(September 17, 2020 at 10:04 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(September 17, 2020 at 10:00 am)Brian37 Wrote: If ifs and butts were candy and nuts.

The long term problem has always been our flooded market of firearms.

If you claim to love police, and everyone need police, but at the same time say that police should not be armed like our military, but you advocate selling firearms to everyone as long as they have no record, and the firearm industry sells to police as well, that is a problem.

No knock warrants ARE BAD, but also understandable because police cant afford to risk harm if they think the warrant is of potentially armed people.

How about we stop handing out firearms like candy? If we do that, then police wouldn't have to go into every situation assuming they need to be armed like RAMBO. Then society wouldn't have to fear police either.

A flooded gun market has absolutely nothing to do with flushing drugs, no-knock warrants, or the Breonna Taylor case.

Boru

He only sings one song.

Badly.

And apparently overexposure to 3rd rate Swedish pop music turns your brain to mush.

(September 17, 2020 at 9:33 am)Angrboda Wrote:

(September 17, 2020 at 8:33 am)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: Not wanting to intrude with facts, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-knock_warrant

What are you suggesting has been missed?

I'm suggesting that people reading this thread might not be fully informed.

(September 17, 2020 at 11:18 am)onlinebiker Wrote:

(September 17, 2020 at 10:04 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: A flooded gun market has absolutely nothing to do with flushing drugs, no-knock warrants, or the Breonna Taylor case.

Boru

He only sings one song.

Badly.

And apparently overexposure to 3rd rate Swedish pop music turns your brain to mush.

If one is going to rightfully say they want police safe, and all want that, how does it make sense that police are trained, even on a simple traffic stop to assume the motorist is armed? 

If one is going to RIGHTFULLY argue that police should not be armed or trained like the soldiers invading the beaches of Normandy, then why do we under fund them, and on top of that, train them to shoot first, which is what we do?

I am fucking sick of this attitude that more guns makes society safer. Fear certainly sells more firearms, to BOTH  society and police. What it does not do is reduce firearm violence.

If one is going to argue that the want both society safe and police safe, then to me, the issue is always weapons, on both sides.

(September 17, 2020 at 11:25 am)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:

(September 17, 2020 at 9:33 am)Angrboda Wrote: What are you suggesting has been missed?

I'm suggesting that people reading this thread might not be fully informed.

I certainly wasn’t. I got the primary and secondary justifications for no-knock warrants exactly wrong. Thanks, GS.

Boru

(September 17, 2020 at 1:19 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(September 17, 2020 at 11:18 am)onlinebiker Wrote: He only sings one song.

Badly.

And apparently overexposure to 3rd rate Swedish pop music turns your brain to mush.

If one is going to rightfully say they want police safe, and all want that, how does it make sense that police are trained, even on a simple traffic stop to assume the motorist is armed? 

If one is going to RIGHTFULLY argue that police should not be armed or trained like the soldiers invading the beaches of Normandy, then why do we under fund them, and on top of that, train them to shoot first, which is what we do?

I am fucking sick of this attitude that more guns makes society safer. Fear certainly sells more firearms, to BOTH  society and police. What it does not do is reduce firearm violence.

If one is going to argue that the want both society safe and police safe, then to me, the issue is always weapons, on both sides.

That's because you drip piss down your leg everytime you see a firearm.


Your reaction is Pavlovian, not logical.

(September 17, 2020 at 1:19 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(September 17, 2020 at 11:18 am)onlinebiker Wrote: He only sings one song.

Badly.

And apparently overexposure to 3rd rate Swedish pop music turns your brain to mush.

If one is going to rightfully say they want police safe, and all want that, how does it make sense that police are trained, even on a simple traffic stop to assume the motorist is armed? 

If one is going to RIGHTFULLY argue that police should not be armed or trained like the soldiers invading the beaches of Normandy, then why do we under fund them, and on top of that, train them to shoot first, which is what we do?

I am fucking sick of this attitude that more guns makes society safer. Fear certainly sells more firearms, to BOTH  society and police. What it does not do is reduce firearm violence.

If one is going to argue that the want both society safe and police safe, then to me, the issue is always weapons, on both sides.

Policing in the US is already a safe job.

No one us arguing that police should be trained and armed to carry out an amphibious assault on French beaches.

Police are not underfunded. They are improperly funded (meaning they get plenty of money, they’re just spending it wrong).

The issue isn’t weapons. 

Boru

(September 17, 2020 at 1:19 pm)Brian37 Wrote: If one is going to argue that the want both society safe and police safe, then to me, the issue is always weapons, on both sides.

Nah, just one.  

No matter how you cut it, infringing on the rights of we the people is a lift.

It's not an infringement, however, to place additional restrictions or scrutiny, or curtail even the most basic freedoms, of a person in the service of the government acting in an official capacity.  There's a wide range of shit that a private citizen on their own time can do that a government employee on our time cannot.

Patrol officers carrying lethal weapons could be one of those things.  They stopped letting me bring a gun to work a long time ago. There's nothing unconstitutional (or even unconscionable) about a heavily armored patrol officer, rather than a heavily armed one.  A heavily armed patrol officer...with less than lethals, rather than a man with a pistol and a rifle.  Like so many other developed countries, we could even put in weapons teams, because america!

The vast majority of police officers do not need guns. They are a right of american citizens, but we do not have to allow police officers the blanket privilege of carrying them in their capacity as government agents on official business.

(September 17, 2020 at 1:48 pm)onlinebiker Wrote:

(September 17, 2020 at 1:19 pm)Brian37 Wrote: If one is going to rightfully say they want police safe, and all want that, how does it make sense that police are trained, even on a simple traffic stop to assume the motorist is armed? 

If one is going to RIGHTFULLY argue that police should not be armed or trained like the soldiers invading the beaches of Normandy, then why do we under fund them, and on top of that, train them to shoot first, which is what we do?

I am fucking sick of this attitude that more guns makes society safer. Fear certainly sells more firearms, to BOTH  society and police. What it does not do is reduce firearm violence.

If one is going to argue that the want both society safe and police safe, then to me, the issue is always weapons, on both sides.

That's because you drip piss down your leg everytime you see a firearm.


Your reaction is Pavlovian, not logical.

I agree with him in many aspect. Wanna sniff my crotch for pee smell?

(September 17, 2020 at 1:54 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:

(September 17, 2020 at 1:48 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: That's because you drip piss down your leg everytime you see a firearm.


Your reaction is Pavlovian, not logical.

I agree with him in many aspect. Wanna sniff my crotch for pee smell?

How can you agree with him when he doesn't even agree with himself?

He has said he doesn't want to restrict rights to owning firearms - but he "doesn't want guns handed out like candy." (I can't seem to find these giveaways. I have to pay real money.)

And despite YEARS of asking him for his plan to somehow remedy the situation - he comes up empty.

(September 17, 2020 at 1:50 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(September 17, 2020 at 1:19 pm)Brian37 Wrote: If one is going to rightfully say they want police safe, and all want that, how does it make sense that police are trained, even on a simple traffic stop to assume the motorist is armed? 

If one is going to RIGHTFULLY argue that police should not be armed or trained like the soldiers invading the beaches of Normandy, then why do we under fund them, and on top of that, train them to shoot first, which is what we do?

I am fucking sick of this attitude that more guns makes society safer. Fear certainly sells more firearms, to BOTH  society and police. What it does not do is reduce firearm violence.

If one is going to argue that the want both society safe and police safe, then to me, the issue is always weapons, on both sides.

Policing in the US is already a safe job.

No one us arguing that police should be trained and armed to carry out an amphibious assault on French beaches.

Police are not underfunded. They are improperly funded (meaning they get plenty of money, they’re just spending it wrong).

The issue isn’t weapons. 

Boru

 
Which is why we have the most firearm deaths, inside and outside police interaction among first world nations.

Yes the issue IS volume of weapons.