Liste des Groupes | Revenir à ra tv |
On 6/21/24 5:17 AM, trotsky wrote:On 6/20/24 8:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote:In article <v52l9a$2qv7o$10@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/19/24 3:09 PM, BTR1701 wrote:In article <v4v8ug$23o16$2@dont-email.me>,They were in the street, not on McClosky's property.
moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 6/19/2024 12:27 PM, BTR1701 wrote:In article <v4uvta$21spc$2@dont-email.me>,
moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 6/18/2024 9:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:In article <v4t2ai$1imbc$1@dont-email.me>,
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
ST. LOUIS (AP) - A judge has expunged the misdemeanor convictions
of a St. Louis couple who waved guns at racial injustice
protesters
outside their mansion in 2020. Now they want their guns back.
I had no idea that four years later, this still hadn't happened.
It was a gated community, which are all over St. Louis. They were
trespassing.
Apparently 'trespassing' is a meaningless term when you're doing
it for
'social justice'.
Don't you even *pretend* there's a built-in tug-of-war between
"trespassing" and "peaceable assembly"?
Maybe in a public place like a university quad, but not in a private
residential neighborhood.
Under the presumption that each point of view must give some ground
Why would you presume that?
I'd say that the protesters' rights depend on history, geometry, etc.
I'd say (and I'd be right) that no protester has rights to come onto my
private property at all. I'm the only one who gets to decide who's
allowed and who isn't. It's pretty much in the definition.
The street was private property, too, smooth brain.
Lying sack o' shit alert. Can you prove to us the McShitbags owned the
street? Of course you can't because you're a lying sack o' shit.
Doesn't matter if the fucking King of Prussia owned the street, you
can't menace people with guns.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.