If you take into consideration all the cops who have died from these protests and from drug gangs expecialy in New york and LA it makes sense that they're getting more protective of themselves. The reason why SWAT teams are more often formed and used because of the hollywood shootings Dubai and all the school shootings. The SWAT team saw a gun that looks like
which can take take out a lot of damage if the veteran was hopped up on crack and wouldn't go down with anything less then a torrent of gunfire. What you have to understand is that cops have to go out and deal with terrorism now themselves instead of waiting for a SWAT team. the new procedure is when theres a shooting you wait for 4 cops you go in and eliminate the shooters.
That article says nothing about why the police are acting like they are about riots which piss's me off. If the protesters want to make this against the police they're going to lose. The police department will(and have) enforced the law to their deaths. They must for us to have a modern society with freedoms. If people want to change laws then they should and that will change what cops do. It happened when meranda rights where instituted and it can happen again if people want to change policy on how police respond to riots and new rules that they have to follow when responding to these situations.
Now about riots and things you have no idea the amount of damage that riots have caused over the years of course marching in the streets without a permit and stopping traffic is wrong and if a company doesn't want you on their property you shouldn't be allowed to stay just by sighting first amendment rights.
This is really what I think it should be boiled down to. For it to be constitutional the government can't distinguish between suffrage movements and nazi marches. If the OWS was for the conversion of america to a nazi nation would that change your view on how the police are reacting to everything?
The AR15 is indeed the "civilian" version of the M16A4, although I think the more recent versions are modeled after the M4 with the shorter barrel and adjustable stock. However, the reason he got shot 60 times is because one guy got jumpy and shot when he shouldn't have. After the first gunshot goes off every one opens fire.
The police shouldn't serve search warrants in the middle of the night in the first place. If you want to search my home you're welcome to come knock on my door and hand the warrant to me. Coming with a SWAT team just escalates the situation for absolutely no reason. I can understand police wanting to protect themselves, but it leaves a much smaller gray area in the situation. When you have less room for error and somebody makes a mistake it tends to result in death of an innocent.
I'm saying they look a bit alike. The m4 can be fully automatic and if hes a drug dealer and former military he has the money and ability to use the thing well. It being in the middle of the night I'm totally with you but drug dealers will not just let a search warrant be served on their presmisis if they have drugs on them and will go to jail for it. They'll shoot first and run away which they have done many times. the cops don't know if there's a bunch of gang members or how heavily armed they are. the amount of bullets they shot is a stupid thing to look at to. they are trained to make sure that the hostile is dead. you wouldn't just shot some guy with an fully automatic assault rifle once you just can't take chances like that when your life is on the line. Its really a bad situation because the guy got out his assault rifle and didn't warn of or make his presence known giving the swat team no indication on whether he was dangerous or just a normal person. The cop saw a gun that looked very dangerous in the hands of someone he didn't know and was probably pointed at him. You know your serving a warrant on a possible drug dealer who would probably die before going to jail and you've lost some of your closest friends to people who where involved in the drug trade. how would you react to that situation?
On November 09 2011 06:52 semantics wrote: sermokala equated OWS to nazi's Godwin's law has been reached!
your an idoit. I'm saying that the government has to react to OWS the same as it would as if the whole thing was nazi motivated for it to be constitutional.
A lot worse stuff then what happened in oakland and NY every single presidential political convention for both the dems and the rep's the fact that it doesn't have such media coverage doesn't change what happens. Just makes people ignorant and stupid.
you do know what an analogy is? There was no need for you to use nazi's as the example, vague generalizations would have been enough for the point =p godwins law still stands
This is really what I think it should be boiled down to. For it to be constitutional the government can't distinguish between suffrage movements and nazi marches. If the OWS was for the conversion of america to a nazi nation would that change your view on how the police are reacting to everything?
The constitution itself doesn't deal with how the police react to protestors it does say, and it's there shall be no law that abridges the right for people to peacefully assemble along with no law that prevents the right of the people to petition their government as far as the 14th amendment that wouldn't matter as police policy is different from law let along federal law of the constitution. Meaning the police reaction would if only following the constitution would be to do nothing until the protest becomes violent, and thus you should use the word policy which would have to be particular to the statutes in states and counties but you wave the word constitutional as if that's a stand point in an argument. And you throw in that end sentence which does equate OWS to nazi's to make the point that the police's over reaction is normalized which is a shitty argument bad police policy in dealing with gathering of people has nothing to do with it treating one protest group the same as another and saying that well it equal treatment and constitutionally means that bad policy is okay is bullshit. calling me an idiot doesn't change it.
On November 09 2011 06:52 semantics wrote: sermokala equated OWS to nazi's Godwin's law has been reached!
your an idoit. I'm saying that the government has to react to OWS the same as it would as if the whole thing was nazi motivated for it to be constitutional.
A lot worse stuff then what happened in oakland and NY every single presidential political convention for both the dems and the rep's the fact that it doesn't have such media coverage doesn't change what happens. Just makes people ignorant and stupid.
you do know what an analogy is? There was no need for you to use nazi's as the example, vague generalizations would have been enough for the point =p godwins law still stands
This is really what I think it should be boiled down to. For it to be constitutional the government can't distinguish between suffrage movements and nazi marches. If the OWS was for the conversion of america to a nazi nation would that change your view on how the police are reacting to everything?
The constitution itself doesn't deal with how the police react to protestors it does say, and it's there shall be no law that abridges the right for people to peacefully assemble along with no law that prevents the right of the people to petition their government as far as the 14th amendment that wouldn't matter as police policy is different from law let along federal law of the constitution. Meaning the police reaction would if only following the constitution would be to do nothing until the protest becomes violent, and thus you should use the word policy which would have to be particular to the statutes in states and counties but you wave the word constitutional as if that's a stand point in an argument. And you throw in that end sentence which does equate OWS to nazi's to make the point that the police's over reaction is normalized which is a shitty argument bad police policy in dealing with gathering of people has nothing to do with it treating one protest group the same as another and saying that well it equal treatment and constitutionally means that bad policy is okay is bullshit. calling me an idiot doesn't change it.
regarding the free speech/assembly aspect of the movement...
there are different kinds of "break ups" 1) Protestors who are unlawfully assembled, having been denied a permit. If that permit was denied on content grounds--that is, was denied because the local authorities simply didn't like them--that violates the right to peaceably assemble. If they were denied the right to assemble because of some non-content related issue (group was too big, inadequate waste facilities) then that denial is okay. But authorities are supposed to make reasonable accommodations for people to be allowed to assemble).
2) Overreactions by individual police. In that case, the injured person(s) has a § 1983, civil rights claim (i.e. Rodney King) against the individual police
3) Overreactions by the a person in authority; mayor or police commissioner, who order protestors removed/tear gassed/pepper sprayed. In this case, an action lies against the institution as a whole.
If you read between the lines, you think the police are acting inappropriately. And I think it's clear that's the case. These people, who criticize capitalism, are seen as un-American whiners who face the same antagonistic posture from elite legal opinion that 19th century unions did. But also, structurally, it's perhaps unfortunate that the protests have no leadership council. As with the civil rights movement, it's pretty obvious that the least hint of violence or disorder will be seized upon as an excuse to discredit or eliminate the protests.
On November 09 2011 06:52 semantics wrote: sermokala equated OWS to nazi's Godwin's law has been reached!
your an idoit. I'm saying that the government has to react to OWS the same as it would as if the whole thing was nazi motivated for it to be constitutional.
A lot worse stuff then what happened in oakland and NY every single presidential political convention for both the dems and the rep's the fact that it doesn't have such media coverage doesn't change what happens. Just makes people ignorant and stupid.
you do know what an analogy is? There was no need for you to use nazi's as the example, vague generalizations would have been enough for the point =p godwins law still stands
This is really what I think it should be boiled down to. For it to be constitutional the government can't distinguish between suffrage movements and nazi marches. If the OWS was for the conversion of america to a nazi nation would that change your view on how the police are reacting to everything?
The constitution itself doesn't deal with how the police react to protestors it does say, and it's there shall be no law that abridges the right for people to peacefully assemble along with no law that prevents the right of the people to petition their government as far as the 14th amendment that wouldn't matter as police policy is different from law let along federal law of the constitution. Meaning the police reaction would if only following the constitution would be to do nothing until the protest becomes violent, and thus you should use the word policy which would have to be particular to the statutes in states and counties but you wave the word constitutional as if that's a stand point in an argument. And you throw in that end sentence which does equate OWS to nazi's to make the point that the police's over reaction is normalized which is a shitty argument bad police policy in dealing with gathering of people has nothing to do with it treating one protest group the same as another and saying that well it equal treatment and constitutionally means that bad policy is okay is bullshit. calling me an idiot doesn't change it.
regarding the free speech/assembly aspect of the movement...
there are different kinds of "break ups" 1) Protestors who are unlawfully assembled, having been denied a permit. If that permit was denied on content grounds--that is, was denied because the local authorities simply didn't like them--that violates the right to peaceably assemble. If they were denied the right to assemble because of some non-content related issue (group was too big, inadequate waste facilities) then that denial is okay. But authorities are supposed to make reasonable accommodations for people to be allowed to assemble).
if that is true, what prevents police from always framing a forced removal on some reasonable sounding 'content grounds'-- do you really think the police care about tents being a fire hazard when they're shooting flash bangs at people for helping someone who was just shot with a rubber bullet?
If you read between the lines, you think the police are acting inappropriately. And I think it's clear that's the case. These people, who criticize capitalism, are seen as un-American whiners who face the same antagonistic posture from elite legal opinion that 19th century unions did. But also, structurally, it's perhaps unfortunate that the protests have no leadership council. As with the civil rights movement, it's pretty obvious that the least hint of violence or disorder will be seized upon as an excuse to discredit or eliminate the protests.
Great points, one thing though-- what exactly do you mean by no leadership council? They are generally fairly well organized with committees and councils and organizers, but no central leader, which I think is a strength.
On November 09 2011 06:52 semantics wrote: sermokala equated OWS to nazi's Godwin's law has been reached!
your an idoit. I'm saying that the government has to react to OWS the same as it would as if the whole thing was nazi motivated for it to be constitutional.
A lot worse stuff then what happened in oakland and NY every single presidential political convention for both the dems and the rep's the fact that it doesn't have such media coverage doesn't change what happens. Just makes people ignorant and stupid.
you do know what an analogy is? There was no need for you to use nazi's as the example, vague generalizations would have been enough for the point =p godwins law still stands
This is really what I think it should be boiled down to. For it to be constitutional the government can't distinguish between suffrage movements and nazi marches. If the OWS was for the conversion of america to a nazi nation would that change your view on how the police are reacting to everything?
The constitution itself doesn't deal with how the police react to protestors it does say, and it's there shall be no law that abridges the right for people to peacefully assemble along with no law that prevents the right of the people to petition their government as far as the 14th amendment that wouldn't matter as police policy is different from law let along federal law of the constitution. Meaning the police reaction would if only following the constitution would be to do nothing until the protest becomes violent, and thus you should use the word policy which would have to be particular to the statutes in states and counties but you wave the word constitutional as if that's a stand point in an argument. And you throw in that end sentence which does equate OWS to nazi's to make the point that the police's over reaction is normalized which is a shitty argument bad police policy in dealing with gathering of people has nothing to do with it treating one protest group the same as another and saying that well it equal treatment and constitutionally means that bad policy is okay is bullshit. calling me an idiot doesn't change it.
Your post just seems so incoherent to me. The protests and the warrant serving is 2 completely different events. most of your first paragraph I just don't understand. The police are indeed employees of the county and city not the nation. if the protests weren't violent people wouldn't care and we wouldn't have to worry about anything. police policy isn't law its just the country or citys agreed apon rules for the department. Still I'm not equating OWS to nazi's I don't know why you keep wanting to make that connection but it isn't true. I'm trying to make a point about the fact that people see all this stuff and think that its some great injustice just because its a civil rights march thats "in the right". And your last sentence is just the weirdest. You think that the police are doing the wrong things with the protests but they're doing exactly what the city tells them to do in these situations. People don't give a shit about local politics and these things happen. I'm saying equal treatment is the only thing thats okay. you being an idoit and unable to understand that doesn't change it.
On November 09 2011 06:45 sermokala wrote: If you take into consideration all the cops who have died from these protests and from drug gangs expecialy in New york and LA it makes sense that they're getting more protective of themselves. The reason why SWAT teams are more often formed and used because of the hollywood shootings Dubai and all the school shootings. The SWAT team saw a gun that looks like
which can take take out a lot of damage if the veteran was hopped up on crack and wouldn't go down with anything less then a torrent of gunfire. What you have to understand is that cops have to go out and deal with terrorism now themselves instead of waiting for a SWAT team. the new procedure is when theres a shooting you wait for 4 cops you go in and eliminate the shooters.
That article says nothing about why the police are acting like they are about riots which piss's me off. If the protesters want to make this against the police they're going to lose. The police department will(and have) enforced the law to their deaths. They must for us to have a modern society with freedoms. If people want to change laws then they should and that will change what cops do. It happened when meranda rights where instituted and it can happen again if people want to change policy on how police respond to riots and new rules that they have to follow when responding to these situations.
Now about riots and things you have no idea the amount of damage that riots have caused over the years of course marching in the streets without a permit and stopping traffic is wrong and if a company doesn't want you on their property you shouldn't be allowed to stay just by sighting first amendment rights.
This is really what I think it should be boiled down to. For it to be constitutional the government can't distinguish between suffrage movements and nazi marches. If the OWS was for the conversion of america to a nazi nation would that change your view on how the police are reacting to everything?
Please provide a source of a police officer being killed in a protest in recent history in the US. There is a big difference between raiding an organized crime hideout and maintaining order at a peaceful protest. There is no sign of rioting or anything resembling the like within these protests.
On November 09 2011 06:52 semantics wrote: sermokala equated OWS to nazi's Godwin's law has been reached!
your an idoit. I'm saying that the government has to react to OWS the same as it would as if the whole thing was nazi motivated for it to be constitutional.
A lot worse stuff then what happened in oakland and NY every single presidential political convention for both the dems and the rep's the fact that it doesn't have such media coverage doesn't change what happens. Just makes people ignorant and stupid.
you do know what an analogy is? There was no need for you to use nazi's as the example, vague generalizations would have been enough for the point =p godwins law still stands
This is really what I think it should be boiled down to. For it to be constitutional the government can't distinguish between suffrage movements and nazi marches. If the OWS was for the conversion of america to a nazi nation would that change your view on how the police are reacting to everything?
The constitution itself doesn't deal with how the police react to protestors it does say, and it's there shall be no law that abridges the right for people to peacefully assemble along with no law that prevents the right of the people to petition their government as far as the 14th amendment that wouldn't matter as police policy is different from law let along federal law of the constitution. Meaning the police reaction would if only following the constitution would be to do nothing until the protest becomes violent, and thus you should use the word policy which would have to be particular to the statutes in states and counties but you wave the word constitutional as if that's a stand point in an argument. And you throw in that end sentence which does equate OWS to nazi's to make the point that the police's over reaction is normalized which is a shitty argument bad police policy in dealing with gathering of people has nothing to do with it treating one protest group the same as another and saying that well it equal treatment and constitutionally means that bad policy is okay is bullshit. calling me an idiot doesn't change it.
Your post just seems so incoherent to me. The protests and the warrant serving is 2 completely different events. most of your first paragraph I just don't understand. The police are indeed employees of the county and city not the nation. if the protests weren't violent people wouldn't care and we wouldn't have to worry about anything. police policy isn't law its just the country or citys agreed apon rules for the department. Still I'm not equating OWS to nazi's I don't know why you keep wanting to make that connection but it isn't true. I'm trying to make a point about the fact that people see all this stuff and think that its some great injustice just because its a civil rights march thats "in the right". And your last sentence is just the weirdest. You think that the police are doing the wrong things with the protests but they're doing exactly what the city tells them to do in these situations. People don't give a shit about local politics and these things happen. I'm saying equal treatment is the only thing thats okay. you being an idoit and unable to understand that doesn't change it.
There is the issue, just becuase it's what you're told to do, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do and just because it's normalized behavior doesn't make it right, that's what i pointed out in the response =p, and you do equate the OWS protest to a nazi protest to get the point about equal treatment
If the OWS was for the conversion of america to a nazi nation would that change your view on how the police are reacting to everything?
Tell me how does that not equate OWS to nazi's, your posing a hypothetical asking us to view the OWS movement as nazi's and with that insinuating that excessive force is validated because it's how we would treat nazi's and we should have equal treatment of people assembling. You seriously can't see your mistake... and you still call me an idiot further proving your disposition not to argue but insult and belittle in order to assert that your point is valid, which isn't arguing but power dynamics
Under your assessment, the police would have to shoot all people who run from the police as that's how we treat some people who run from the police, but there is usually a reason for that the reason being the person poses a danger to the officer or the public usually has possession of a firearm if not has already brandish it at the officer. You imply that excessive force is agreeable becuase it's how we would treat a nazi movement. Yet we would only treat the nazi movement as such if there was escalation by that movement towards violence which is all based on digression by the station and pressures by the city. Equating something to something with a strong stigma ie nazi's is just a way to cover up a lack of thought, which if further by using emotion ie how would you feel if they were nazi's? does nothing more then try to coax some one to agree out of fear of association.
On November 09 2011 06:45 sermokala wrote: If you take into consideration all the cops who have died from these protests and from drug gangs expecialy in New york and LA it makes sense that they're getting more protective of themselves. The reason why SWAT teams are more often formed and used because of the hollywood shootings Dubai and all the school shootings. The SWAT team saw a gun that looks like
which can take take out a lot of damage if the veteran was hopped up on crack and wouldn't go down with anything less then a torrent of gunfire. What you have to understand is that cops have to go out and deal with terrorism now themselves instead of waiting for a SWAT team. the new procedure is when theres a shooting you wait for 4 cops you go in and eliminate the shooters.
That article says nothing about why the police are acting like they are about riots which piss's me off. If the protesters want to make this against the police they're going to lose. The police department will(and have) enforced the law to their deaths. They must for us to have a modern society with freedoms. If people want to change laws then they should and that will change what cops do. It happened when meranda rights where instituted and it can happen again if people want to change policy on how police respond to riots and new rules that they have to follow when responding to these situations.
Now about riots and things you have no idea the amount of damage that riots have caused over the years of course marching in the streets without a permit and stopping traffic is wrong and if a company doesn't want you on their property you shouldn't be allowed to stay just by sighting first amendment rights.
This is really what I think it should be boiled down to. For it to be constitutional the government can't distinguish between suffrage movements and nazi marches. If the OWS was for the conversion of america to a nazi nation would that change your view on how the police are reacting to everything?
Please provide a source of a police officer being killed in a protest in recent history in the US. There is a big difference between raiding an organized crime hideout and maintaining order at a peaceful protest. There is no sign of rioting or anything resembling the like within these protests.
There are plenty of cases were officers were killed in riots, usually when the riot is trigged by police action, usually dealing with police brutality. As far as a mostly peaceful protest killing a police officer without first there being escalation by the police and i know of none, doesn't mean there isn't one just means it's alot more obscure then finding an article about policemen causing the death of a protester.
An Occupy Wall Street commercial will air Wednesday night during the same show that routinely refers to the protesters as “far-left loons.” Advertising spots on The O’Reilly Factor were crowdfunded using a startup fundraising platform and purchased through Google TV Ads.
O’Reilly Factor viewers who are also subscribers to DISH, DirecTV and Verizon Fios can expect to see the commercial around 8:45pm, 11:15 p.m. and 11:45 p.m. EST.
Wednesday night’s commerical lineup is part of a larger campaign that purchased at least 109 ad spots for the commercial throughout last weekend and Monday. The campaign, which was managed on a “Kickstarter for media buys” called Loudsauce, raised more than $6,000 from 168 people to purchase air time for a YouTube video starring protesters. (See below.) As of Monday morning, the campaign had only spent about $2,900 of that amount on ads across channels such as ESPN Sportscenter, Fox News and the Outdoor Channel. Loudsauce co-founder Colin Mutchler says he expect it will use the rest of the budget tonight.
On November 09 2011 14:50 semantics wrote: There are plenty of cases were officers were killed in riots, usually when the riot is trigged by police action, usually dealing with police brutality. As far as a mostly peaceful protest killing a police officer without first there being escalation by the police and i know of none, doesn't mean there isn't one just means it's alot more obscure then finding an article about policemen causing the death of a protester.
Then provide a source of a police officer killed in a riot, which is not a protest, but I can still find no evidence of police officers being killed in riots in the US any time in modern history. I think the most recent example I can find is a single police officer killed in the 1968 race riots. So it does not seem to be a common occurrence.
Lol berkeley protests? Those guys look like they're pushing forward even after the first push. Provoking someone and then crying about it after they respond seems like a dick move to me, anyone else?
So Zynga's gonna be doing an IPO soon. In anticipation of that, Zynga's executives are telling some of the company's earliest employees to give back the unvested share options that they used as incentive to recruit them or they'll be fired.
Hmm when asked to disperse because they are unlawfully assembling, they cry about it? And then they whine even more when the cops try to evict them outta there? The results don't seem surprising to me. I also liked the fact that they had a title for "Edited By:" at the end. Where's the rest of the story?
Hmm when asked to disperse because they are unlawfully assembling, they cry about it? And then they whine even more when the cops try to evict them outta there? The results don't seem surprising to me. I also liked the fact that they had a title for "Edited By:" at the end. Where's the rest of the story?
US citizens are supposed to have a right to assembly.
The Supreme Court held that "the right of the people peaceably to assemble for the purpose of petitioning Congress for a redress of grievances, or for anything else connected with the powers or duties of the National Government, is an attribute of national citizenship, and, as such, under protection of, and guaranteed by, the United States."
Unlawful assembly - a legal term to describe a group of people with the mutual intent of deliberate disturbance of the peace. If the group are about to start the act of disturbance, it is termed a rout; if the disturbance is commenced, it is then termed a riot.
How is a college student protest a deliberate disturbance of peace?
Hmm when asked to disperse because they are unlawfully assembling, they cry about it? And then they whine even more when the cops try to evict them outta there? The results don't seem surprising to me. I also liked the fact that they had a title for "Edited By:" at the end. Where's the rest of the story?
US citizens are supposed to have a right to assembly.
The Supreme Court held that "the right of the people peaceably to assemble for the purpose of petitioning Congress for a redress of grievances, or for anything else connected with the powers or duties of the National Government, is an attribute of national citizenship, and, as such, under protection of, and guaranteed by, the United States."
Unlawful assembly - a legal term to describe a group of people with the mutual intent of deliberate disturbance of the peace. If the group are about to start the act of disturbance, it is termed a rout; if the disturbance is commenced, it is then termed a riot.
How is a college student protest a deliberate disturbance of peace?
They still need a permit from the city, which I'm willing to bet they didn't have. Otherwise they are subject to the ordinances of the city, and action can taken against them. If they did happen to have a permit, than the police made a mistake.
Hmm when asked to disperse because they are unlawfully assembling, they cry about it? And then they whine even more when the cops try to evict them outta there? The results don't seem surprising to me. I also liked the fact that they had a title for "Edited By:" at the end. Where's the rest of the story?
US citizens are supposed to have a right to assembly.
The Supreme Court held that "the right of the people peaceably to assemble for the purpose of petitioning Congress for a redress of grievances, or for anything else connected with the powers or duties of the National Government, is an attribute of national citizenship, and, as such, under protection of, and guaranteed by, the United States."
Unlawful assembly - a legal term to describe a group of people with the mutual intent of deliberate disturbance of the peace. If the group are about to start the act of disturbance, it is termed a rout; if the disturbance is commenced, it is then termed a riot.
How is a college student protest a deliberate disturbance of peace?
They still need a permit from the city, which I'm willing to bet they didn't have. Otherwise they are subject to the ordinances of the city, and action can taken against them. If they did happen to have a permit, than the police made a mistake.
Edit: Grammar
Do you not find it odd that you need a government permit to be allowed to protest against the government?
Hmm when asked to disperse because they are unlawfully assembling, they cry about it? And then they whine even more when the cops try to evict them outta there? The results don't seem surprising to me. I also liked the fact that they had a title for "Edited By:" at the end. Where's the rest of the story?
US citizens are supposed to have a right to assembly.
The Supreme Court held that "the right of the people peaceably to assemble for the purpose of petitioning Congress for a redress of grievances, or for anything else connected with the powers or duties of the National Government, is an attribute of national citizenship, and, as such, under protection of, and guaranteed by, the United States."
Unlawful assembly - a legal term to describe a group of people with the mutual intent of deliberate disturbance of the peace. If the group are about to start the act of disturbance, it is termed a rout; if the disturbance is commenced, it is then termed a riot.
How is a college student protest a deliberate disturbance of peace?
They still need a permit from the city, which I'm willing to bet they didn't have. Otherwise they are subject to the ordinances of the city, and action can taken against them. If they did happen to have a permit, than the police made a mistake.
Edit: Grammar
Do you not find it odd that you need a government permit to be allowed to protest against the government?
I don't. I find it rather logical. Why do you find it odd?
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.williammaloney.com/Aviation/PennsylvaniaMilitaryMuseum/SmallArms/images/17AR15Rifle.jpg)
that looks like ![[image loading]](http://www.bushmaster.com/images/catalog/le_mil_zoom/MCWA2F%2014M4.jpg)
