I like what you did there ---- you want to pull a narrative shift, and very cleverly tossed in the "terrorist" label. So I'll respond a couple ways:
1. Molotovs --- not good under any circumstance.
2. You'll note I didn't give a blanket green light to water bottles and bricks either. There was a very important distinction about having the right gear to handle that. If that is not in play the rules of engagement differ, although there should be a backend discussion about why it wouldn't be issued or available I suppose.
3. Property can be replaced, life cannot. While I'm sure the billionaires at Target will be hurt by the ransacking of the stores, I bet they'll get over the .001% shift in their bottom line more easily than we can breath life back into people that police murder. I think it's unfair especially if small business suffers, but again, property is just property. If I unilaterally condoned the damage I suppose I'd be out there participating, but I'm not. So looking from my office chair as I suppose many of us are, the picture is blurry I bet.
4. "Terrorists" - I like the use of the term. As I said, it was very cleaver of you. Because to label someone as such ignores all other realities about them, their situation, their concerns, the plight, their motivations, and puts them in a category where we say "bad person" and accept things like shooting them, waterboarding them, unending detention without trial, suspension of rights, etc. You don't use the term "Pissed off Americans", "Citizens fed up with the BS" or any number of ways to describe them. There are millions of people that could come to this very forum and look at these very posts of people salivating at the chance to shoot people and call all of us terrorists so that they could end the second amendment. How would you feel then? If they overlooked our arguments about the 2A and what it stands for?
