protesting.

    At what point do you…can you…in the heat of the moment…sort out who is who? It’s not really possible and the outsiders who wanted to make a racial/politcal/social conflict out of this counted on that conundrum. Hence, truly Peaceful Protestors from inside and out of Ferguson got tear-gassed and hosed and the PD and National Guard were utterly unable to stop the looting and arson.

    The “locals” from Ferguson might have organized as a defensive Militia (and probably should have), but had they been forced to shoot “protestor”-looters/arsonists, where would that have left them with regard to Law Enforcement and the National Guard?

    There’s a lot to be learned from Ferguson in the aftermath. I suggest the outside agitators who wanted to make a racial/political/social conflict out of this couldn’t give a damn about Michael Brown or Darren Wilson and used Ferguson as a test of tactics for future situations. Now some of their stooges are calling for “Communist Revolution” in the U.S.. I think these people probably learned a lot from their “Ferguson Experiment” and probably feel pretty smug about their results.

    On the face of it, from what we know currently: the Police were marginally effective; the National Guard was never deployed effectively, and if they had been, might have resulted in deaths, which would have caused National outrage; there was no place in the defensive plan for Citizen Militia to protect private property*; Citizens who were truly exercising their Constitutional Rights peacefully were treated very badly; and the dangerous people got away with inciting looting, destruction, arson and violence.
    It is not as “cut and dried” as some commenting here may see it, and I think a lot of investigation and analysis of just exactly who was protesting and what they were really interested in accomplishing at Ferguson is warranted. At this point, I would have to judge Ferguson as a major “fail” for the “Authorities” and a major “win” for racial/social/political radicals.
    Maybe I am entirely wrong, but I keep thinking about this and things just don’t add-up.

    * There are a few reports of instances where ordinary armed Citizens did protect their Businesses successfully, but details are sketchy.

    1. avatar neiowa says:

      All True.

      I understand Mo has some of the “best” laws protecting gun rights in the US (in fact over the body of the current idiot governor).

      Perhaps next session they need a bill defining the in the event of riot the primary responsibility for protecting real property lies with the property owner/renter. And that in the event of riot, ALL state and federal gun controls/restrictions are suspended when on real property for owner/tenant.

      1. avatar DerryM says:

        Looking at what CoolHand wrote just below, you have identified a genuine need in MO for such a Law as you suggested.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Piss on “in the event of riot”, I see no valid reason why owner/tenant should not be legally entitled to carry any firearms he wants in any manner he prefers at any time whatsoever. Nor why he cannot permit others to do the same, such as the owner/tenant of the shop next door, for mutual protection. The picture of the old west, accurate or not, was that if the store next to yours was being robbed, you grab your scattergun and go blast everyone you don’t know who’s shooting people.

  13. avatar CoolHand says:

    The biggest problem we have here in MO is that it’s not legally justifiable to use deadly force to protect property, full stop.

    You can be armed to protect yourself and others, but if you shoot some rioters for trying to break in and loot your shop without good hard proof that they meant to do you physical harm, your bottom may very well be found in the sling, so to speak.

    Now, shooting arsonists trying to burn down a building that you’re inside? Slam dunk, go for it, that’s a clear and easy to articulate threat to your life. Killing him protects your life. Your building not getting burned down is a happy side effect of said ventilated arsonist.

    If MO self defense laws were written like Texas’ are (vis a vis authorizing the use of deadly force to protect property), I’d say tool up and let the bastards come. Kill enough of ’em and they’ll lose their taste for looting IMO.

    However, unless the law changes, doing that will likely result in your being shipped off to the graybar hotel for the rest of time.

    Mores the pity.

    1. avatar DerryM says:

      An interesting insight, CoolHand. Thanks!

  14. avatar Southerner says:

    Lest we forget: July 24, 1967, President Lyndon Johnson declared Detroit, Michigan to be in a state of insurrection. Regular Army and Federalized National Guard were sent in to put down the armed inssurection against state authority.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Regular Army? That’s unconstitutional, tho LBJ wouldn’t have cared. Did they shoot anybody?

      1. avatar Southerner says:

        LBJ invoked the Insurrection Act of 1807 to deploy troops to Detroit.

        Second question: Yes

  15. avatar 'Liljoe says:

    Wow.. Armchair Quarterbacking much?

    I consider myself well-armed, reasonably proficient with firearms, and able to ask friends to come over and help. I would have still stood back and let my business burn down in a similar situation. I have this thing called “insurance” and as long as I know they will pay me, why would I risk my life for material possessions? As someone said above… All it would take is 1 firebomb.

    1. avatar Mark says:

      My homeowner’s policy has an exception for “acts of god” and riots. Pretty sure the car policy does too.

    2. avatar Julio says:

      Just like Mark said ahead of me: Most insurance policies do not cover riots. Even if there is some possibility that a claim could be made–most companies would find a way to deny it. They don’t stay in business to pay clients; they work for stock holders and attempt to stay in the black. Same reason that it becomes harder for Floridians (specifically, but also most coastal towns in the Southeast) to get coverage during hurricane season. Insurance was a hot topic of debate in this previous TTAG post regarding a quote from a “Community Organizer.”
      http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/11/robert-farago/quote-day-keeping-perspective-ferguson-edition/

    3. avatar Julio says:

      Ditto to what Mark said ahead of me: Most policies do not cover riots. Insurance companies are looking to make money (and are held accountable by their stockholders if they dip into the red). Huge payouts hurt their bottomline. If there is the possibility of claiming damage due to fires, they (or their lawyers) will find some small print that absolves them of the full sum. Same reason that most Floridians (and others along the Southeast Coast) have difficulty getting insurance. Besides, this was already covered during a discussion based on a “Community Organizer’s” quote.
      http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/11/robert-farago/quote-day-keeping-perspective-ferguson-edition/

  16. avatar cmeat says:

    insurance cannot replace that which i have amassed in a life this big.
    when civilians need to blow off a little steam and acquire more chinese plastic and further diminish their surroundings, i’ll be watching from a safe vantage point.
    given the chance, swine are fastidious. they wallow to stay cool.
    when borders are crossed, well, that changes every single thing.
    and given a mix of peaceful protestors and opportunistic roof- rats, it will be very easy indeed to identify what’s what. and it will shut down very quickly.
    for some reason the legal lobby doesn’t like that.

  17. avatar Rick Marlar says:

    I think a better example of what you said could have been seen at the Bundy Ranch Well armed and trained men caused the Feds to back down without firing a shot.

  18. avatar JDS says:

    Their right to protest ends at my property line. Stand in front of that line and protest all you want. Cross that line with the intent to loot, burn, vandalize, etc and my right to kill you begins. Its to bad more store owners were not willing to take that stand. If they had the riots would have ended immediately.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email