Cop wants law prohibiting known gang members from possessing a firearm - Page 3
Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 129

Thread: Cop wants law prohibiting known gang members from possessing a firearm

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Reno NV
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhino View Post
    Everyone has a right to defend themselves. But we aren't talking about the right to self-defense. We're talking about gun possession. Those are two different things. If the gang member meets the same criteria as everyone else, he can legally possess a firearm. It's as simple as that. But that's where you seem to miss a very important point. If the gang member doesn't meet the same criteria as everyone else, he will still possess a firearm. It's still as simple as that. If you and that cop think a new law making illegal what is already illegal is going to change anything, you need your heads examined. Those people will carry guns whether you pass a hundred new law or put them on double secret probation, and you're a fool if you think otherwise.
    Ahh so true, so true, but the law that the officer was talking about would give the police another tool to use in the fight. Think about it this way, these people are full time criminals. As it is right now if a cop stops a known gangster and searches their car and finds a gun but nothing else, they have to apologize for the inconvenience, give the gun back, and tuck tail. If a Gangsta-In-Possession law, (lets call it GIP from now on ok), was in the books, gangsta gets scraped off the street, goes through the system, gets pumped for info, maybe rolls over on someone (ok, prolly won't happen), has to bail out, go to court, do a little time, get put on parole, and oh yah, has to buy another gun, well, I think that that would end up getting old after a while. Eventually, the gangsta will either end up doing serious time for multiple offenses, or move away.

    The RGU has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that turning the heat up on gangs WORKS. Extra patrols, stopping known gang members over for the slightest violation, busting them whenever possible, are all known to be effective in the fight against gangs. At present the RGU has a candle to turn up the heat. I'd like to give them a plasma torch.
    .
    That might be okay if cops made the laws. Do you know anywhere where that happens? Politicians make laws and politicians establish the criteria. Without a finite, empirical way to measure a criteria, such as a felony conviction, you'd be left with arbitrary conditions. Arbitrary conditions can and do change, especially when politicians are involved. You and your cop obviously haven't thought this through.
    Actually, the RGU is comprised of officers from all 9 local law enforcement agencies, the FBI, US Marshals, and DHS. So, no, not a criterion developed by an overworked cop and his partner. I'm pretty sure that when they think someone's a gangsta, they're pretty f'n sure they've got it right.
    .
    It's a NICS check, not NCIC.
    Cop wants law prohibiting known gang members from possessing a firearm-doh.gifOk, my bad.

    Using something like the no fly list is the last thing you want. There is no way to determine why you are on the list, or even if you really are on it. There is also no way to get your name removed from it, if it's really there in the first place. In short, there is no due process whatsoever. Flying is not a constitutional right, but firearm ownership is. You're advocating the denial of a God given right that is guaranteed by the Constitution not to be infringed, based on a list that is totally secret and completely bereft of any due process whatsoever and completely lacking any avenue of defense or appeal. That's about as un-American as you can get.
    Well, that's the rub. I support the 2nd for sure, but not for everyone. I don't want violent people, dangerous criminals or crazy people having guns. I'm not really thrilled about stupid people having guns either, but if they're not criminals it gets a little iffy for me.

    I didn't propose a statute in the first post, I proffered a concept. Debate is uber good IMHO.

    So you make some good points that can be added to the points already made.

    So far we have:
    1. GIP-Gun siezed, gangsta goes to jail.
    2. Legislature establishes criteria that must be met before gangsta's name can be added to the Known Gangsta Member list.
    3. Legislature establishes criteria for gangsta to get their name off the list if they change their wicked ways.


    To the list we can add:
    • Due process; Maybe something along the lines of: Gangsta notified they're now on the list and are no longer allowed to be in possession of a firearm.
    • Due process; Gangsta has a period of time to contest their name being put on the KGM list. Maybe at first through the department that named them, then through the court.
    • Maybe time bomb the length of time a person's name stays on the list, say 2 years, unless it's renewed by an agency. Or, it could automatically be extended for two years after a valid gang related activity observation or occurrence.

    .
    I agree, but you've lost your mind if you think such a law would bother them. It would however bother lots of innocent people who'd be caught up in a legal quagmire caused by a statute that was never designed with them in mind. You want to help with the gang problem? Fight to fix our revolving door justice system.
    That this law wouldn't make gangsta's all warm and fuzzy inside doesn't bother me in the slightest. It's an arrow in the quiver, ammo in the can, it's a tool for law enforcement to use to fight the good fight.

    Can unintended problems arise? Well that's an area that bugs the living the crap outta me. As a matter of fact, it's chilling. I sure hope any legislation would take that into consideration and build in some safeguards, (like criteria). However, given that politicians would be writing the law, it is something to be concerned about.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed​ lamb contesting the vote." Benjamin Franklin

  2.   
  3. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,418
    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    Ahh so true, so true, but the law that the officer was talking about would give the police another tool to use in the fight.
    The more tools they have, the less free the rest of us are. No thanks.

    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    Think about it this way, these people are full time criminals.
    Many, if not most, cops are also full time criminals, as are prosecutors, judges, attorneys general, presidents and even Supreme Court justices.

    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    As it is right now if a cop stops a known gangster and searches their car and finds a gun but nothing else, they have to apologize for the inconvenience, give the gun back, and tuck tail.
    Aww, that po' po' pitiful member of the Thin Blue Line Blvd. Crew has to follow the law, eh? That Constitution thing is a real b!tch, ain't it though?

    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    If a Gangsta-In-Possession law, (lets call it GIP from now on ok)....
    I prefer to call it UBC - Unconstitutional Bull Caca.

    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    ....was in the books, gangsta gets scraped off the street...
    After a couple good blasts from the pepper spray and tazer, as well as some recreational clubbin' no doubt...

    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    ....goes through the system...
    That would be the "system" that doesn't exist on paper (Sheepskin Parchment or otherwise) anywhere in America at the moment, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    ....gets pumped for info...
    Ol' Thom Jefferson would be so proud of you......NOT!

    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    ...has to bail out, go to court, do a little time, get put on parole...
    All for the "crime" of his/her associations. Not a single other bit of criteria precedes this grotesquely fascist tripe. If this is what you're learning in your 12-week "course," you'd do better to get out from under the influence of that Nazi Brownshirt you're riding around with and go back inside, sit down at your computer, and start studying the history of the founding of this once-great nation. Quite obviously, the deviation from our local-run, independent, self-sustaining founding principles in the area of education has failed you miserably.

    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    The RGU has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that turning the heat up on gangs WORKS.
    Heat WORKED well to defeat a significant number of our freedoms in favor of coddling the islamofascists on 9/11/01 too.

    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    Extra patrols, stopping known gang members over for the slightest violation...
    Making up phony charges.....yes, go on please....

    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    ...busting them whenever possible, are all known to be effective in the fight against gangs.
    Persecution based solely on ideology, associations, race and ethnicity has been known to be effective "tools" in making fascists more comfortable throughout history. That's exactly what you're describing here. It's disgusting.

    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    At present the RGU has a candle to turn up the heat. I'd like to give them a plasma torch.
    Kind of like the Nazis went from simple scalding hot showers to gigantic ovens, huh?
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    Actually, the RGU is comprised of officers from all 9 local law enforcement agencies, the FBI, US Marshals, and DHS.
    Like I said, most cops are career criminals.

    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    So, no, not a criterion developed by an overworked cop and his partner. I'm pretty sure that when they think someone's a gangsta, they're pretty f'n sure they've got it right.
    They also know that they're breaking the law when they harass people for nothing more than their associations. But you don't care, do you? One man's gangsta is another man's citizen until they actually commit a crime that the cops and prosecutors can make a case against them for. All that due process stuff is so yesterday, ain't it.
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    Well, that's the rub. I support the 2nd for sure, but not for everyone.
    I support the right to free speech through the medium of the internet, but not for anti-constitutional, anti-freedom fascists who wouldn't recognize a God-given, natural right if it blew a hole right between his eyes.

    Good grief, the rest is just more fascist tripe and since I haven't even had my breakfast yet, I don't have anything in my stomach to puke if I had to expose myself to it again.

    Where do these people come from? Let me guess.....the government?

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  4. This course that I'm going through makes me privy to some information that's not generally available to the public, but the question of identifying a gang member did come up and I can say that as far as our RGU is concerned, there is a definite criterion that must be met before someone is put on their list. Wannabe's are separated from the real thing.

    What if we had a Gang Member list much the same as the no fly list? States would be able to enact legislation saying if you're on this list, you can't possess a gun. The only thing I would want to see is a clear set of criteria to legally label a person as a gang member, (thus placing restrictions on their rights), and make sure there is a way for that person to get off that list if they decide to leave the lifestyle behind.

    nice in theory, but consider how things are actually done with the NICS and No FLy lists now. Many totally innocent persons are on those lists, can't find out why, nor do anything to get off them. Those who hold the keys to put a name on are too corrupt. The two lists you mention PROVE conclusively the wong thinking of "making a list". They forget to "check it twice", and make no real provision for redress when one is wrongly put on it. How many veterans are having their rhghts to arms taken because someone decided they need help to manage their finances, and thus are "mentaly incompetent"? It IS happening,

    LE in general are far to quick to want a "list" to "fix" their own laziness or incompetence. Consider James Holmes, the Cinemark Theater shooter. His personal psychiatric doctor had been warning local LEO for a month he was a danger and should be restricted. No one in/near Denver/Aurora wanted to be bothered,. so he killed a bunch of innocents.
    No, the present laws are more than adequate: in fact, most should be repealed. They have the tools t find those who are armed and should not be. What they need to do is work with the prosecutors (who are also far to lazy, on average) and press for maximum penalties whenever possession laws are violated. EVERY CASE of felon in possession MUST be pressed for conviction (NO PLEA BARGAINS) and maximum penalties. Only when these clowns are facing years of hard time for unlawful posession will they think twice about doing it. You bring these thoughts back to the class and see what they think.. my bet is they'll pop back with excuses and reasons why it won't work. OK, ask them how many incidents in the past year their department members have found people in violation of possession laws such as felon in possession. THEN ask how many of thise cases actualy had the perpetrator charged and brought to trial for THAT violation. If they're honest, and their department is typical, the gun charges are almost always bargained away by the prosecutor to get convictions on drug charges and resultant jail time.. more federal money from War on Drugs funding. As ever, follow the money.

  5. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by S&W645 View Post
    And just to add to your last line, the NBPP would be considered a gang if it wasn't for Eric Holder blocking prosecution of them. So that makes the entire DOJ a gang.
    We can put them right up there with the Gang of Eight, OK.
    I'd rather be a Conservative Nutjob. Than a Liberal with NO Nuts & NO Job

  6. how many American veterans have been paid a visit by armed thugs in government issued costumes and informed that since they've had a financial guardian appointed they are "incompetent" and thus must immediately surrender all their lawfully possessed firearms and forever forfeit their right to possess them, and all that with NO due process? It IS happening. Maybe some in treatment for PTSD should have their guns secured by a family member, or in safe custody outside their home and inaccessible until they are further along the treatment path..... but that's not what's been happening. NBope-- its "howdy, hand me ALL your guns you can't have them, end of story".

    If this area is typical, the percentage of cases where a felon is found in unlawful possession of firearms, AND is fully prosecuted (not plea bargained out of it) is quite small.... thus they have found they can get away with the gun violations and so choose to carry because the risk is minimal. Enforce THOSE laws fully, no plea bargain of the gun charge to secure a much harder drug rap.. oh, and boost their number of these convictions to qualify for more FedBucks. Note well the involvement of FBI and DEA with local cops mentioned above.... the federalising and militarising of law enforcement pivots round the enforcement of unconstitutional federal level "controlled substances" violations. One more way we are surrenduring local and accountable control to FedGov...... which is illegal. How about getting THOSE laws sorted out and obeyed before putting more on the books?

  7. #26

    It is what I did.

    After reading this thread I am more confused than ever about what some of you think is Constitutional.
    ~
    GIP are not going to want the law to know they are carrying even if they can legally qualify for a carry license for if they are considered a known gang member by the law they just painted a target on their back, I don't think so, not in this life time.
    ~
    That is not what gang members do, it is not good for business (as they call it) because their usual business is against the law and what known gang member will want the law looking over their shoulder after announcing to the law that you going to carry a gun concealed. They are going to carry illegally and not worry about giving the law a heads up in the first place.
    ~
    If an individual doesn't have a criminal record precluding him from qualifying for a concealed carry license that individual has every right to apply and be issued a carry license. After all that is just what you and I did to get ours.
    I'd rather be a Conservative Nutjob. Than a Liberal with NO Nuts & NO Job

  8. #27
    Really, if these gangbangers have not been in trouble then they are either not a problem or are much smarter than these cops. If the latter is true then fellas its time for a career change. Ant law that prohibits you from a right based on someone's opinion is the definition of stupid.

  9. #28
    No list. Innocent until proven guilty. Due process.

    If it is a CRIME, established by Legislation as Felony, to be a member of a specified gang (Bloods, Crips, etc.), then a suspected member may be charged and convicted of such crime by a jury of their peers, based on presented evidence. Then and only then they're on the list of Convicted Felons.

    Otherwise, their God-given rights as American Citizens remain intact.

  10. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Southwest Ohio
    Posts
    3,348
    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    Ahh so true, so true, but the law that the officer was talking about would give the police another tool to use in the fight. Think about it this way, these people are full time criminals. As it is right now if a cop stops a known gangster and searches their car and finds a gun but nothing else, they have to apologize for the inconvenience, give the gun back, and tuck tail. If a Gangsta-In-Possession law, (lets call it GIP from now on ok), was in the books, gangsta gets scraped off the street, goes through the system, gets pumped for info, maybe rolls over on someone (ok, prolly won't happen), has to bail out, go to court, do a little time, get put on parole, and oh yah, has to buy another gun, well, I think that that would end up getting old after a while. Eventually, the gangsta will either end up doing serious time for multiple offenses, or move away.
    So in other words, they're just looking for an excuse and they want a law to create it for them. The classic police state mentality. You don't need a gun law for that. You can make up any law you want.
    .
    The RGU has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that turning the heat up on gangs WORKS. Extra patrols, stopping known gang members over for the slightest violation, busting them whenever possible, are all known to be effective in the fight against gangs. At present the RGU has a candle to turn up the heat. I'd like to give them a plasma torch.
    As would I, but criminalizing that which isn't criminal just to create an excuse for an arrest is tantamount to tyrannical government overreach. It's exactly the kind of governmental abuse our founders were trying to escape when they created this nation.
    .
    Actually, the RGU is comprised of officers from all 9 local law enforcement agencies, the FBI, US Marshals, and DHS. So, no, not a criterion developed by an overworked cop and his partner. I'm pretty sure that when they think someone's a gangsta, they're pretty f'n sure they've got it right.
    From their standpoint I'm sure they do, but that wasn't the point I was making. They don't write the laws or establish the conditions. The criteria you specify isn't measurable or finite. It's subjective and open to interpretation. The politicians who write the laws and the courts who try to interpret them are going to twist things far differently from what you and your cop friend are idealizing. The real world just doesn't work the way it works in your fantasies.
    .
    Well, that's the rub. I support the 2nd for sure, but not for everyone. I don't want violent people, dangerous criminals or crazy people having guns. I'm not really thrilled about stupid people having guns either, but if they're not criminals it gets a little iffy for me.
    You'll find lots of agreement on violent offenders, criminals and people who are mentally incompetent but you're going to have a problem arguing that people who have committed no crime should be denied gun rights because that potentially includes every law abiding citizen in the US. All they have to do is tweak the definition in the law a little bit, which is easy since the criteria is so subjective and ill defined. You make it even easier for them if they get to use a secret list. Then they never have to explain anything to anyone.
    .
    I didn't propose a statute in the first post, I proffered a concept. Debate is uber good IMHO.
    Unless I'm mistaken, the topic is "Cop wants law prohibiting known gang members from possessing a firearm", so a statute is indeed being proposed.
    .
    So you make some good points that can be added to the points already made.
    .So far we have:
    1. GIP-Gun siezed, gangsta goes to jail.
    2. Legislature establishes criteria that must be met before gangsta's name can be added to the Known Gangsta Member list.
    3. Legislature establishes criteria for gangsta to get their name off the list if they change their wicked ways.
    What criteria? You've already stated they've broken no laws. Are you going to base it on who they associate with? That would be criminalizing a God given right guaranteed not to be infringed under the 1st amendment. You seem hell bent on criminalizing God given rights. You just want to justify it by promising to use it only on 'bad' people. How many corrupt governments over the ages have used that excuse?
    .
    To the list we can add:
    • Due process; Maybe something along the lines of: Gangsta notified they're now on the list and are no longer allowed to be in possession of a firearm.
    • Due process; Gangsta has a period of time to contest their name being put on the KGM list. Maybe at first through the department that named them, then through the court.
    • Maybe time bomb the length of time a person's name stays on the list, say 2 years, unless it's renewed by an agency. Or, it could automatically be extended for two years after a valid gang related activity observation or occurrence.

    .
    That this law wouldn't make gangsta's all warm and fuzzy inside doesn't bother me in the slightest. It's an arrow in the quiver, ammo in the can, it's a tool for law enforcement to use to fight the good fight.
    ROFL!!! Telling someone they're on the list constitutes due process in your eyes? You're good for entertainment. I'll give you that.
    .
    Can unintended problems arise? Well that's an area that bugs the living the crap outta me. As a matter of fact, it's chilling. I sure hope any legislation would take that into consideration and build in some safeguards, (like criteria). However, given that politicians would be writing the law, it is something to be concerned about.
    It's something to be scared ****less about, because the day anything even remotely resembling that passes anywhere in the US is the day this country ceases to exist. Even though you've committed no crime, the government is going to declare you a criminal based on who you associate with and remove your God given rights that the Constitution says they have no right to infringe upon. All of this is done with absolutely zero due process and if you want your rights back it is up to you to fight back and attempt to regain what was unconstitutionally taken away from you without due process in the first place, at great expense and trouble of course. Oh, and the politicians who write the laws criminalizing these associations get to decide which ones are bad, such as associating with the eeeeeeevil National Rifle Association maybe. We all know how bad those people are!
    .
    The really tragic thing about all this is that anyone can't see how horribly misguided an idea like this is. Their hearts are in the right place, absolutely. Nobody can dispute that. I doubt there's anyone here that wouldn't like to give law enforcement more tools to fight gangs. But the mere fact that any thinking American can't see the glaring danger in such a proposal as this really scares me.
    Posterity: you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it.--- John Quincy Adams
    Condensed Guide To Ohio Concealed Carry Laws

  11. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Reno NV
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    The more tools they have, the less free the rest of us are. No thanks.
    So your idea for utopia is one where there's no police whatsoever then? Maybe morph the police into something along the lines of the cops in the movie Demolition Man. Remember the line by the cop. "So much violence. We're not equipped to deal with something like this". In your ideal world the cops would be toothless and thus useless. Though I do have to admit, I wouldn't mind being frisked by Lt. Huxley.

    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    Many, if not most, cops are also full time criminals, as are prosecutors, judges, attorneys general, presidents and even Supreme Court justices.
    Some are criminals and I fiercely support their vigorous prosecution. Most, and I mean 99.999% of the cops in this country are as honest as a day is long. Funny thing is, I started carrying a gun in public out of concern for my safety because of the rampant gang activity in the areas I frequent. So to reiterate, I carry a gun to protect myself from criminal gangs. Who are you guarding against? Criminal cops me thinks.

    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    Aww, that po' po' pitiful member of the Thin Blue Line Blvd. Crew has to follow the law, eh? That Constitution thing is a real b!tch, ain't it though?
    Where the hell did that come from? The purpose of the thread is to discuss a known problem and possible solutions. We don't write law here, we talk. That you and I don't agree on what the problem is or even if a problem exists at all is just fine. The healthiest thing we can do as a nation is to get involved. An internet debate might not be equal to volunteering to search for a lost kid in the mountains, but discussion of our problems, concerns and solutions is good for the overall health of our nation. Look at what's going on here. We're discussing a law that would be restrictive and some people have concerns about its Constitutionality or whether it violates freedoms at the expense of freedom. I don't have a problem debating both sides of the issue. In fact, it's the reason I started this thread in the first place. I thank you for your non-support.

    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    I prefer to call it UBC - Unconstitutional Bull Caca.
    So.......put you down as a no vote then?

    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    After a couple good blasts from the pepper spray and tazer, as well as some recreational clubbin' no doubt...
    Well, it's a lot more paperwork if you shoot them. Jeeze, don't you know nuttin? Man, it must suck to live in your world.

    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    That would be the "system" that doesn't exist on paper (Sheepskin Parchment or otherwise) anywhere in America at the moment, right?
    The 'system' would be booking, jail, bail, court, prison, and parole/probation. System is a metaphor. Try to keep up.

    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    Ol' Thom Jefferson would be so proud of you......NOT!
    Well I don't think he'd be particularly troubled with me. Ol' Thom didn't have a problem picking up a gun to remove a little tyranny. Times are a little different now. We really can't take the law into our own hands. We have opted instead to charge a smaller group with that task, with a long list of constraints placed on them. Protect us, but with one hand tied behind their backs.

    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    All for the "crime" of his/her associations. Not a single other bit of criteria precedes this grotesquely fascist tripe. If this is what you're learning in your 12-week "course," you'd do better to get out from under the influence of that Nazi Brownshirt you're riding around with and go back inside, sit down at your computer, and start studying the history of the founding of this once-great nation. Quite obviously, the deviation from our local-run, independent, self-sustaining founding principles in the area of education has failed you miserably.
    Crime by association. Yes, that is the sticky wicket. It's been discussed and I think we all agree that some constitutional protections are warranted. I think there's been some reasonable suggestions made to insure that non-com's are protected. Don't think for a second that I don't want that. As far as Nazi Brownshirts, I haven't met any in our LE departments. What I heard was a lot of dialog from them about the importance of respecting peoples rights. They talked about probable cause and making sure they comply with the legal requirements. Your inference that cops just want to willy-nilly kick down peoples doors in the middle of the night without a warrant, drag them into the street and execute them is just something out of the fantasy narrative you desperately want to believe is prevalent in the law enforcement community. And before you light your keyboard on fire, yes, I'll admit, there have been a few problems.

    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    Heat WORKED well to defeat a significant number of our freedoms in favor of coddling the islamofascists on 9/11/01 too.
    Ya know, I never really felt like I had any of my freedoms violated. In fact, I never had a single instance in which I felt like DHS was even interested in knowing anything about me. Even if they did look, about the only thing they might have found interesting about me is that I'm one of a very small group of guys that isn't particularly enamored with big boobies. Other than that I'm pretty innocuous.

    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    Making up phony charges.....yes, go on please....
    Nobody suggested that. In fact, we all have suggested just the opposite. Take another sip of coffee, you need to open your eyes more.

    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    Persecution based solely on ideology, associations, race and ethnicity has been known to be effective "tools" in making fascists more comfortable throughout history. That's exactly what you're describing here. It's disgusting.
    That is NOT what I'm describing here at all. It is what you're reading, but I think your glasses only see what fits your anti government narrative. Coffee Blues, coffee. You need more coffee.

    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    Kind of like the Nazis went from simple scalding hot showers to gigantic ovens, huh?
    My wife's grandparents died in one of those ovens so no, not that. Both of us are using metaphors here but in reality, what I'm actually supportive of is giving police effective tools and processes to thwart criminal gangs.

    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    Like I said, most cops are career criminals.
    You need a tinfoil hat. Most cops are good folks that actually stick the keys in the ignition every day to go out and make our streets safer. For some reason, you think they're criminals for that. Truly sad.

    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    They also know that they're breaking the law when they harass people for nothing more than their associations. But you don't care, do you? One man's gangsta is another man's citizen until they actually commit a crime that the cops and prosecutors can make a case against them for. All that due process stuff is so yesterday, ain't it.
    Again...READ THE POSTS. How many times to we have to clarify CRIMINAL gangs. How many times do we have to clarify the need for specific, irrefutable evidence of criminal gang involvement. How many times do we need to clarify that this discussion is just that, a discussion. It's evolving. It encompasses the concerns of more than just one person. I should note, during that initial Q&A session, the officer was quite emphatic that they can't just stop people for nothing. They have to have a reason. To me, that doesn't mean it has to be a felony in progress, it can be something as simple as a bulb out on a license plate, or a failure to use a turn signal, jaywalking, pants hanging around your knees in public, or whatever. Personally, the more people they hassle about flashing their dirty ass in public the better.

    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    I support the right to free speech through the medium of the internet, but not for anti-constitutional, anti-freedom fascists who wouldn't recognize a God-given, natural right if it blew a hole right between his eyes.
    Kewl, so we're like minded individuals. Oh no, wait a minute. Turns out that I do support the free speech rights of anti-constitutional, anti-freedom fascists who wouldn't recognize a God-given, natural right if it blew a hole right between their eyes. I don't agree with what they say and I'm not afraid to take them on in vigorous debate, but I don't want them to not be able to speak just because I don't agree with them. That's Obama's thing. You wanting that?

    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    Good grief, the rest is just more fascist tripe and since I haven't even had my breakfast yet, I don't have anything in my stomach to puke if I had to expose myself to it again.

    Where do these people come from? Let me guess.....the government?
    So lemme see if I understand this. You think I'm spouting fascist tripe because I want CRIMINAL gangs out of business and I'm proposing something that might make that battle more effective and help keep the society I live in safer, but you're a great defender of the Constitution because you advocate that I shouldn't be allowed to talk because I have a different opinion than yours. Do you hear what you're saying or are there other voices in your head drowning you out?
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed​ lamb contesting the vote." Benjamin Franklin

Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast