If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   In response to a measure banning semi-automatic rifles and large-capacity magazines, a Vermont gun range starts a ban of their own   (foxnews.com) divider line 536
    More: Dumbass, semi-automatic rifle, gun ranges, Vermont, capability management  
•       •       •

24495 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Jan 2013 at 12:21 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



536 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-29 03:31:24 PM  

Epicedion: That's an irrelevant comparison, since it's only referencing Excessive Force complaints, and not general illegal use of firearms by police officers. That's on or off duty, since your goal here is to show that the police are so extra-special-responsible with guns that they get to use weapons you'd like to see disallowed to the general population (after all, what's stopping him from popping the 30-round AR-15 out of the trunk and going to town on the neighbor, other than a deep-rooted sense of civil responsibility).

The fact that on-duty cops shooting and killing people unnecessarily is as high as 25% of the general population's homicide rate isn't a particularly trust-inspiring number. It's nice to know that a cop is only 25% as likely as a random guy on the subway to shoot me to death.


You mean like the civilian murder rate is only referencing reported instances, and not "general" murder by civilians? You implied cops were more violent than civilians and demanded evidence to prove otherwise. I gave you evidence to show that, not only were you mistaken, but the murder rate alone among civilians was four times higher than for police officers. You wanted proof that police officers were more disciplined and law-abiding. There you go.

You've lost, friend. Give it up.
 
2013-01-29 03:32:15 PM  

dittybopper: There was a survey done about 19 years ago where a group of Marines were asked about whether they would fire upon civilians who didn't turn in non-sporting firearms.


Tell them they're going after "McVeigh's Raiders" and the Army couldn't get the job done and you'll have volunteers out your ass.
 
2013-01-29 03:33:28 PM  

stonicus: I'm fine with the current ruling and situation. Just pointing out that the intent of the founding fathers was ruled impotent by the Heller decision. So just curious as to why people keep bringing it up. Don't say "militia, fight tyranny, revolution, etc" Just say "court said we could, no other reason."

(written to the proverbial you, by this part in the thread, the replies and quotes are so intermingled).


Like much of what you've said, that's pretty damned wrong. Look, it's not hard to find (even if it invalidates most of the things you're saying). Being accurate in a debate is kind of important. From the text of the Heller decision:

Held:

1. (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.


What's nice though is that the decision then goes to an additional length to explain why the language is the way it is:

The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved.

It can't be made a whole lot clearer than that. The foremost scholars on the constitution, who use it as an active tool in the judicial considerations every day, have affirmed what most people already know and have been kind enough to correct the false notions that some (including, unfortunately, many people in this thread) hold.
 
2013-01-29 03:34:00 PM  

craig328: I'm curious about this mindset and would like to ask a question. There are those who claim that the fundamental nature of the job of a police officer suggests they should be better armed than other, non-police civilians. What sort of situations do you discern the police requiring superior arms that civilians would not have an equal need to have?

Bank robberies? Those people in the bank are civilians and would be the first people with the opportunity to respond.

Civil insurrections? Again, these happen in public so the first people to respond would be other citizens. Indeed, as we saw in New Orleans, Los Angeles and that I personally witnessed in St. Petersburg, FL several years back, police can often be stretched too thin to respond.

Carjackings? Rapes? To such I'd ask how often a victim of such a crime has a personal police protector there 24/7 to ensure the presence of the police weapon to deter the crime?

Seriously, though...what situations do police encounter that require the presence of such weapons such that the situation doesn't affect civilians first and foremost?


Not 'superior'. 'Different'. I  hate the idea of police with superior firepower to average people (and this makes the second time I've said this, so after this I'm just going to call anyone who goes with the 'YOU WANT POLICE TO HAVE ASSAULT WEAPONS!' angle an idiot), but an average person doesn't need a nightstick. The average police officer, who is actively intervening in dangerous situations, probably does.

Also, your argument about police being stretched too thin to respond has nothing to do with the above point. Whether there are enough police or not does not change the job description.

Kit Fister: Actually, the amount of training varies greatly by unit and city. Many police departments do require a 1 year certification course, and some on the job training, but most departments do not provide "years" of on the job training, other than experience.

I've got a LOT of law enforcement colleagues and training partners, and I mix with a lot of officers, new and old, at various training seminars, and outside of SWAT, most department officers that come to various emergency response and other types of classes are ridiculously inept and undertrained, and most of the civilians in the class are usually better equipped, because they don't suffer from the "I'm a cop, therefore I'm somehow a super badass that doesn't have to deal with all these rules" issues. In fact, where a lot of the guys i see fall flat fail is going slow and learning, rather than rushing in and acting like they already know everything.

Cops that are good, are good because of experience doing their job. They are also the guys who spend time and energy to go out to training seminars and engage in voluntary extra training in a lot of fields above and beyond what they need for their day to day activities. A larger part of that group, however, are little better trained than the average TactiCool Joe who put on a badge and went through the training academy.

Any assertion that police are now some sort of paramilitary force that are not civilians but are some special excerpt of society is both laughable and, in the general sense of things, scary.


Well, the training part I got off Google when I was doing research for a character. However, I am  not using 'different' as synonymous with 'special', please don't confuse that. The police are  different. A civilian does not hold the job description of 'confronts criminals and goes into dangerous situations to resolve them'. And yes, the police are a paramilitary force, because 'paramilitary' means 'a group that uses military rankings and traditions to perform a task but are not formally a national military'. I don't care if America's police all moonlight as strippers on Broadway; it doesn't change the job description.

Epicedion: Police officers are civilians. Calling police officers non-civilians is simply wrong. Civilian = nonmilitary.

The police are consequently not in a war with the general public, no matter how much 'war on crime' rhetoric is used. They don't need assault weapons any more than the general public, because they live and work where we live and work. If anyone needs assault weapons, it's the people who live in the places that are too dangerous for the police to work without them.


No, a civilian in the typical sense of the word is not simply nonmilitary, it also applies to those who are not attached to  paramilitary organizations. In common usage, words occasionally have more than their dictionary definition. And I DO NOT BELIEVE THE POLICE NEED ASSAULT WEAPONS, AS I HAVE REPEATEDLY STATED.

OgreMagi: Fine, you are still wrong. They are civililans and are supposed to abide by the same laws as we do. In fact, they need to be held to a higher standard because they are in a position to abuse the trust (power) we have given to them.


Unless you're arguing your average citizen can put someone under an actual arrest (not Citizen's Arrest, they're different), methinks I spot a problem there.

/And seriously, all of you: I am not going to say this again. I do  not believe police are 'special' or even not wholeheartedly corrupt. I DO NOT BELIEVE POLICE SHOULD EVER HAVE ASSAULT WEAPONS. I am really getting sick of saying this. Whether or not your IT guy slept with your wife has jack shiat to do with whether your IT guy will use a thumb drive.
 
2013-01-29 03:34:46 PM  

Yellow Beard: Molavian: MadCat221: dittybopper: Fubini:

Ermm, they're impossible because they cost $20k, not because you're unable to buy one.

maybe MP5's or Thompsons but you can buy a full rockin M16 for a fraction of that. Class 3 weapons are indeed very very difficult to purchase. The average transfer time frame is over 3 months.


You can buy both Thompson and MP5 submachine guns. Check your local and state laws for details.
 
2013-01-29 03:37:15 PM  

AbiNormal: . I think they happen because we do not have adequate access to mental health care in the US. Thanks mostly to Reagan shutting down all of the mental health facilities in the US in the 80's.


Actually, deinstitutionalisation wasn't due to Reagan, it started in the late 1960's/early 1970's. Reagan was just the tail end of a trend that started long before he got elected.
 
2013-01-29 03:38:09 PM  

odinsposse: The point a lot of people are making are that police are civilians. That apparently cannot be said enough. They are not military. They are civilians. Law enforcement is not a military group. Your local police are not part of the military command. Your state police are not related to the national guard or army bases. Federal police work is done by Department of Justice, not the Pentagon. Police are civilians.


Google define:paramilitary.
 
2013-01-29 03:41:58 PM  

Wayne 985: Epicedion: That's an irrelevant comparison, since it's only referencing Excessive Force complaints, and not general illegal use of firearms by police officers. That's on or off duty, since your goal here is to show that the police are so extra-special-responsible with guns that they get to use weapons you'd like to see disallowed to the general population (after all, what's stopping him from popping the 30-round AR-15 out of the trunk and going to town on the neighbor, other than a deep-rooted sense of civil responsibility).

The fact that on-duty cops shooting and killing people unnecessarily is as high as 25% of the general population's homicide rate isn't a particularly trust-inspiring number. It's nice to know that a cop is only 25% as likely as a random guy on the subway to shoot me to death.

You mean like the civilian murder rate is only referencing reported instances, and not "general" murder by civilians? You implied cops were more violent than civilians and demanded evidence to prove otherwise. I gave you evidence to show that, not only were you mistaken, but the murder rate alone among civilians was four times higher than for police officers. You wanted proof that police officers were more disciplined and law-abiding. There you go.

You've lost, friend. Give it up.


The habit of the police covering their own crimes make your "proof" not just suspect, but absolutely worthless.
 
2013-01-29 03:42:28 PM  

PsiChick: craig328: I'm curious about this mindset and would like to ask a question. There are those who claim that the fundamental nature of the job of a police officer suggests they should be better armed than other, non-police civilians. What sort of situations do you discern the police requiring superior arms that civilians would not have an equal need to have?

Bank robberies? Those people in the bank are civilians and would be the first people with the opportunity to respond.

Civil insurrections? Again, these happen in public so the first people to respond would be other citizens. Indeed, as we saw in New Orleans, Los Angeles and that I personally witnessed in St. Petersburg, FL several years back, police can often be stretched too thin to respond.

Carjackings? Rapes? To such I'd ask how often a victim of such a crime has a personal police protector there 24/7 to ensure the presence of the police weapon to deter the crime?

Seriously, though...what situations do police encounter that require the presence of such weapons such that the situation doesn't affect civilians first and foremost?

Not 'superior'. 'Different'. I  hate the idea of police with superior firepower to average people (and this makes the second time I've said this, so after this I'm just going to call anyone who goes with the 'YOU WANT POLICE TO HAVE ASSAULT WEAPONS!' angle an idiot), but an average person doesn't need a nightstick. The average police officer, who is actively intervening in dangerous situations, probably does.

Also, your argument about police being stretched too thin to respond has nothing to do with the above point. Whether there are enough police or not does not change the job description.

Kit Fister: Actually, the amount of training varies greatly by unit and city. Many police departments do require a 1 year certification course, and some on the job training, but most departments do not provide "years" of on the job training, other than experience.

I've got a LOT of law enforcem ...


Sorry, but the law, and society, is not written to see police as special, and it has only come about that they are (in an accepted, socially acceptable way and not a thug-with-a-badge way) in the past 20 years or so.

The police SHOULD NOT be "Different", as you use the term, from the other citizenry in any way but their job being to confront criminals and enforce the laws. They are meant to be governed under the same rules as everyone else, and are held to the same standards.

Also, I would point out that while it's the job of the Cops to go confront a criminal, It's MY job to confront a criminal who comes to confront ME.

Now STOP with the glorification of cops. They would not NEED to be a militarized unit if the citizenry actually took more of an active role in policing their own. Just think, if more kids had positive role models and good parenting, maybe gangs wouldn't be so popular? And if drugs were legal, none of them would need to engage in violent behavior to protect an ILLEGAL trade.
 
2013-01-29 03:42:44 PM  

Keeve: UseUrHeadFred: I don't understand their reasoning.

This is either a wrongheaded attempt at retribution against "the man", or an attempt to keep police away so they can continue using banned weapons without getting busted. In the former case, Police are enforcers of the law, not legislators. In the latter, simply banning them will not prevent them from enforcing the law.

The phrase "sworn duty" has meaning. If the law is wrong hold the legislators responsible, not the police.

I think your first assumption is correct. The gun club is mad at the city council so they're taking it out on the cops. Very misdirected and probably not a smart move.


If cops are going to use high-power weapons, I want them to have LOTS of practice.
 
2013-01-29 03:43:05 PM  

Wayne 985: You mean like the civilian murder rate is only referencing reported instances, and not "general" murder by civilians?


Police are civilians. And no, like the fact that police aren't on-duty to commit excessive force violations all day every day. They only get those while at work, and so the excessive force firearms death rate only accounts for a fraction of illegal deaths committed by police officers.

PsiChick: No, a civilian in the typical sense of the word is not simply nonmilitary, it also applies to those who are not attached to  paramilitary organizations. In common usage, words occasionally have more than their dictionary definition. And I DO NOT BELIEVE THE POLICE NEED ASSAULT WEAPONS, AS I HAVE REPEATEDLY STATED.


Yes, in the typical sense of the word, civilian = nonmilitary. CIVILIAN IS THE WORD FOR NONMILITARY.

Whoops I think I had the same capslock problem you had. Anyway, the definition of civilian is "nonmilitary." Anyone who is not in the military is a civilian. Rules and regulations regarding civilians cover everyone who's not in the military. International courts, when referring to nonmilitary targets call them "civilian." Suggesting that police are not civilians is so incredibly wrong there's really no way to respond to you other than to tell you you're wrong wrong wrong wrongity wrong, wrongy wrong-wrong wrongity wrong.
 
2013-01-29 03:43:45 PM  

craig328: Civil insurrections? Again, these happen in public so the first people to respond would be other citizens. Indeed, as we saw in New Orleans, Los Angeles and that I personally witnessed in St. Petersburg, FL several years back, police can often be stretched too thin to respond.


There were a number of businesses that survived the LA Riots because the owners set up shop on top with rifles and a willingness to use them. The looters moved on to other businesses.
 
2013-01-29 03:46:23 PM  

Epicedion: Wayne 985: You mean like the civilian murder rate is only referencing reported instances, and not "general" murder by civilians?

Police are civilians. And no, like the fact that police aren't on-duty to commit excessive force violations all day every day. They only get those while at work, and so the excessive force firearms death rate only accounts for a fraction of illegal deaths committed by police officers.

PsiChick: No, a civilian in the typical sense of the word is not simply nonmilitary, it also applies to those who are not attached to  paramilitary organizations. In common usage, words occasionally have more than their dictionary definition. And I DO NOT BELIEVE THE POLICE NEED ASSAULT WEAPONS, AS I HAVE REPEATEDLY STATED.

Yes, in the typical sense of the word, civilian = nonmilitary. CIVILIAN IS THE WORD FOR NONMILITARY.

Whoops I think I had the same capslock problem you had. Anyway, the definition of civilian is "nonmilitary." Anyone who is not in the military is a civilian. Rules and regulations regarding civilians cover everyone who's not in the military. International courts, when referring to nonmilitary targets call them "civilian." Suggesting that police are not civilians is so incredibly wrong there's really no way to respond to you other than to tell you you're wrong wrong wrong wrongity wrong, wrongy wrong-wrong wrongity wrong.


Police are, essentially, hall monitors. They are still kids in the class, they just have the duty to watch OTHER kids because they are (supposed to be) extra trustworthy with also making sure OTHERS are following the rules. One of the biggest issues today, however, is that with Cops being the monitors, those that want to get away with breaking the law can do so, since they're the ones who control detection of crime...
 
2013-01-29 03:46:24 PM  

PsiChick: Not 'superior'. 'Different'. I  hate the idea of police with superior firepower to average people (and this makes the second time I've said this, so after this I'm just going to call anyone who goes with the 'YOU WANT POLICE TO HAVE ASSAULT WEAPONS!' angle an idiot), but an average person doesn't need a nightstick. The average police officer, who is actively intervening in dangerous situations, probably does.

Also, your argument about police being stretched too thin to respond has nothing to do with the above point. Whether there are enough police or not does not change the job description.


Pardon me but your original statement was a rebuttal to someone who said:

"police and law enforcement should be considered civilians and subject to the same weapons restrictions as the rest of us. That is, if the general public is prohibited from owning "assault weapons" then the police ought to as well, and if we're only able to buy fully automatic weapons that were registered before 1986 then so should they."

And your response to that was:

"Or, you know, police have jobs requiring them to deal with violent nutjobs and just might need more specialized tools than are available to the general public...the argument that they should only be allowed access to civilian weapons because 'they're civilians' shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what police do and are."

The original comment was specifically about assault weapons and then fully automatic weapons...not nightsticks. And the original comment was made in relation to the notion that police are, opined by some, to have a superior need for weapons that the general public would not. You disagreed by (perhaps erroneously on your part) equating "assault weapons" and "fully automatic weapons" to "more specialized tools than are available to the general public".

If that wasn't your intent then so be it. However, it certainly reads that you seem to wish to allow police to have weaponry that would not be possessable by other, non-police, civilians.
 
2013-01-29 03:46:43 PM  

PsiChick: odinsposse: The point a lot of people are making are that police are civilians. That apparently cannot be said enough. They are not military. They are civilians. Law enforcement is not a military group. Your local police are not part of the military command. Your state police are not related to the national guard or army bases. Federal police work is done by Department of Justice, not the Pentagon. Police are civilians.

Google define:paramilitary.


Accepted, however:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian

A civilian under international humanitarian law (also known as the laws of war) is a person who is not a member of his or her country's armed forces or other militia. Civilians are distinct from combatants. They are afforded a degree of legal protection from the effects of war and military occupation. The term "civilian" is also often inappropriately used metaphorically to refer to people who are not members of a particular profession or occupation, especially by civilian law enforcement agencies, which often adopt rank structures emulating those of military units.

Hence, law enforcement is comprised of paramilitary organizations, which themselves are comprised of civilians .
 
2013-01-29 03:47:07 PM  

PsiChick: odinsposse: The point a lot of people are making are that police are civilians. That apparently cannot be said enough. They are not military. They are civilians. Law enforcement is not a military group. Your local police are not part of the military command. Your state police are not related to the national guard or army bases. Federal police work is done by Department of Justice, not the Pentagon. Police are civilians.

Google define:paramilitary.


A civilian organization that uses military designations.
 
2013-01-29 03:48:02 PM  

Eirik: craig328: Civil insurrections? Again, these happen in public so the first people to respond would be other citizens. Indeed, as we saw in New Orleans, Los Angeles and that I personally witnessed in St. Petersburg, FL several years back, police can often be stretched too thin to respond.

There were a number of businesses that survived the LA Riots because the owners set up shop on top with rifles and a willingness to use them. The looters moved on to other businesses.


And a number of neighborhoods spared looting and attack because there were armed people living there willing to shoot back.

Safety and security, and social peace are an illusion, broken when the collective will to accept the social order is diminished beyond the point of reason.
 
2013-01-29 03:49:18 PM  

OgreMagi: The habit of the police covering their own crimes make your "proof" not just suspect, but absolutely worthless.


images.sodahead.com

You're adorable. I guess the federal government's stats are a part of the conspiracy too.
 
2013-01-29 03:50:50 PM  

Eirik: craig328: Civil insurrections? Again, these happen in public so the first people to respond would be other citizens. Indeed, as we saw in New Orleans, Los Angeles and that I personally witnessed in St. Petersburg, FL several years back, police can often be stretched too thin to respond.

There were a number of businesses that survived the LA Riots because the owners set up shop on top with rifles and a willingness to use them. The looters moved on to other businesses.


I know. Just seems that many have short memories...and way too many people think that America has some magical quality that voids the kinds of problems seen in the rest of the world (places like Libya, Egypt and Greece for example). That "magical quality" is a constitution that specifically limits the power of government...and the most direct way to do that is via the 2nd Amendment...which some folks are trying to tear down.
 
2013-01-29 03:51:26 PM  

Epicedion: Wayne 985: You mean like the civilian murder rate is only referencing reported instances, and not "general" murder by civilians?

Police are civilians. And no, like the fact that police aren't on-duty to commit excessive force violations all day every day. They only get those while at work, and so the excessive force firearms death rate only accounts for a fraction of illegal deaths committed by police officers...


I gave you my evidence, now I'm going to ask for yours. Show me the stats on how many police officers murder people in their off time.
 
2013-01-29 03:52:24 PM  

craig328: PsiChick: Not 'superior'. 'Different'. I  hate the idea of police with superior firepower to average people (and this makes the second time I've said this, so after this I'm just going to call anyone who goes with the 'YOU WANT POLICE TO HAVE ASSAULT WEAPONS!' angle an idiot), but an average person doesn't need a nightstick. The average police officer, who is actively intervening in dangerous situations, probably does.

Also, your argument about police being stretched too thin to respond has nothing to do with the above point. Whether there are enough police or not does not change the job description.

Pardon me but your original statement was a rebuttal to someone who said:

"police and law enforcement should be considered civilians and subject to the same weapons restrictions as the rest of us. That is, if the general public is prohibited from owning "assault weapons" then the police ought to as well, and if we're only able to buy fully automatic weapons that were registered before 1986 then so should they."

And your response to that was:

"Or, you know, police have jobs requiring them to deal with violent nutjobs and just might need more specialized tools than are available to the general public...the argument that they should only be allowed access to civilian weapons because 'they're civilians' shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what police do and are."

The original comment was specifically about assault weapons and then fully automatic weapons...not nightsticks. And the original comment was made in relation to the notion that police are, opined by some, to have a superior need for weapons that the general public would not. You disagreed by (perhaps erroneously on your part) equating "assault weapons" and "fully automatic weapons" to "more specialized tools than are available to the general public".

If that wasn't your intent then so be it. However, it certainly reads that you seem to wish to allow police to have weaponry that would not be possessabl ...


Funny enough, there's not a single thing a Police Officer can own and carry that I cannot, save for two:

- Taser
- assisted-opening knife.

I can own the baton, the cuffs, the shotguns, the handguns, the ammo, the body armor, the pepper spray/mace, etc. etc. etc.
 
2013-01-29 03:52:27 PM  

Kit Fister: Eirik: craig328: Civil insurrections? Again, these happen in public so the first people to respond would be other citizens. Indeed, as we saw in New Orleans, Los Angeles and that I personally witnessed in St. Petersburg, FL several years back, police can often be stretched too thin to respond.

There were a number of businesses that survived the LA Riots because the owners set up shop on top with rifles and a willingness to use them. The looters moved on to other businesses.

And a number of neighborhoods spared looting and attack because there were armed people living there willing to shoot back.

Safety and security, and social peace are an illusion, broken when the collective will to accept the social order is diminished beyond the point of reason.


The police tried to disarm those shop owners. Their response was basically "fark off". Funny how the LAPD didn't have the manpower to deal with looting, but could spare an officer to harass honest people protecting their property.
 
2013-01-29 03:52:57 PM  

Wayne 985: I gave you my evidence, now I'm going to ask for yours. Show me the stats on how many police officers murder people in their off time.


I don't have them. I'm not the one arguing that police deserve special dispensation to possess weapons deemed to dangerous to be owned by the general public.
 
2013-01-29 03:53:45 PM  

Wayne 985: Epicedion: Wayne 985: You mean like the civilian murder rate is only referencing reported instances, and not "general" murder by civilians?

Police are civilians. And no, like the fact that police aren't on-duty to commit excessive force violations all day every day. They only get those while at work, and so the excessive force firearms death rate only accounts for a fraction of illegal deaths committed by police officers...

I gave you my evidence, now I'm going to ask for yours. Show me the stats on how many police officers murder people in their off time.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_offi c ers_in_the_United_States

How about you start there, sparky? That's a good boy.
 
2013-01-29 03:54:04 PM  
What is even crazier is the fact that Obama is giving tanks and F-16 to the muslim brother hood yet thinks americans do not need small arms.... crazy shiat
 
2013-01-29 03:54:42 PM  

Kit Fister: ... The police SHOULD NOT be "Different", as you use the term, from the other citizenry in any way but their job being to confront criminals and enforce the laws. They are meant to be governed under the same rules as everyone else, and are held to the same standards...


By that rationale, we shouldn't allow them to engage in high speed pursuits of murderers, the power to make arrests, the power to operate jails, or... Well, heck, any policing ability at all. The entire point of police is that they're granted special rights and privileges to fight crime. That includes superior equipment.
 
2013-01-29 03:55:07 PM  

OgreMagi: The police tried to disarm those shop owners. Their response was basically "fark off". Funny how the LAPD didn't have the manpower to deal with looting, but could spare an officer to harass honest people protecting their property.


The LAPD couldn't restore order without bringing in the National Guard. It took the farking MILITARY to sort some of that shiat out.
 
2013-01-29 03:55:08 PM  

Wayne 985: OgreMagi: The habit of the police covering their own crimes make your "proof" not just suspect, but absolutely worthless.



You're adorable. I guess the federal government's stats are a part of the conspiracy too.


Pretty amusing isn't it? Post facts that defeat their preconceived notions and you're a liar and/ or facts aren't true.

And look at their desperate clinging to the semantic police/civilian argument still. It's just like the cosmetic and other appeal to knowledge fallacies. Endless amusement here. The more they speak, the more they hurt their position, and they're blissfully unaware
 
2013-01-29 03:55:13 PM  

Kit Fister: Safety and security, and social peace are an illusion, broken when the collective will to accept the social order is diminished beyond the point of reason.


"THARS MESSICANS IN MUH DRABWAY!"
 
2013-01-29 03:58:09 PM  

dittybopper: OgreMagi: I faintly remember that. Didn't a significant number of the Marines say they would shoot the officer giving the order?

Here is the footnote about that particular question:

[i46.tinypic.com image 593x611]

You can read the entire survey, and the results, here at this link.


Hell. Yes.
Most people don't realize, taking an oath in the Armed Forces of the US requires swearing to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic above all else.
 
2013-01-29 03:59:09 PM  

DeathCipris: Yellow Beard: Molavian: MadCat221: dittybopper: Fubini:

Ermm, they're impossible because they cost $20k, not because you're unable to buy one.

maybe MP5's or Thompsons but you can buy a full rockin M16 for a fraction of that. Class 3 weapons are indeed very very difficult to purchase. The average transfer time frame is over 3 months.

You can buy both Thompson and MP5 submachine guns. Check your local and state laws for details.


I know you can but they do cost $20,000 and up.
 
2013-01-29 03:59:17 PM  

Epicedion: Wayne 985: I gave you my evidence, now I'm going to ask for yours. Show me the stats on how many police officers murder people in their off time.

I don't have them. I'm not the one arguing that police deserve special dispensation to possess weapons deemed to dangerous to be owned by the general public.


You're the one advocating a change in the law.

Kit Fister: Wayne 985: Epicedion: Wayne 985: You mean like the civilian murder rate is only referencing reported instances, and not "general" murder by civilians?

Police are civilians. And no, like the fact that police aren't on-duty to commit excessive force violations all day every day. They only get those while at work, and so the excessive force firearms death rate only accounts for a fraction of illegal deaths committed by police officers...

I gave you my evidence, now I'm going to ask for yours. Show me the stats on how many police officers murder people in their off time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_offi c ers_in_the_United_States

How about you start there, sparky? That's a good boy.


Yooouuu... Might want to read your own link. For 2010, for example, the overwhelming majority pertain to those in uniform (most of which are justified, eg, "attacked officers with a large kitchen knife). There are three instances of off-duty shootings, two of which involved self-defense.

But thank you for making my case.
 
2013-01-29 04:00:41 PM  

PsiChick: odinsposse: The point a lot of people are making are that police are civilians. That apparently cannot be said enough. They are not military. They are civilians. Law enforcement is not a military group. Your local police are not part of the military command. Your state police are not related to the national guard or army bases. Federal police work is done by Department of Justice, not the Pentagon. Police are civilians.

Google define:paramilitary.


I think I see the problem here.
Paramilitary forces are sometimes given policing powers, but the police by definition are not a paramilitary force. You've moved beyond civilian self enforcement if you start imposing military rules and practices.
 
2013-01-29 04:02:00 PM  

Wayne 985: By that rationale, we shouldn't allow them to engage in high speed pursuits of murderers, the power to make arrests, the power to operate jails, or... Well, heck, any policing ability at all. The entire point of police is that they're granted special rights and privileges to fight crime. That includes superior equipment.


Except, high speed pursuits are deemed extremely dangerous... http://www.tricities.com/news/local/article_fcf899ee-56d8-11e2-a8ac-00 1a4bcf6878.html -- among others.

The power to make arrests is not solely with the police, and civilians at large are further empowered to make arrests. The difference is that police, with proper legal paperwork (a warrant) may detain and physically restrain a suspect where a civilian, while lawfully able to detain, cannot physically restrain a suspect (and court cases go both ways on this subject.)

The police do not operate jails. Jails are established by municipalities and local, state, or federal department of corrections. Police are not involved in the safety, security, or operations. Corrections Officers and civilians hired by the DoC are.

Further, no special rights or dispensations are required to perform the primary acts of policing beyond those illustrated above. The act of investigating crimes and the like are only thrust upon the police as that is their job description, much like a janitor is there to clean the shiatters. By your logic, Janitors should be the only ones who are qualified to buy mops or brooms, as they require special equipment for cleaning above and beyond the average citizen and are empowered with special rights to clean up after me.

With regards to crime prevention, the act of "patroling" by a police officer is no different than citizens independently organizing a neighborhood watch, and actively acting to deter crime for themselves.
 
2013-01-29 04:02:51 PM  

Wayne 985: You're the one advocating a change in the law.


No, I'm arguing against further restricting the public and not restricting the police from having "assault weapons," which would constitute a change in the law. Try to keep up.
 
2013-01-29 04:04:09 PM  

Wayne 985: Epicedion: Wayne 985: I gave you my evidence, now I'm going to ask for yours. Show me the stats on how many police officers murder people in their off time.

I don't have them. I'm not the one arguing that police deserve special dispensation to possess weapons deemed to dangerous to be owned by the general public.

You're the one advocating a change in the law.

Kit Fister: Wayne 985: Epicedion: Wayne 985: You mean like the civilian murder rate is only referencing reported instances, and not "general" murder by civilians?

Police are civilians. And no, like the fact that police aren't on-duty to commit excessive force violations all day every day. They only get those while at work, and so the excessive force firearms death rate only accounts for a fraction of illegal deaths committed by police officers...

I gave you my evidence, now I'm going to ask for yours. Show me the stats on how many police officers murder people in their off time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_offi c ers_in_the_United_States

How about you start there, sparky? That's a good boy.

Yooouuu... Might want to read your own link. For 2010, for example, the overwhelming majority pertain to those in uniform (most of which are justified, eg, "attacked officers with a large kitchen knife). There are three instances of off-duty shootings, two of which involved self-defense.

But thank you for making my case.


You asked for a list of killings, You did not specify, and it was not my argument.

I would point out that under similar circumstances, an ordinary civilian is both entitled and legally empowered to equally act in self defense, making the case a moot point. The only difference is qualified immunity (we send you in to talk to the nut job, so if you kill him in self defense, we won't ask too many questions).
 
2013-01-29 04:05:19 PM  

OgreMagi: Kit Fister: Eirik: craig328: Civil insurrections? Again, these happen in public so the first people to respond would be other citizens. Indeed, as we saw in New Orleans, Los Angeles and that I personally witnessed in St. Petersburg, FL several years back, police can often be stretched too thin to respond.

There were a number of businesses that survived the LA Riots because the owners set up shop on top with rifles and a willingness to use them. The looters moved on to other businesses.

And a number of neighborhoods spared looting and attack because there were armed people living there willing to shoot back.

Safety and security, and social peace are an illusion, broken when the collective will to accept the social order is diminished beyond the point of reason.

The police tried to disarm those shop owners. Their response was basically "fark off". Funny how the LAPD didn't have the manpower to deal with looting, but could spare an officer to harass honest people protecting their property.


Those police officers recognized the importance of a safe work environment. For criminals.
 
2013-01-29 04:05:37 PM  

justtray: Wayne 985: OgreMagi: The habit of the police covering their own crimes make your "proof" not just suspect, but absolutely worthless.

You're adorable. I guess the federal government's stats are a part of the conspiracy too.

Pretty amusing isn't it? Post facts that defeat their preconceived notions and you're a liar and/ or facts aren't true.

And look at their desperate clinging to the semantic police/civilian argument still. It's just like the cosmetic and other appeal to knowledge fallacies. Endless amusement here. The more they speak, the more they hurt their position, and they're blissfully unaware


And amazingly, none of it matters because this is the internet and neither side is ever going to relent and listen to the other! we're all just going to keep making fun of each other rather than actually being willing to listen and understand and, *gasp* compromise!
 
2013-01-29 04:08:28 PM  

Yellow Beard: DeathCipris: Yellow Beard: Molavian: MadCat221: dittybopper: Fubini:

Ermm, they're impossible because they cost $20k, not because you're unable to buy one.

maybe MP5's or Thompsons but you can buy a full rockin M16 for a fraction of that. Class 3 weapons are indeed very very difficult to purchase. The average transfer time frame is over 3 months.

You can buy both Thompson and MP5 submachine guns. Check your local and state laws for details.

I know you can but they do cost $20,000 and up.


Ohhh, you were referring to the 20k price tag, not the impossible.
Gotcha. Sorry for the mixup.
 
2013-01-29 04:09:17 PM  

Kit Fister: Wayne 985: By that rationale, we shouldn't allow them to engage in high speed pursuits of murderers, the power to make arrests, the power to operate jails, or... Well, heck, any policing ability at all. The entire point of police is that they're granted special rights and privileges to fight crime. That includes superior equipment.

Except, high speed pursuits are deemed extremely dangerous... http://www.tricities.com/news/local/article_fcf899ee-56d8-11e2-a8ac-00 1a4bcf6878.html -- among others.

The power to make arrests is not solely with the police, and civilians at large are further empowered to make arrests. The difference is that police, with proper legal paperwork (a warrant) may detain and physically restrain a suspect where a civilian, while lawfully able to detain, cannot physically restrain a suspect (and court cases go both ways on this subject.)

The police do not operate jails. Jails are established by municipalities and local, state, or federal department of corrections. Police are not involved in the safety, security, or operations. Corrections Officers and civilians hired by the DoC are.

Further, no special rights or dispensations are required to perform the primary acts of policing beyond those illustrated above. The act of investigating crimes and the like are only thrust upon the police as that is their job description, much like a janitor is there to clean the shiatters. By your logic, Janitors should be the only ones who are qualified to buy mops or brooms, as they require special equipment for cleaning above and beyond the average citizen and are empowered with special rights to clean up after me.

With regards to crime prevention, the act of "patroling" by a police officer is no different than citizens independently organizing a neighborhood watch, and actively acting to deter crime for themselves.


When janitors are making life and death decisions about public safety, that'll be a valid comparison.

For the record, it sounds like you're in favor of disbanding police entirely.
 
2013-01-29 04:09:28 PM  

Wayne 985: how many police officers murder people in their off time.


Jersey, RI, or Mass?
 
2013-01-29 04:10:58 PM  

justtray: Wayne 985: OgreMagi: The habit of the police covering their own crimes make your "proof" not just suspect, but absolutely worthless.

You're adorable. I guess the federal government's stats are a part of the conspiracy too.

Pretty amusing isn't it? Post facts that defeat their preconceived notions and you're a liar and/ or facts aren't true.

And look at their desperate clinging to the semantic police/civilian argument still. It's just like the cosmetic and other appeal to knowledge fallacies. Endless amusement here. The more they speak, the more they hurt their position, and they're blissfully unaware


Very amusing to see 2 knuckle heads who can seem to read and understand 2 simple sentences in the constitution, now that is a fact.
 
2013-01-29 04:14:16 PM  

dittybopper: Wayne 985: I think it's important to distinguish between gun nuts and gun owners. I've owned guns. I've also never had paranoid delusions about fighting the American government and murdering cops, unlike gun nuts.

I've never had paranoid delusions about either myself.

I *HAVE* talked about the subject in the abstract, of course, at least the idea of an armed citizenry potentially resisting a government that becomes tyrannical. If you want me to list the reasons why it could be more effective than you might think, I can.

Besides which, we've taken that name back: I'm a proud gun nut. You know what I own? A couple of bolt action rifles, and a flintlock. That's it. But I'm a gun nut nonetheless, and I stand in solidarity with my fellow gun nuts.


Yeah, don't try pulling that crap here. You're just trying to cover up that you are, in fact, an Archery NutTM.
 
2013-01-29 04:14:34 PM  

Wayne 985: When janitors are making life and death decisions about public safety, that'll be a valid comparison.

For the record, it sounds like you're in favor of disbanding police entirely.


Nah, I like having a guy that gets paid well to exercise his rambo/authoritarian complex and who gets to be a meat shield for me. Means that I can go to the range or do other shiat and not have to personally go out and deal with the human refuse myself. You know how hard it is to get vomit out of the back seat of a car?

Now, if I have to deal with a crook because I'm the only one there to do it, sure, I'll step up, but...meh. The football game's on. I'd rather let someone else dick around with their time to stop those junkies.

In all seriousness, Police are fine. They do a job I don't want to have to do. But I don't believe they should be as heavily armed as some military units with access to tanks and explosives and all those toys, because as a society, we should not be in a position where anything is so dire that that's necessary.
 
2013-01-29 04:15:25 PM  

Epicedion: Wayne 985: You're the one advocating a change in the law.

No, I'm arguing against further restricting the public and not restricting the police from having "assault weapons," which would constitute a change in the law. Try to keep up.


The change you're proposing is restricting police from owning assault weapons, which they are legally permitted to do (and with good reason).

I am not in favor of banning semi-automatic rifles. I am, however, in favor of allowing police access to weaponry currently restricted to non-police civilians. In other words, I favor the status quo concerning firearm restrictions. You do not.

Kit Fister: You asked for a list of killings, You did not specify...


Yeah, about that:

"Show me the stats on how many police officers murder people in their off time."

This was the post you responded to.
 
2013-01-29 04:15:26 PM  

Carousel Beast: dittybopper: Wayne 985: I think it's important to distinguish between gun nuts and gun owners. I've owned guns. I've also never had paranoid delusions about fighting the American government and murdering cops, unlike gun nuts.

I've never had paranoid delusions about either myself.

I *HAVE* talked about the subject in the abstract, of course, at least the idea of an armed citizenry potentially resisting a government that becomes tyrannical. If you want me to list the reasons why it could be more effective than you might think, I can.

Besides which, we've taken that name back: I'm a proud gun nut. You know what I own? A couple of bolt action rifles, and a flintlock. That's it. But I'm a gun nut nonetheless, and I stand in solidarity with my fellow gun nuts.

Yeah, don't try pulling that crap here. You're just trying to cover up that you are, in fact, an Archery NutTM.


I'm an explosives nut (in a safe environment supervised by the proper authorities of course...)
 
2013-01-29 04:18:23 PM  

PsiChick: And yes, the police are a paramilitary force, because 'paramilitary' means 'a group that uses military rankings and traditions to perform a task but are not formally a national military'. I don't care if America's police all moonlight as strippers on Broadway; it doesn't change the job description.


By that standard, the Salvation Army is a paramilitary group. It depends on how one interprets "military rankings and traditions". Classifying either the civilian police or the SA as "paramilitary" stretches those terms considerably.
 
2013-01-29 04:20:55 PM  

Wayne 985: The change you're proposing


No.
 
2013-01-29 04:28:55 PM  

Epicedion: Wayne 985: The change you're proposing

No.


Dude, just give it up. Please.

I get it. You hate cops and you're not in favor of gun laws unless they stick it to the man. You're stunningly transparent and it would simpler if you just admitted you don't like police.
 
2013-01-29 04:29:47 PM  

Wayne 985: Dude, just give it up. Please.

I get it. You hate cops and you're not in favor of gun laws unless they stick it to the man. You're stunningly transparent and it would simpler if you just admitted you don't like police.


You really have no idea what you're talking about.
 
Displayed 50 of 536 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report