NRA Hijinks

Just Guess What Ferguson Police Found on Missouri Democrat Who Has Sponsored Several ‘Anti-Gun’ Bills…
Oct. 21, 2014 5:29pm Jason Howerton

Missouri state Senator Jamilah Nasheed, a Democrat who has sponsored several “anti-gun” bills in her state, was arrested Monday night during a protest outside of the Ferguson Police Department. However, it’s what police officers found on her that is raising eyebrows.

Nasheed was carrying a loaded 9mm handgun and extra rounds of ammunition, according to Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson. She also refused to take a breathalyzer test after officers determined she “smelled strongly of intoxicants,” sources told KMOV-TV.


Screengrab via KMOV-TV

Nasheed claimed on Tuesday that she was not intoxicated at the time of her arrest and emphasized that she is a legal concealed carry permit holder.

Police arrested and charged the state senator with failure to obey lawful order of police and manner of walking in the roadway after she and other protesters refused to get out of the street.

On Tuesday morning, Nasheed said it was a “symbolic arrest” to send a “message to the protesters that we can protest peacefully and that we must protest peacefully and that we want justice for Michael Brown.”

The National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action has dubbed several pieces of legislation sponsored by Nasheed “anti-gun,” including an amendment that would require gun owners to report a firearm stolen within 72 hours.

Nasheed also reportedly pushed for a bill that would have required any “parent or guardian of a child who attends a public, private, or charter school shall notify, in writing, the superintendent of the school district, or the governing body of a private school or charter school, that such parent or guardian owns a firearm within thirty calendar days” of enrollment.

The hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds.
 
The headline here is absurd and misleading. The lawsuit from the police state that they have the right to use necessary force to protect themselves. Nowhere in the legal brief is there a claim that they have "a constitutional right to use excessive force".

Here is today's hint - based on the merits of the case they will prevail in this suit.
Dishonesty AND fear mongering from douche bag garland?
 
The headline here is absurd and misleading. The lawsuit from the police state that they have the right to use necessary force to protect themselves. Nowhere in the legal brief is there a claim that they have "a constitutional right to use excessive force".
But "necessary force" is subjective.

If we allow it, the determination of "necessary force" will become subjective. And before you know it, ANY force the ruling powers use and which you oppose will get you thrown in jail or worse.

(Thanks go to Scat for the use of his boilerplate.)
 
But "necessary force" is subjective.

If we allow it, the determination of "necessary force" will become subjective. And before you know it, ANY force the ruling powers use and which you oppose will get you thrown in jail or worse.

(Thanks go to Scat for the use of his boilerplate.)

Like chokeholds. And gunning down unarmed civilians.

Stuff like that.
 
DANG, I like those guys!

cartoon12.jpg
 
Back
Top