THE Gun Thread

[The Grand Nudger]

Not to them, to us, lol. They're armed and armored interacting with unarmed unarmored people all day every day. They haven't been soaking up military gear to defend themselves.

[onlinebiker]

Of course there is. There's refusing an order that you don't think is likely to kill you, but pretending you think it's likely to kill you to justify the refusal. I'd have been court-martialed if I had refused an order on the grounds that I thought carrying it out would be too dangerous for my liking.

There is no disconnect between the two.


It's your right to refuse the order because you think it's a one way mission. It' s the service' s right to bust your ass - if they can prove it wasn' t that dangerous.

[The Architect Of Fate]

A firefighter not going into a collapsing building is totally different from 60 cops standing around for 70 minutes doing virtually nothing while children were being slaughtered by one freaking guy.

[The Grand Nudger]

There is no disconnect between the two.


It's your right to refuse the order because you think it's a one way mission. It' s the service' s right to bust your ass - if they can prove it wasn' t that dangerous.

That's not how any of that works.  If you can get your ass busted for a thing then you..in fact...have no right to do it. 

You seem big on government incompetence.  Tell me this, how is it that we just had the same argument over a cop "feeling threatened" by a suspect, perp, or bystander - and ended up with the worst possible outcome.  That actually being under threat was irrelevant.   Merely "feeling" threatened was enough to trigger legal protections?  Now we have another ruling with identical applications...but this..to you...seems what?  Rational?  Prudent?  Right?

You appear to be incredibly selective and highly thematic in what you reject as government nonsense. Do you believe that you have a right to own a firearm if the government can bust your ass for owning a firearm at it's discretion?

[Thumpalumpacus]

It's your right to refuse the order because you think it's a one way mission. It' s the service' s right to bust your ass - if they can prove it wasn' t that dangerous.

They don't have to prove it wasn't a dangerous mission. All they have to prove is that 1) the order was legal and binding and 2) that you refused it.

[The Grand Nudger]

The only recourse a soldier has when he's received a legal order, no matter how dangerous, is the unofficial right to fail. Not a legal right, mind, but a literal law of reality - which they will also be reprimanded for in aar at a minimum, assuming they aren't cm'd or rearguarded out.

Maybe he trips and falls, sprains his ankle while he's loading the apc. Or maybe he moves too cautiously to get to the ao at the right time. Maybe it saves his life, but it definitely hurts his career. As Thump mentioned before, though, cops aren't soldiers. They have shittier training, less restrictive roe, more legal freedom and far greater legal protections.....in addition to much better pay.

They exist to keep the home mob under control. That's it. That's all. Nothing more. There was never anything more to it. Could be, could have been..just wasn't..and isn't. Our cops as they are don't exist to keep criminals or crime under contriol. That would be dangerous. They're here to keep the guy working the counter at starbucks under control. To levy fines against him under threat of imprisonment in a stunning display of the disparity of authorized lethal power between the state and the citizen. We turn these guys into tanks then hand them semi autos....so they can collar the fry cook at arbys. That's what they do for a living...and that, is how dangerous what they do for a living actually is.

[Fake Messiah]

This man's name was John Hurley.



A year ago, John was shopping in Arvada, Colorado, when someone started shooting. So Johnny went to the direction of the gunfire and shot the shooter.

Then the Arvada Police killed him.

For days, the city of Arvada tried to make it sound like Johnny had been killed by the shooter, but after multiple FOIA requests and investigations, they finally owned up to the fact that their officers killed him.

Months later, the government announced that no one would be held accountable for Johnny's killing, despite the fact that Johnny's killer never even attempted to positively ID him as the shooter, or even tell him to put his gun down before killing him.

https://denver.cbslocal.com/2021/11/08/n...-attorney/

Worse yet, the shooter apparently hated police and was attempting to kill as many as possible. Johnny saved the lives of Arvada Police officers, they killed him for it, and government protected his killers.

So good luck in being a good guy with a gun.

[Rev. Rye]

There is no disconnect between the two.


It's your right to refuse the order because you think it's a one way mission. It' s the service' s right to bust your ass - if they can prove it wasn' t that dangerous.

That's not how any of that works.  If you can get your ass busted for a thing then you..in fact...have no right to do it. 

You seem big on government incompetence.  Tell me this, how is it that we just had the same argument over a cop "feeling threatened" by a suspect, perp, or bystander - and ended up with the worst possible outcome.  That actually being under threat was irrelevant.   Merely "feeling" threatened was enough to trigger legal protections?  Now we have another ruling with identical applications...but this..to you...seems what?  Rational?  Prudent?  Right?

You appear to be incredibly selective and highly thematic in what you reject as government nonsense.  Do you believe that you have a right to own a firearm if the government can bust your ass for owning a firearm at it's discretion?

I think that his belief in rights is dictated by whether or not he thinks arguing a certain way will help him win an argument. 





And no, I don’t think Biker’s alt-right, the video just manages to perfectly summarize Biker’s argumentative style. Either that or he’s a particularly sociopathic libertarian with some bizarre views. Like this:

Do people have the right, while burning that motherfucker down, to endanger the people inside the house?

Boru

Quit being obtuse.


If it is your house it' s your rules. If you want to inhale poison.- have at it.

If you have kids and you want them to suck poison then sadly that is your right too.......

Your country is majority xtian... Should public opinion rule - and your kid be given a xtian education - because clearly your atheism is fucking them up????


Having freedom frequently means allowing people to do things you see as immoral or just distasteful....

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Boru

[The Architect Of Fate]

Shocker turns out the Uvalde were lying when they said they didn't have the equipment to take on the shooter and thus the excuse they were at serious risk goes out the window .....

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/20/...e-records/

Oh and to the nitters who say this proves you need to be armed i remind you it wasn't the "good guy with a gun " who took out the shooter...