Philly police arrest man carrying.

Aaaaand the thing about that gun amendment thingy is that it was based on giving the public capacity to take government by force if need be. Today, that's absolutely impossible. So it's an irrelevant point based on the justifications of the time of writing.

Use whatever justification for gun ownership you like, but the "official" justification is based on democratic power, towards which guns no longer contribute a thing.

Swordsman Troper — Reclaiming The Blade — Watch

At least an armed populace has access to the last-ditch remedy of tyrannicide. An unarmed populace is completely subjected to the whims of the government.

And restoring the Second would be totally feasible. Simply prohibit the government from using troops to defend itself from the people. Have the attempt to quash a revolution be a capital, impeachable offense. 2nd restored!

edited 18th May '11 5:45:25 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

... there are so many flaws in that I'm not sure what to say.

Be not afraid...

What? The government would probably quash the revolution anyway. Once the guys in charge got out of office, though, they would get their asses hauled to court and then hanged. Probably their asses would be hauled off to court the same day they got out of office.

The infringing politicos *might* attempt a coup, but the military might feel ill-inclined towards helping it: After all, if they don't help the coup, they won't get in trouble.

Quashing a revolution would buy them time, but it would be functionally equivalent to a death sentence: The guilt would be proven from the start, without any shadow of a doubt. The problem of an unbeatable government is not unsurmountable.

edited 18th May '11 5:53:50 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

1 - You seriously expect the people in charge of defending your president to just let you assassinate him or her?

2 - If they could, why is that a good thing? There are people who might want to kill the president for reasons not connected to their tyranny.

3 - Not all revolutions are a positive thing. I'm sure that in your mind a revolution would be made of of glorious freedom loving individuals out to bring down a tyrant, but they might not be. They might be religous right extremists out to make America a Christian Nation, or they might be a group egged on by some other international force to weaken your country, or any number of other things. You can't say "Only fight the revolutions I don't want!"

edited 18th May '11 5:56:26 AM by LoniJay

Be not afraid...

You're far too bloodthirsty to live in a country wherein gun ownership is legal.

Swordsman Troper — Reclaiming The Blade — Watch

So wait, you're thinking here that the government is going to go all tyrannical, and where revolutions will fail, a law is going to stop them?

Oh look, we've shot lots of civilians and become a dictatorship, pity about that law, otherwise I could just keep on going.

Definitely a troll.

Dreamkeepers Prelude, check it out!

Revoking the government's authority to deploy troops against their own people would, at least in theory, prevent lots of bad stuff.

If the government had no lawful authority to give that order, the military might feel disinclined to go along with it. After all, it would be an unlawful order: Obeying it could very well be a career-ending move. Overall, military dudes don't like politicians: Odds are they wouldn't risk their career for one of'em if they could help it.

I'm aware that the proposed solution is far from ideal, though:

The ideal solution would be the people being able to revoke the government's mandate at a whim, instead of getting stuck for four years with the same bunch of leaders (four years is plenty long time to get corrupt or grow fascistic.)

edited 18th May '11 6:26:12 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

You think kneeling is degrading? I'm tempted to bring in the kowtow just to see you have an apoplexy.

And if the US has reached such a state where the army is being brought in to end revolutions at all you are pretty safely beyond the stage where people are going "oh no my serious carer prospects!"

And revoking these ideas on a whim would be great if the general public were well informed and completly without bias, but hey they are not! And neither are any of us, so lets stop trying to solve our differences and kill each other!

I swear you are the worst parody Anarchist I have ever encountered, not least because you believe so firmly in this bullpies but because you seem to think that anyone who doesn't should get shot in the head when your "revolution"

edited 18th May '11 6:50:20 AM by JosefBugman

HEY. This isn't about frigging gun rights, so stop discussing it please.

It's not a random off-chance, it happens all the time in that line of work, and no, we aren't going to take the risk.

Maybe it's because I'm a military cop, but I was in a situation once with conflicting orders for different parties about our posting boundaries of where we were supposed to be, and my partner and I ended up in a restricted area at a base we were doing temporary duty at without knowing. We were detained until they could figure out the mix-up.

What did I do? I listened to every single word and didn't say a god damn word as I complied. No "Dude are you stupid? Same side!" bullshit. I listened, expedited the process, and was out of cuffs and back on patrol in minutes. I didn't feel degraded, offended, or harmed. The reason they cuffed me was because I had a frigging machinegun on me and my partner had an assault rifle, if we were terrorists posing as troops, we could have done some serious damage.

If I can put up with it in uniform to other people wearing the same uniform without having my itty bitty piddly feelings hurt, y'all can just put the fuck up with it. God are civilians are fucking whiny, just shut the hell up and expedite the process. If it's a civilian arrest, expediting it means the sooner you can get to your lawyer since you know it's a mix-up, and the sooner you can get a nice and shiny lawsuit against the city if you were mishandled.

In this business it's not about your god damned comfort, it's about the safety of all parties involved, both the civilian and the officer involved. The possibility of a life being lost, in err or due to a dangerous situation that could have been avoided, is worth a bit of frigging discomfort.

Savage: That is not an error in training. You never turn your attention from someone who is armed. Ever. There is a reason for this, and it is a damn good fucking reason, because cops die from mistakes like that where they get too trusting. I know you don't care, because you say yourself that you would lynch all law enforcement given the chance, which essentially means your opinions regarding the safety of a police officer ever being a reasonable measure versus an excessive measure is absofuckinglutely invalid, I'd rather someone completely uneducated on the subject give opinions than someone who wants cops to die.

edited 18th May '11 6:47:37 AM by Barkey

I never said that all non-anarchists should be shot after a revolution. That's a straw man, and your post is a personal attack.

edited 18th May '11 7:08:46 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

No you didn't, in another thread you mentioned how "just" collabarators would be, which is a curiously open term to interpretation/abuse.

And its not a personal attack, its saying that I think your ideas are silly and that you seem to believe things a lot of people find deeply repugnant.

I just don't understand? I said "seem to" you are more than capable of demonstrating otherwise, and I would ask you to do so.

edited 18th May '11 6:51:26 AM by JosefBugman

^^

No. You once told me that "after the revolution" you would have all law enforcement officers either branded or lynched. That is referencing something you once told me.

You could give a rats ass about the safety of a police officer, which is why you find every possible opportunity to say something that reads as "Pfft, who cares about their safety? The comfort of the suspect is worth far more than the life of a police officer."

Dangerous job or no, Cops are human beings with families too, and they have every right to take measures not to get shot in the face. Your opinion on how far an officer is allowed to go to ensure their own safety is akin to asking Michael Vick for his opinion on animal cruelty.

edited 18th May '11 6:55:37 AM by Barkey

<><

I think most people are silly for not actually reading what Heaten writes.
Besides, would it not be A LOT more saner to FORCE cops to be 2 people when checking gun warrants? Suddenly, lots of problems solved.
Besides, Barkley? You are a paranoid person, you are the last type of people who should EVER look after other people. EVER. You are willing to ignore the fact you know that you are indoctrinated, and you are willing to ignore what your code of conduct is.
You are the last type of person who should speak back to Heathen, because half of his worldview is just being aware that there is a lot of sick and twisted people like you(not as in "special evil" way).

A guy called dvorak is tired. Tired of humanity not wanting to change to improve itself. Quite the sad tale.

@Barkey: I recall that discussion.

I think now, and I thought then, that many of the actions of the State are illegitimate violations on personal liberty. I'm also convinced that both the enforcer and the lawmaker are at fault, and they should both pay for it.

I later refined my position: Some police are not active enforcers of oppressive laws on the populace. A Homicide detective, for example, is no Narcotics/Vice/ATF thug. However, those that are should pay for their part in enforcing authoritarianism.

I also recall telling you specifically that I've got no personal beef with you. After all, you're military police, not a civilian cop. Anyone who gets under your jurisdiction knew what he was getting into and willingly signed up for it. I'd call no foul on that. (And this site needs a shrug emoticon).

edited 18th May '11 7:07:28 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

I am still a cop with concurrent jurisdiction with several stretches of civilian territory, and as a Guardsman I can get called on to operate with full jurisdiction in a civilian city. I come from a family of civilian cops, none of whom deserve death for doing their job. None of them come to work with the intention of humiliating or degrading anybody.

What you are suggesting is the equivalent of taking safety measures off of power tools and getting rid of hard hats because "Those construction workers had it coming, they have a dangerous job and know the risks"

You need to understand, regardless of being military, I am still military law enforcement and if you have some sort of beef with them, you do indeed have a beef with me. Myself, my co-workers, or any of my family or friends who are cops do not deserve death or injury because of their occupation. You seem to have this impression that any encounter with law enforcement should be a fair fight, that is not the case. If you are interacting with a police officer, you don't deserve the opportunity for some kind of "free shot" at them. You don't deserve the opportunity to fight back and if you win, you are somehow justified. Their entire mission is to hold people accountable to the laws, rules, and regulations that are in place, and if they can do anything to keep themselves out of harms way in the process of doing that short of excessive force, it is their right to do so.

edited 18th May '11 7:14:39 AM by Barkey

As long as there are oppressive laws actively being enforced, those who enforce them are aggressors.

edited 18th May '11 7:16:45 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

Barkey: The problem is that you think you are entitled to something you are not. If you where entitled to it, it would lead to cops starting to abuse people.
You even bring in a stawmen, nice job breaking your own arguments hero. It is not Us Vs Them, and it never shall be. Yet do you bring it in, as a attempt to get us to be shocked enough to not reply.
You are willing to head into "I will rape your face, as a insurance to make sure you do not do that to me", and that makes you sick and twisted. You even think you are entitled to it.

No, I am not. So quit the silly straw.
I am saying that giving you the means to start raping people is a very bad idea, because you will start abusing it.
I guess it is something akin to blaming everything on the tool manifacturers, instead of blaming it on the people who never learned how to use their tools.

A guy called dvorak is tired. Tired of humanity not wanting to change to improve itself. Quite the sad tale.

I'm sorry, how did we get on the subject of rape?

@Barkey: You're not at all concerned about questionable searches and degrading/forceful treatment being imposed on random people because them cops don't feel safe?

There have been grotesque erosions on privacy rights in the name of officer safety. And what if a guy is a smartass? People have a First Amendment right to insult cops. Even if a guy was being verbally abusive towards the cop DURING THE WHOLE ENCOUNTER, he would be entitled to do so.

Cops are not magically entitled to respect. Their well-being does not justificate intrusions into the rights and dignity of other people. You'd like it to be that way, but it's not. We have rights, and the jack-booted thugs are not entitled to ignore them for the sake of convenience.

As per the sophomoric power tools straw man: Hard hats and safeties do not intrude on anyone else's rights. I have no beef on officers keeping themselves safe, as long as that safety is not used to justify additional intrusions on other people's dignity or privacy.

edited 18th May '11 7:46:48 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

^^ I don't know, but let's drop the subject. And the subject of gun control, if anyone fancies starting that up again. This is On-Topic Conversations.

That said, I would like to know if there is a good reason why I shouldn't just thump SH's posts right now for ridiculous hatespeech.

Ninja'd. SH, this is not a question of kowtowing to bullies, this is a question of protecting a man's life at the expense of maybe a slight loss of dignity on the part of a smart-mouthed civilian.

edited 18th May '11 7:26:55 AM by BobbyG

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

@Bobby: I see idiocy and delusions, but where's the hate speech? How the hell did I miss that?

That's already illegal.

Edit: holy balls fast thread moves fast.

edited 18th May '11 7:29:39 AM by NativeJovian

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

If any of the posts qualifies as hate speech, feel free to just thump it. I won't complain.

I dislike the authorities, and can get sort of abrasive in an argument about them. Thump whatever you need to thump: Sorry if I was out of line.

edited 18th May '11 7:46:02 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.