A gun in every house is a must

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

I feel your pain. Not so much your point.

He’s referring to the Rodney king riots.

During the Rodney king riots, one of the areas hardest hit was a large community of Korean Americans who were facing absolute poverty and homelessness due to the fallouts of those riots.

A number of Korean Americans armed themselves to protect their homes and businesses from the destruction. Famously, many of them took up positions on the roofs of their own properties. They became known as “roof Koreans” by common parlance.

Your cogent explanation matches The Chuck's post at maybe one point. I'll need a third opinion.

I remember the LA riots, they were horrifying. All the BLM-related riots did not add up to the destruction and death of the LA riots.

They were however long ago. It's a bit weak to extrapolate to future need (for citizen self defence) and particularly to confuse armed uprising, with small business persons defending their property.

[Kernen]

He’s referring to the Rodney king riots.

During the Rodney king riots, one of the areas hardest hit was a large community of Korean Americans who were facing absolute poverty and homelessness due to the fallouts of those riots.

A number of Korean Americans armed themselves to protect their homes and businesses from the destruction. Famously, many of them took up positions on the roofs of their own properties. They became known as “roof Koreans” by common parlance.

Your cogent explanation matches The Chuck's post at maybe one point. I'll need a third opinion.

I remember the LA riots, they were horrifying. All the BLM-related riots did not add up to the destruction and death of the LA riots.

They were however long ago. It's a bit weak to extrapolate to future need (for citizen self defence) and particularly to confuse armed uprising, with small business persons defending their property.

The acts are well within the mythos of society now. It's hard to imagine it not happening. Especially when it's been happening.

[Greater Cesnica]

He’s referring to the Rodney king riots.

During the Rodney king riots, one of the areas hardest hit was a large community of Korean Americans who were facing absolute poverty and homelessness due to the fallouts of those riots.

A number of Korean Americans armed themselves to protect their homes and businesses from the destruction. Famously, many of them took up positions on the roofs of their own properties. They became known as “roof Koreans” by common parlance.

Your cogent explanation matches The Chuck's post at maybe one point. I'll need a third opinion.

I remember the LA riots, they were horrifying. All the BLM-related riots did not add up to the destruction and death of the LA riots.

They were however long ago. It's a bit weak to extrapolate to future need (for citizen self defence) and particularly to confuse armed uprising, with small business persons defending their property.

If you had your way, the small business persons would be left defenseless.

[Greater Cesnica]

Your cogent explanation matches The Chuck's post at maybe one point. I'll need a third opinion.

I remember the LA riots, they were horrifying. All the BLM-related riots did not add up to the destruction and death of the LA riots.

They were however long ago. It's a bit weak to extrapolate to future need (for citizen self defence) and particularly to confuse armed uprising, with small business persons defending their property.

The acts are well within the mythos of society now. It's hard to imagine it not happening. Especially when it's been happening.

ASoT is engaging willful denial of reality here. It goes against their narrative, so I can't exactly blame them.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Just as you have your principled position, I have mine. You seem content to use the application of organized violence by the State to further your ideological goals, whereas my position comes from a broad opposition to centralized authority; an opposition that comes from that very potential that you'd like to unleash upon millions of individuals.

Funny how ASoT talks about being a stoner most of their life and yet wants big papa govt. to go kicking down the doors of individuals who actually attempt to follow the laws. Perhaps they are just salty that they can't legally own a firearm in the US due to Line 21 E on the 4473? Something along the lines of "If I can't have one, no one can."...

No, it's just a Liberal thing. Avoidable death is bad.

And on the personal note: if you think I'm jealous of you, you don't know me at all. I'm not even jealous of The Archregimancy, I understand the self-discipline necessary to make good use of talent. You think I'm jealous of you, because of the range of shooty shooty bang bangs you can buy in a shop where you live? Not really, brother ex-colonial. Not really, American guy.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

The acts are well within the mythos of society now. It's hard to imagine it not happening. Especially when it's been happening.

ASoT is engaging willful denial of reality here. It goes against their narrative, so I can't exactly blame them.

I'm OK with personal attacks. But I'd appreciate a bit more quality.

[Galloism]

He’s referring to the Rodney king riots.

During the Rodney king riots, one of the areas hardest hit was a large community of Korean Americans who were facing absolute poverty and homelessness due to the fallouts of those riots.

A number of Korean Americans armed themselves to protect their homes and businesses from the destruction. Famously, many of them took up positions on the roofs of their own properties. They became known as “roof Koreans” by common parlance.

Your cogent explanation matches The Chuck's post at maybe one point. I'll need a third opinion.

I remember the LA riots, they were horrifying. All the BLM-related riots did not add up to the destruction and death of the LA riots.

They were however long ago. It's a bit weak to extrapolate to future need (for citizen self defence) and particularly to confuse armed uprising, with small business persons defending their property.

Famously, the government ditched the Korean community and left them to fend for themselves. This is what he was referencing.

This also happened in the BLM riots, by the way. Multiple communities - not just Koreans - were left to fend for themselves by the state. We still aren’t sure at the last count, but they may be the most destructive riots in history. If they aren’t, they’re second only to the Rodney king riots.

They didn’t kill as many people, though. The Rodney King riots left 63 dead.

It’s worth note the blm riots lasted a lot longer though, which is probably how they racked up equivalent damage and destruction while having far fewer deaths.

[The Chuck]

He’s referring to the Rodney king riots.

During the Rodney king riots, one of the areas hardest hit was a large community of Korean Americans who were facing absolute poverty and homelessness due to the fallouts of those riots.

A number of Korean Americans armed themselves to protect their homes and businesses from the destruction. Famously, many of them took up positions on the roofs of their own properties. They became known as “roof Koreans” by common parlance.

Your cogent explanation matches The Chuck's post at maybe one point. I'll need a third opinion.

I remember the LA riots, they were horrifying. All the BLM-related riots did not add up to the destruction and death of the LA riots.

They were however long ago. It's a bit weak to extrapolate to future need (for citizen self defence) and particularly to confuse armed uprising, with small business persons defending their property.

This is exactly what I am referring to. Gallosim and I agree on many points and disagree on other points but we usually are on the same page. As for the LA Riot, it occurred around 29 years ago and is still fresh on the minds of many of the middle aged generation of Korean Americans. In my region, a few of the original Koreatown folks moved out here and attend gatherings of Korean Americans and I've spoken to them in person here and there. You say it was long ago but it certainly is still fresh on many peoples' minds. Along with this, last year during the height of protests both peaceful and violent, Korean Americans once against took to the roofs of their businesses to defend their livelihoods from trouble.

You claim to remember the LA riots but I assume you simply sat back smoking a joint with your friends watching it happen on TV. If that's the case, I am happy that you were able to be in a safe area but for those who were on the ground... It wasn't a safe situation. This was compounded by the fact that the police bolted like a bat out of hell. I encourage you to watch this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCYT9Hew9ZU

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Your cogent explanation matches The Chuck's post at maybe one point. I'll need a third opinion.

I remember the LA riots, they were horrifying. All the BLM-related riots did not add up to the destruction and death of the LA riots.

They were however long ago. It's a bit weak to extrapolate to future need (for citizen self defence) and particularly to confuse armed uprising, with small business persons defending their property.

If you had your way, the small business persons would be left defenseless.

If I had my way, all small businesses would be insured by the government.

I do find it pathetic how, in a fight between individuals, the one owning property is assumed to be in the right and can shoot without warning. Americans with all their constitutional blathering, end up with Lords versus Peasants. You can do better!

[Galloism]

If you had your way, the small business persons would be left defenseless.

If I had my way, all small businesses would be insured by the government.

I do find it pathetic how, in a fight between individuals, the one owning property is assumed to be in the right and can shoot without warning. Americans with all their constitutional blathering, end up with Lords versus Peasants. You can do better!

Tbh, I see it as more about aggressors vs victims.

[Washington Resistance Army]

If I had my way, all small businesses would be insured by the government.

I do find it pathetic how, in a fight between individuals, the one owning property is assumed to be in the right and can shoot without warning. Americans with all their constitutional blathering, end up with Lords versus Peasants. You can do better!

Tbh, I see it as more about aggressors vs victims.

This^

[The Chuck]

Tbh, I see it as more about aggressors vs victims.

This^

^

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Your cogent explanation matches The Chuck's post at maybe one point. I'll need a third opinion.

I remember the LA riots, they were horrifying. All the BLM-related riots did not add up to the destruction and death of the LA riots.

They were however long ago. It's a bit weak to extrapolate to future need (for citizen self defence) and particularly to confuse armed uprising, with small business persons defending their property.

This is exactly what I am referring to. Gallosim and I agree on many points and disagree on other points but we usually are on the same page. As for the LA Riot, it occurred around 29 years ago and is still fresh on the minds of many of the middle aged generation of Korean Americans.

Well I can understand that. If you lived there, or have close ties to people who lived there, it's in your own History Book.

In my region, a few of the original Koreatown folks moved out here and attend gatherings of Korean Americans and I've spoken to them in person here and there. You say it was long ago but it certainly is still fresh on many peoples' minds.

Yep.

Along with this, last year during the height of protests both peaceful and violent, Korean Americans once against took to the roofs of their businesses to defend their livelihoods from trouble.

(Image)

You claim to remember the LA riots but I assume you simply sat back smoking a joint with your friends watching it happen on TV.

That's rather unfair. I supported the protesters, but my TV feed pushed them aside when there were rioters, and I supported them too. But they killed too many people, so I couldn't support them any more. To this day I have sympathy for rioters who target property, the bigger the better. BIg corporations are either insured, or self-insured, so burning millions of dollars of their stuff hurts the corporation more than any individual. Don't get me started on severance pay.

Smashing up small businesses is wrong. If they're not insured, rioters are harming individuals and I'm against it.

If that's the case, I am happy that you were able to be in a safe area but for those who were on the ground... It wasn't a safe situation. This was compounded by the fact that the police bolted like a bat out of hell. I encourage you to watch this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCYT9Hew9ZU

I probably won't watch it, sorry. But I will say that shooting people to defend your property is wrong.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

If I had my way, all small businesses would be insured by the government.

I do find it pathetic how, in a fight between individuals, the one owning property is assumed to be in the right and can shoot without warning. Americans with all their constitutional blathering, end up with Lords versus Peasants. You can do better!

Tbh, I see it as more about aggressors vs victims.

Yes, putting a price on a life is difficult. $4 to $10 million, the law says.

Aggressors should simply die. Victims should get fully compensation.

But I'm a fool for justice. I would let a hundred million in property burn, to save the life of a guttersnipe. I'm a fool Liberal, human life matters more to me, than ... huge amounts of property.

... And I don't, have a gun ...

[Greater Cesnica]

If that's the case, I am happy that you were able to be in a safe area but for those who were on the ground... It wasn't a safe situation. This was compounded by the fact that the police bolted like a bat out of hell. I encourage you to watch this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCYT9Hew9ZU

I probably won't watch it, sorry. But I will say that shooting people to defend your property is wrong.

It wasn't just to defend property. Lives were on the line.

ASoT is engaging willful denial of reality here. It goes against their narrative, so I can't exactly blame them.

I'm OK with personal attacks. But I'd appreciate a bit more quality.

Well am I wrong?

Tbh, I see it as more about aggressors vs victims.

Yes, putting a price on a life is difficult. $4 to $10 million, the law says.

Aggressors should simply die. Victims should get fully compensation.

But I'm a fool for justice. I would let a hundred million in property burn, to save the life of a guttersnipe. I'm a fool Liberal, human life matters more to me, than ... huge amounts of property.

... And I don't, have a gun ...

Again, it's not just about property. It's about human life. The rioters would have killed the shop owners if they had their way.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

I probably won't watch it, sorry. But I will say that shooting people to defend your property is wrong.

It wasn't just to defend property. Lives were on the line.

Oh really? Well that changes my mind. People who could easily have retreated, held their ground to make a legal point. I mean, that's dumb as fuck, but we should respect it, right?

I'm OK with personal attacks. But I'd appreciate a bit more quality.

Well am I wrong?

Yes, putting a price on a life is difficult. $4 to $10 million, the law says.

Aggressors should simply die. Victims should get fully compensation.

But I'm a fool for justice. I would let a hundred million in property burn, to save the life of a guttersnipe. I'm a fool Liberal, human life matters more to me, than ... huge amounts of property.

... And I don't, have a gun ...

Again, it's not just about property. It's about human life. The rioters would have killed the shop owners if they had their way.

And here is what is so silly about "self defence" in the USA. "Defending my property" is a good reason right up to the moment there is no safe line of retreat, and never mind that the only viable defense of property after that is Lethal Force.

US law puts a price on lives. Which OK it has to do. But what is obscene is that sometimes the price is zero. That punk had it coming.

[Kernen]

It wasn't just to defend property. Lives were on the line.

Oh really? Well that changes my mind. People who could easily have retreated, held their ground to make a legal point. I mean, that's dumb as fuck, but we should respect it, right?

Well am I wrong?


Again, it's not just about property. It's about human life. The rioters would have killed the shop owners if they had their way.

And here is what is so silly about "self defence" in the USA. "Defending my property" is a good reason right up to the moment there is no safe line of retreat, and never mind that the only viable defense of property after that is Lethal Force.

US law puts a price on lives. Which OK it has to do. But what is obscene is that sometimes the price is zero. That punk had it coming.

This is absurd. Defense of property is never itself a justifiable defense for homicide under US law. Lethal self defense is not legally predicated on defense of property. Defense of property is merely incidental to defense of self.

[Sovereign California]

I am going to say this under my main account, as I am from Los Angeles. I lived in the area of Koreatown during the time of the L. A. Riots, I wouldn't call my family wealthy, but they also had the misfortune to be living in an area of Los Angeles that fell just inside Koreatown.

We lived along the northern end of Koreatown, along West 3rd Street in the 3700 Block. My mother owned a seafood store that could have possibly escaped destruction had the store been listed as a "Japanese Seafood Store"... However, to be inclusive, it was called "Asian Mart", and during the riots was burned down while we were out dining. The store that stands there now is a shadow of the original store that stood in its place, were anyone to visit the area they'd notice that there are a few remnants of the original building still standing where the current Asian Mart stands. The address of our store was 3726, and of course, the address of the business there now is 3732.

Something, something, something... Associating bad luck with the previous address/number, no one wants that, and voila! A new address!

Needless to say, I am a firm supporter of the Second Amendment, I own an AR-10... and at one point before leaving Los Angeles for my current location, I owned a Daewoo K1A1. In time, I plan to buy more rifles/firearms as I believe I have a right to protect myself, and those I love. Considering I am still considered a minority, despite being half-European, I am also half-Japanese. I am a married lesbian, and while I do hold some liberal values, I also hold some that are firmly conservative as well.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Oh really? Well that changes my mind. People who could easily have retreated, held their ground to make a legal point. I mean, that's dumb as fuck, but we should respect it, right?



And here is what is so silly about "self defence" in the USA. "Defending my property" is a good reason right up to the moment there is no safe line of retreat, and never mind that the only viable defense of property after that is Lethal Force.

US law puts a price on lives. Which OK it has to do. But what is obscene is that sometimes the price is zero. That punk had it coming.

This is absurd. Defense of property is never itself a justifiable defense for homicide under US law. Lethal self defense is not legally predicated on defense of property. Defense of property is merely incidental to defense of self.

Exactly what I said. Stand ready in defense of your property, right up to the moment you're legally entitled to shoot. Then shoot.

Me, myself, I'm more "that's bad trouble, I'm out of here" and never have to defend myself on my own property. Kinda helps that I have mostly rented property and didn't have a lot of nice stuff. Let alone operated a business.

Bottom line, is the Korean shop-keepers, all their employees and family, could easily have escaped, except that some hardasses wanted to defend their property. If any lives were put at risk, it was for the sake of property.

[Washington Resistance Army]

This is absurd. Defense of property is never itself a justifiable defense for homicide under US law. Lethal self defense is not legally predicated on defense of property. Defense of property is merely incidental to defense of self.

Exactly what I said. Stand ready in defense of your property, right up to the moment you're legally entitled to shoot. Then shoot.

Me, myself, I'm more "that's bad trouble, I'm out of here" and never have to defend myself on my own property. Kinda helps that I have mostly rented property and didn't have a lot of nice stuff. Let alone operated a business.

Bottom line, is the Korean shop-keepers, all their employees and family, could easily have escaped, except that some hardasses wanted to defend their property. If any lives were put at risk, it was for the sake of property.

Where exactly could they have escaped to? Like, you do understand rioters were coming into Koreatown, right?

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

I am going to say this under my main account, as I am from Los Angeles. I lived in the area of Koreatown during the time of the L. A. Riots, I wouldn't call my family wealthy, but they also had the misfortune to be living in an area of Los Angeles that fell just inside Koreatown.

We lived along the northern end of Koreatown, along West 3rd Street in the 3700 Block. My mother owned a seafood store that could have possibly escaped destruction had the store been listed as a "Japanese Seafood Store"... However, to be inclusive, it was called "Asian Mart", and during the riots was burned down while we were out dining. The store that stands there now is a shadow of the original store that stood in its place, were anyone to visit the area they'd notice that there are a few remnants of the original building still standing where the current Asian Mart stands. The address of our store was 3726, and of course, the address of the business there now is 3732.

Something, something, something... Associating bad luck with the previous address/number, no one wants that, and voila! A new address!

This is excellent testimony, I must admit. The law may assume that everyone behaves rationally, but we can be more just than the law in its straight-jacket.

Needless to say, I am a firm supporter of the Second Amendment, I own an AR-10... and at one point before leaving Los Angeles for my current location, I owned a Daewoo K1A1. In time, I plan to buy more rifles/firearms as I believe I have a right to protect myself, and those I love. Considering I am still considered a minority, despite being half-European, I am also half-Japanese. I am a married lesbian, and while I do hold some liberal values, I also hold some that are firmly conservative as well.

Why would you need more than one long-arm, for self-defense?

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Exactly what I said. Stand ready in defense of your property, right up to the moment you're legally entitled to shoot. Then shoot.

Me, myself, I'm more "that's bad trouble, I'm out of here" and never have to defend myself on my own property. Kinda helps that I have mostly rented property and didn't have a lot of nice stuff. Let alone operated a business.

Bottom line, is the Korean shop-keepers, all their employees and family, could easily have escaped, except that some hardasses wanted to defend their property. If any lives were put at risk, it was for the sake of property.

Where exactly could they have escaped to? Like, you do understand rioters were coming into Koreatown, right?

No, not really. I'm not going to look it up on Google Maps. Whatever your point is, you'll have to make it better. Goodnight.

[The Chuck]

This is absurd. Defense of property is never itself a justifiable defense for homicide under US law. Lethal self defense is not legally predicated on defense of property. Defense of property is merely incidental to defense of self.

Exactly what I said. Stand ready in defense of your property, right up to the moment you're legally entitled to shoot. Then shoot.

Me, myself, I'm more "that's bad trouble, I'm out of here" and never have to defend myself on my own property. Kinda helps that I have mostly rented property and didn't have a lot of nice stuff. Let alone operated a business.

Bottom line, is the Korean shop-keepers, all their employees and family, could easily have escaped, except that some hardasses wanted to defend their property. If any lives were put at risk, it was for the sake of property.

Do you know how much commercial insurance costs for lower income small business owners Tubes? Sounds sort of like the meme of "Your business is insured!..." *other guy grabs rifle* "Your health is insured!" You yourself just said that you don't support the burning down of small businesses but here you are calling folks who are trying to defend their livelihoods as hardasses.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Where exactly could they have escaped to? Like, you do understand rioters were coming into Koreatown, right?

No, not really. I'm not going to look it up on Google Maps. Whatever your point is, you'll have to make it better. Goodnight.

My point is where exactly do you retreat when there's no law enforcement to help you and people are coming in and attacking your neighborhood? What's the play here, exactly? Cars were a no-go, the streets were filled with people and vehicles were attacked and looted regularly. Are they supposed to just run on foot and hope nobody decides to beat them to death and or shoot them?

[Sovereign California]

Just to shed some light on some things... From an article in the Los Angeles Times dated July 13, 1992.

COLUMN ONE : Splintered Society: U.S. Asians : The L.A. riots highlighted tensions among Asian-American groups, split by longstanding enmities and generational conflict. A search is under way for a common voice.