Skip to content
 
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.

(Reason Magazine)   Rand Paul says it's time to demilitarize the police. RAND PAUL   (reason.com) divider line
    More: Spiffy, Police, civilian law enforcement, Law, federal government, Police officers, rule of law, local police, cops whine  
•       •       •

833 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Jul 2020 at 9:44 AM (13 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



44 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2020-07-22 8:21:21 AM  
RAND PAUL has been saying that for a LONG TIME now.

https://time.com/3111474/rand-paul-fe​r​guson-police/

It's one of his signature issues.
 
2020-07-22 8:49:12 AM  
Broken clock and all that.
 
2020-07-22 8:50:06 AM  
Now all we need is for credible politicians to take up this stopped clock's cause.
 
2020-07-22 8:51:04 AM  
Nice


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-07-22 9:22:37 AM  

dittybopper: RAND PAUL has been saying that for a LONG TIME now.

https://time.com/3111474/rand-paul-fer​guson-police/

It's one of his signature issues.


I was gonna say.  This is a typical stance of many libertarian-esque folks, as I understand it.
 
2020-07-22 9:25:11 AM  
Also for the demilitarization of neighbors
 
2020-07-22 9:45:42 AM  
Well now I want them to have more guns....

Not really but you know what I mean
 
2020-07-22 9:46:01 AM  
He says lots of shiat, but he doesn't vote that way.
 
2020-07-22 9:46:03 AM  
media2.giphy.comView Full Size
 
2020-07-22 9:47:01 AM  
yeah "scale back the police" is one of those things that libertarians (or pretend ones like Rand, anyway) support that is good but then their replacement for it is really bad ("everyone is armed to the teeth and takes the law into their own hands")
 
2020-07-22 9:47:17 AM  

xanadian: dittybopper: RAND PAUL has been saying that for a LONG TIME now.

https://time.com/3111474/rand-paul-fer​guson-police/

It's one of his signature issues.

I was gonna say.  This is a typical stance of many libertarian-esque folks, as I understand it.


It's certainly a stance I agree with, and I've also been saying it for years.  I think we need more Andy Taylors and fewer Audie Murphys.

Here are some of my proposals from a different thread:

1.  Banning shaven head hairstyles.

2.  Banning the wearing of mirror shades while on duty.

3.  Banning the use of military-style uniforms

4.  Banning the use of any kind of firearm or less-lethal device that is not allowed to non-LEO civilians in that jurisdiction.

5.  A complete and total ban on police use of automatic weapons.  The only use for a machine gun is suppressive fire, and the police have *ZERO* justification for that, every round needs to be aimed at an identifiable suspect.

6.  Banning the hiring of former infantry, or non-infantry soldiers who have seen actual combat, from being police officers.  It's a completely different mindset.

7.  Making the use of "Shoot/No Shoot" training more strict, to the point where the police are trained not to shoot unless there is a clearly identifiable weapon.

8.  Severely restrict the creation of tactical units, and legally limit their use to active shooter or active hostage situations.  No using them to serve drug warrants.

9. No ex-military armored vehicles.  If your police department budget is so small that you can't afford to purchase a bulletproof van for your tactical team, you've got no business having a tactifool team in the first place.
 
2020-07-22 9:51:18 AM  
I understand that John Galt was demoralized and left.
 
2020-07-22 9:51:31 AM  
"Yes, demilitarize them. There are perfectly good for-profit private mercenary outfits that can do the job more effectively" he added.
 
2020-07-22 9:52:12 AM  

dittybopper: xanadian: dittybopper: RAND PAUL has been saying that for a LONG TIME now.

https://time.com/3111474/rand-paul-fer​guson-police/

It's one of his signature issues.

I was gonna say.  This is a typical stance of many libertarian-esque folks, as I understand it.

It's certainly a stance I agree with, and I've also been saying it for years.  I think we need more Andy Taylors and fewer Audie Murphys.

Here are some of my proposals from a different thread:

1.  Banning shaven head hairstyles.

2.  Banning the wearing of mirror shades while on duty.

3.  Banning the use of military-style uniforms

4.  Banning the use of any kind of firearm or less-lethal device that is not allowed to non-LEO civilians in that jurisdiction.

5.  A complete and total ban on police use of automatic weapons.  The only use for a machine gun is suppressive fire, and the police have *ZERO* justification for that, every round needs to be aimed at an identifiable suspect.

6.  Banning the hiring of former infantry, or non-infantry soldiers who have seen actual combat, from being police officers.  It's a completely different mindset.

7.  Making the use of "Shoot/No Shoot" training more strict, to the point where the police are trained not to shoot unless there is a clearly identifiable weapon.

8.  Severely restrict the creation of tactical units, and legally limit their use to active shooter or active hostage situations.  No using them to serve drug warrants.

9. No ex-military armored vehicles.  If your police department budget is so small that you can't afford to purchase a bulletproof van for your tactical team, you've got no business having a tactifool team in the first place.


Is he going to just talk or is he going to actually do something about it? So far he has been flapping his gums and doing shiat.
 
2020-07-22 9:53:52 AM  

APO_Buddha: dittybopper: xanadian: dittybopper: RAND PAUL has been saying that for a LONG TIME now.

https://time.com/3111474/rand-paul-fer​guson-police/

It's one of his signature issues.

I was gonna say.  This is a typical stance of many libertarian-esque folks, as I understand it.

It's certainly a stance I agree with, and I've also been saying it for years.  I think we need more Andy Taylors and fewer Audie Murphys.

Here are some of my proposals from a different thread:

1.  Banning shaven head hairstyles.

2.  Banning the wearing of mirror shades while on duty.

3.  Banning the use of military-style uniforms

4.  Banning the use of any kind of firearm or less-lethal device that is not allowed to non-LEO civilians in that jurisdiction.

5.  A complete and total ban on police use of automatic weapons.  The only use for a machine gun is suppressive fire, and the police have *ZERO* justification for that, every round needs to be aimed at an identifiable suspect.

6.  Banning the hiring of former infantry, or non-infantry soldiers who have seen actual combat, from being police officers.  It's a completely different mindset.

7.  Making the use of "Shoot/No Shoot" training more strict, to the point where the police are trained not to shoot unless there is a clearly identifiable weapon.

8.  Severely restrict the creation of tactical units, and legally limit their use to active shooter or active hostage situations.  No using them to serve drug warrants.

9. No ex-military armored vehicles.  If your police department budget is so small that you can't afford to purchase a bulletproof van for your tactical team, you've got no business having a tactifool team in the first place.

Is he going to just talk or is he going to actually do something about it? So far he has been flapping his gums and doing shiat.


Kind of like a certain poster. Libertarians don't do shiat.
 
2020-07-22 9:54:22 AM  
I despise Rand Paul, but he is the rare Republican who is not wrong about everything. Just almost everything.
 
2020-07-22 9:55:32 AM  

ElwoodCuse: yeah "scale back the police" is one of those things that libertarians (or pretend ones like Rand, anyway) support that is good but then their replacement for it is really bad ("everyone is armed to the teeth and takes the law into their own hands")

.

You're confusing being against the militarization of the police with wanting to defund the police.

Is that unintentional, or are you doing that on purpose?
 
2020-07-22 9:58:38 AM  
It turns out that just because you are often wrong about many things, you are not necessarily wrong about everything, all the time.
 
2020-07-22 9:59:29 AM  
dittybopper:

6.  Banning the hiring of former infantry, or non-infantry soldiers who have seen actual combat, from being police officers.  It's a completely different mindset.

Why? I've run the statistics from the limited data available, and there is no significant difference between the rate of complaints filed against veterans as opposed to non-prior service. This is just a stereotype and bigotry clothed in a Collins-level of concern.
 
2020-07-22 10:01:39 AM  
He wants to scale back cops because weed. Once marijuana is legal he won't give a fark anymore
 
2020-07-22 10:05:50 AM  
Did anyone mention that this is an instance of "broken clock and all that"?
Because, it is.
 
2020-07-22 10:09:28 AM  
Sure he does, right up until its time to vote on it.
 
2020-07-22 10:10:58 AM  
We need to completely defund the police and invest the money in social programs that address the root causes of crime.  Stop treating the symptoms with violence and cure the underlying problems.
 
2020-07-22 10:15:41 AM  

dittybopper: ElwoodCuse: yeah "scale back the police" is one of those things that libertarians (or pretend ones like Rand, anyway) support that is good but then their replacement for it is really bad ("everyone is armed to the teeth and takes the law into their own hands")
.

You're confusing being against the militarization of the police with wanting to defund the police.

Is that unintentional, or are you doing that on purpose?


Excess funding is what allows them to militarize.
 
2020-07-22 10:20:18 AM  

CthulhuCalling: dittybopper:

6.  Banning the hiring of former infantry, or non-infantry soldiers who have seen actual combat, from being police officers.  It's a completely different mindset.

Why? I've run the statistics from the limited data available, and there is no significant difference between the rate of complaints filed against veterans as opposed to non-prior service. This is just a stereotype and bigotry clothed in a Collins-level of concern.


Yeah, having been infantry doesn't mean much honestly. The tool bag infantry douche usually stays in. They're the 45 year old tribal tattoo having E6 making the lives of his guys miserable you gotta watch out for.

Infantry guys that did their time and got out aren't gonna be especially aggressive or something. I think a better  bet would be to hire them, appropriately train them, and then fire them if they show that they can't handle the job without unnecessary use of force.
 
2020-07-22 10:26:15 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size


/from 2003
 
2020-07-22 10:26:44 AM  

geggy: [Fark user image image 425x539]

/from 2003


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-07-22 10:31:36 AM  

Rucker10: geggy: [Fark user image image 425x539]

/from 2003

[Fark user image image 425x416]


I don't know whether to smart this or funny it.  Maybe we also need a sad tag
 
2020-07-22 10:37:07 AM  

MegaLib: Rucker10: geggy: [Fark user image image 425x539]

/from 2003

[Fark user image image 425x416]

I don't know whether to smart this or funny it.  Maybe we also need a sad tag


Maybe a ? tag? I dunno. It ain't funny to me.
 
2020-07-22 10:41:23 AM  

MegaLib: Rucker10: geggy: [Fark user image image 425x539]

/from 2003

[Fark user image image 425x416]

I don't know whether to smart this or funny it.  Maybe we also need a sad tag


I laugh but it's horrifying.
 
2020-07-22 10:42:06 AM  

dittybopper: RAND PAUL has been saying that for a LONG TIME now.

https://time.com/3111474/rand-paul-fer​guson-police/

It's one of his signature issues.


He wants FEDERAL police to lose power. Remember what he said about local police:

"If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash I don't care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him..."
 
2020-07-22 10:49:39 AM  

Subtonic: "Yes, demilitarize them. There are perfectly good for-profit private mercenary outfits that can do the job more effectively" he added.


That is certainly Reason's position.

https://reason.com/video/dont-abolish​-​the-police-privatize-them/
 
2020-07-22 10:52:02 AM  

geggy: [Fark user image 425x539]

/from 2003


That's a photoshop.  Worth1000.com was a now-defunct website that used to run photoshop contests (see the logo in the left hand bottom corner).
 
2020-07-22 10:53:48 AM  

Gubbo: Broken clock and all that.


I hope he gets help for his leaking Anus.
 
2020-07-22 10:57:01 AM  

Gubbo: Broken clock and all that.


He's closer to a broken calendar.
 
2020-07-22 10:57:47 AM  
(Almost all) Cops in Russia don't carry guns. They pull people over with a white and black stick that they hold out on the road way telling you to pull over.

/if you don't pull over, you get gulag for 30 years
 
2020-07-22 11:12:43 AM  
Rand Paul says

Dude, shut up.
 
2020-07-22 11:16:26 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-07-22 11:59:59 AM  

Rucker10: MegaLib: Rucker10: geggy: [Fark user image image 425x539]

/from 2003

[Fark user image image 425x416]

I don't know whether to smart this or funny it.  Maybe we also need a sad tag

I laugh but it's horrifying.


Agreed
 
2020-07-22 2:09:04 PM  

dittybopper: ElwoodCuse: yeah "scale back the police" is one of those things that libertarians (or pretend ones like Rand, anyway) support that is good but then their replacement for it is really bad ("everyone is armed to the teeth and takes the law into their own hands")
.

You're confusing being against the militarization of the police with wanting to defund the police.

Is that unintentional, or are you doing that on purpose?


You're confusing 'defund the police' with 'eliminate the police department'.  'Defund the police' is *EXACTLY* the same damned thing as 'demilitarize the police and use them for actual police work while moving their excess funding to departments that interact with the public more appropriately'.

Is that unintentional, or are you doing that on purpose to muddy the waters again because you're a repeat liar?
 
2020-07-22 4:45:18 PM  

dittybopper: RAND PAUL has been saying that for a LONG TIME now.

https://time.com/3111474/rand-paul-fer​guson-police/

It's one of his signature issues.


But has he said it with a straight face yet?
 
2020-07-22 5:26:44 PM  

AdrienVeidt: dittybopper: ElwoodCuse: yeah "scale back the police" is one of those things that libertarians (or pretend ones like Rand, anyway) support that is good but then their replacement for it is really bad ("everyone is armed to the teeth and takes the law into their own hands")
.

You're confusing being against the militarization of the police with wanting to defund the police.

Is that unintentional, or are you doing that on purpose?

You're confusing 'defund the police' with 'eliminate the police department'.  'Defund the police' is *EXACTLY* the same damned thing as 'demilitarize the police and use them for actual police work while moving their excess funding to departments that interact with the public more appropriately'.

Is that unintentional, or are you doing that on purpose to muddy the waters again because you're a repeat liar?


A major problem here is that the words Defund the Police literally means "completely eliminate funding for the budget item for the police".  Defund does not mean "cut" or "reduce"; it means "zero out".
 
2020-07-23 10:54:29 AM  

Geotpf: AdrienVeidt: dittybopper: ElwoodCuse: yeah "scale back the police" is one of those things that libertarians (or pretend ones like Rand, anyway) support that is good but then their replacement for it is really bad ("everyone is armed to the teeth and takes the law into their own hands")
.

You're confusing being against the militarization of the police with wanting to defund the police.

Is that unintentional, or are you doing that on purpose?

You're confusing 'defund the police' with 'eliminate the police department'.  'Defund the police' is *EXACTLY* the same damned thing as 'demilitarize the police and use them for actual police work while moving their excess funding to departments that interact with the public more appropriately'.

Is that unintentional, or are you doing that on purpose to muddy the waters again because you're a repeat liar?

A major problem here is that the words Defund the Police literally means "completely eliminate funding for the budget item for the police".  Defund does not mean "cut" or "reduce"; it means "zero out".


THE major problem here is that only dumbshiat Conservatives take 3word slogans as a literal policy proposal without listening to the actual proposal.
 
2020-07-23 10:56:51 AM  
I mean; fark's sake: "9, 9, 9".
 
Displayed 44 of 44 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.