state hater
Banned
Welcome back, state hater. Apparently you've learned nothing about this forum in your time off, haha.
Apparently you haven't learned that appeasing psycopaths fails to acheive liberty.
Welcome back, state hater. Apparently you've learned nothing about this forum in your time off, haha.
Apparently you haven't learned that appeasing psycopaths fails to acheive liberty.
"Protestors did not kill the two slain officers. Politicians, grand juries, or police unions did not murder them either. Ismaaiyl Brinsley killed the two police men and he alone is the one with blood on his hands."
http://theantimedia.org/deaths-of-two-nypd-cops/
Can you provide data that this is worse than it was, say 40 years ago? I suspect it is, but I'd like to see data. And I'd like to see how it affects the mostly poor (read lack of assets to seize) residents of inner cities. This strikes me as an area where suburban, middle-class residents are getting a taste of what poor inner city residents have always been subjected to.
This is of legitimate concern to those of us who have not previously been likely to be victims of this, but hardly a reason for those who have always been subjected to it to riot or murder now, as opposed to 10 years ago.
Again, a real concern that has zero effect on inner city residents of the greater LA, Chicago, Detroit, or Ferguson areas. I don't see riots and cops getting murdered by "fed up citizens" in the American Southwest. The closest we've come was the Clive Bundy incident in Nevada. A couple of loose nuts that Bundy tossed off his ranch went on to murder a couple of cops and the media did their best to tie it to Bundy. More likely, a couple of folks looking for an opportunity to shoot cops went to the Bundy ranch, were uninvited, and then found random victims. I doubt anyone in the heartland is rioting over what happens with border policies or land use in the Southwest.
Again, how many of the rioters or those murdering cops care a bit about fast and furious or other such activities aimed at the middle class suburban and rural population?
Very annoying, but hardly a new creation. Remember, prior to the 20th century, the 1st amendment was far more limited in scope than it is today. Most 1st amendment zones happen at college campuses and around major events by high profile politicians. How many rioters and cop killers are attending these events and getting upset?
A basic understanding of history would make clear that most of these basic rights have been greatly expanded in the 2nd half of the 20th century. Most of the worst infringements we can point to still show more respect for these rights than may have been common prior to 1960 even for the general population and most decidedly for inner city blacks.
Let's cut to the chase, is the respect for the rights of black citizens today better or worse than it was during the Jim Crow south and de facto segregation of the north prior to the 1960s? Are black men more or less likely to get a fair trial today than in 1955?
I'm not saying things are peaches and roses. Indeed, there is evidence things are getting worse for the middle-class white population in certain regards.
But what can you point to that actually matters enough to inner city, poor residents to motivate them to riot and murder? What is different or worse today for them than 10 years ago? Or 20, 30 or 50 years ago?
I can't find it. And so I think blaming "oppression" from the cops / government is the wrong diagnosis.
I think that diagnosis explains Clive Bundy. In the last 20 years the feds have shut down most of his neighbors' ranching operations. He is facing loss of his livelihood and culture. Without arguing whether he is in the right or the wrong, I see motivation to take up arms and say, "No."
If we see conservative Christians start getting violent over their kids being taught in school that homosexual conduct is the legal and moral equivalent as conjugal marriage, or being forced to provide services to homosexual "weddings", or being forced to pay for abortions we could blame "oppressive" government laws.
Gun owners haven't had things so good, legally, since at least the Gun Control Act of '68, and for racial minorities, they've NEVER had better legal respect for their rights to defend themselves; though admittedly, many minorities remain in inner cities subject to laws that remain the least respectful of their rights.
So what is it that is motivating the rioters and murderers? Increased coverage? Increased stoking of racial flames? Increased sense of entitlement? Loss of semi-skilled jobs? General social breakdown from 75% unwed birthrates?
I don't know. But I haven't yet seen any data to convince me this has anything to do with new or worsening "government oppression" against those who are actually rioting and murdering right now. And that is where my original comment came from. I understand what is frustrating and alarming those of us in the middle class suburbs and rural areas. I'm not convinced those same concerns are shared by inner city poor residents.
Charles
Great. So anytime a portion of the citizenry are disgruntled, we can marginalize them by implying they're too ignorant to understand valid reasons for their upset, discredit them by pretending it matters that they "didn't seem too upset before", and impugn them based on a lack of statistical support for their grievances. Brilliant.
Leave it to a committed statist-collectivist to approach it this way.
Of course, in reality a person (especially a poor person who deals with cops routinely) can feel encroaching tyranny without having the sociopolitical acumen to articulate the precise nature of that tyranny; it is indeed significant when creeping tyranny reaches a point where people react; and "statistical evidence" is irrelevant because, even if quantitative sociology were a legitimate and generally honest field of "science" (which it is not), a single instance of tyranny is enough to justify calls for reform.
(Not that I would defend the murder of the two cops re: the OP. I'm referring to protestors, rioters, etc.)
Great. So anytime a portion of the citizenry are disgruntled, we can marginalize them by implying they're too ignorant to understand valid reasons for their upset, discredit them by pretending it matters that they "didn't seem too upset before", and impugn them based on a lack of statistical support for their grievances. Brilliant.
Leave it to a committed statist-collectivist to approach it this way.
Of course, in reality a person (especially a poor person who deals with cops routinely) can feel encroaching tyranny without having the sociopolitical acumen to articulate the precise nature of that tyranny; it is indeed significant when creeping tyranny reaches a point where people react; and "statistical evidence" is irrelevant because, even if quantitative sociology were a legitimate and generally honest field of "science" (which it is not), a single instance of tyranny is enough to justify calls for reform.
(Not that I would defend the murder of the two cops re: the OP. I'm referring to protestors, rioters, etc.)
All the boo hooing online is really something. Is the whole thing newsworthy? Sure, but people are murdered everyday.
These police are not heroes, but victims. The state and its media is using this in an obvious way.
Oklahoma City bombing? OK is south-central technically but I always considered it south-west (west of Miss. river) .... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma
Or Waco?
Who murdered any cops at Waco? I recall that the deaths of government agents there was the result of other "friendly fire" from fellow agents, or an act of reasonable self-defense on the part of those whose home was being invaded in an incompetent but military-style raid.
Keep up the trolling.
Charles
Leave it to a committed statist-collectivist to approach it this way.
Great. So anytime a portion of the citizenry are disgruntled, we can marginalize them by implying they're too ignorant to understand valid reasons for their upset, discredit them by pretending it matters that they "didn't seem too upset before", and impugn them based on a lack of statistical support for their grievances. Brilliant.
Of course, in reality a person (especially a poor person who deals with cops routinely) can feel encroaching tyranny without having the sociopolitical acumen to articulate the precise nature of that tyranny;
it is indeed significant when creeping tyranny reaches a point where people react; and "statistical evidence" is irrelevant because, even if quantitative sociology were a legitimate and generally honest field of "science" (which it is not), a single instance of tyranny is enough to justify calls for reform.
(Not that I would defend the murder of the two cops )
Do you have proof of this or is it one of those conspiracy theories?
Do you have anything useful to offer? Any constructive discussion in which you wish to engage? Or do you just like to snipe and run with pithy one-liner bumper stickers?
Do you actually approve of the military style raid at Waco? Do you actually compare any shots fired at cops there to someone walking up and murdering two cops sitting in their car on a street?!?!?!?
When you want to engage in some mature discussion, let me know. Until then, take your snide one liners and shove them.
Charles
It is a shame/sorrow/injustice when anybody is murdered, but the idea that it is more so because someone wears a badge is ignorant.
Are you going to provide the citation or not?What is ignorant is to fail to recognize the clear implications when someone attacks or murders a cop simply because he is a cop. Such an act is not merely an assault on the rights of an individual, but is an assault on the authority of the state, on the very foundation of our civil society.
Society's require laws and we require those to uphold those laws.
One of the specific grievances the founding fathers listed in the declaration of independence was that King George had left the colonies without functioning government. Anarchy, lack of government is not a prudent way for people to live, and certainly not any large group of people.
The anti-cop, anti-government, anti-rules sentiment that has manifest on this forum recently is really quite distressing. It appears that some of the more prolific posters have very little interest in even being civil toward fellow gun owners who might be socially conservative, religious, or anything else other than extreme libertarian and atheist or anti-religious.
A lot of us have no interest in living in anarchy, we respect those whose job it is to deal with the scum we like to avoid. We recognize that an attack on an officer of the law is an attack on law, society, and government itself.
Among rational, mature, thoughtful men, concern about excessive use of force by police does not require a hostility or even indifference toward police generally. A desire for limited government does not mean a desire for no government.
Those who are serious about owning and carrying guns for self defense are still too small a group for us to be able to afford to discard any over peaceful disagreements in non-RKBA areas. I spent years encouraging social and religiously conservative gun owners to work with liberals, libertarians, homosexuals, and others who support RKBA but may part company on lots of other social and public policy issues. How tragic that I'm now having to make a plea not to force social conservatives out of the RKBA community. You guys have done a fine job of making this forum really hostile toward any who dare disagree with you on any point, no matter how ancillary or even unrelated to RKBA. Is that really your intent? You might give some thought to how you respond to disagreements.
Charles
Follow the rules of the site! You made a claim now cough up the citation to back it up. In case you did not catch on that is the way we do things on this site.
Are you going to provide the citation or not?
Right after you ask for a citation about increasing government oppression causing murders, we can talk about your demand for this citation.
Snipe and run; snipe and run.
Grow up.
Charles
Especially coming from you, this is about the most vile insult you can throw and is clearly a direct violation of forumn rules. Abuse has been reported.
So I'm wrong for pointing out what things are likely to be part of a particular group's life experience, but then you admit they probably lack that experience as well?!?!?!
The claim was made that increasing "oppression" was responsible for this murder and might well result in additional murders. I'm simply asking for evidence--other than the murders themselves--that any such "oppression" is actually the cause. So far only "The Truth" has made any real attempt to provide solid evidence. Twoskins has responded with a generic list of issues he doesn't like, and everyone else including you and WalkingWolf have responded with petty insults.
What is so threatening to you, WalkingWolf, and others about being calmly asked to provide some evidence that your claims are accurate?
Your response here is essentially begging the question or circular reasoning. "Increasing tyranny results in the murder of cops, and the murder of any cop is thus evidence of increasing tyranny which will result in the murder of more cops."
Where is the evidence that it is actually increasing tyranny--rather than any other trigger--that is leading to these riots and murders?
Obviously not, directly. But there is an emerging tone of being anti-police, anti-government, anti-law, on this board that is deeply troubling.