Well one tactic I wouldn't have is snipers pointing at unarmed and peaceful protesters during the day. Listen I get it as a cop in most cases you justify aggressive behavior because the mindset by the badge is you are entitled to obedience by citizens. When people are rioting at night and looting well action and agressive tactics are needed. But you can't honestly believe some of the behavior happening in Ferguson doesn't fall on the dim witted leadership Ferguson LE has shown.

 

I'm not denying the comments you posted of me but in context with several other posts I had it was consistent with my belief that if his back was turned with hands up cop should be arrested. But I never stated a definitive conclusion. Again context is needed and out of all the posters in this thread I have been one of the least extreme on either side. Lesson learned when you sit on the fence still expect to be attacked.

 

Shucking and jiving still :lol2:

 

They were your first posts dude, are you clueless? :lol2:

 

And you still aren't giving suggestions, just saying what you wouldn't do. And don't make assumptions about my mindset cause all you can do is complain. No matter what they do, you will find fault in it.

 

Since you don't like how it's being handled and they're "dimwits", what do you suggest General Patton?

Who would you suggest take guns from law abiding Americans? The police?

 

Both, it'll solve all the problems. Give the cops whistles and big hats. Problems solved

I read this as well and strays from the topic at hand.

 

Listen Habib there are many topics on this board I agree wire you on. But there are topics like this where the modern liberal such as yourself and the classic libertarian such as me differ. It confuses me deeply how modern liberals preach civil liberties and totally miss how the second ammendment along with the first define a truly free society.

 

I'm really just trying to have a discussion about it because, frankly, I am quite conflicted about it. I haven't proposed anything, but have just asked questions and I don't think they've been unfair. I would be more than happy to read any primary sources about the Second Amendment that I've missed.

 

But, you've raised the point I was wondering about when we started down this wormhole. You've said that the Second Amendment truly defines a free society. We've been inundated with arguments that the Second Amendment protects citizens from an oppressive government. I've been very critical of the national trend toward military-style policing in this country and think the mess in Ferguson has borne out my qualms. It seems that instead of the government fearing its citizens (as implied by the Second Amendment fights oppression argument), the government has simply scaled up its arms to overwhelm the threat. That's why I found the comparison to policing in the UK interesting.

Edited August 20, 201412 yr by Habib

I'm confused. What is your solution then?

 

Your argument is that the UK is less violent than the US because of guns, right?

 

I said I don't have a solution in my initial post on the topic. But, yes, I think fewer guns leads to less gun violence. Whether it's possible or desirable to achieve that is an entirely separate debate.

This is a violent America we live in guys. The whole world seems like it's lost it's mind. I'd love for this world to be like old days in Mayberry.

 

But today's criminals aren't Otis heading to his jail cell on his own, and Thus their are no Andy Griffins left patrolling with a stern lecture and no sidearm.

I said I don't have a solution in my initial post on the topic. But, yes, I think fewer guns leads to less gun violence. Whether it's possible or desirable to achieve that is an entirely separate debate.

 

Aren't there more gun laws in place in Chicago? I think they have tried to achieve a city with fewer guns...I don't think it worked.

Were there black people in Mayberry? I keep seeing Mayberry and my brain is saying there weren't any black people in Mayberry. :lol2:

@glorialloyd: Of all the people arrested by @stlcountypd in #Ferguson, 93% are not from Ferguson and 27% are not residents of Missouri.

@glorialloyd: Of all the people arrested by @stlcountypd in #Ferguson, 93% are not from Ferguson and 27% are not residents of Missouri.

You beat me to it. I was just about to post this stat. This is exactly what I expected was going on. Outsiders are inflicting heavy damage on Ferguson and the police's efforts to protect Ferguson are drawing most of the attention and blame.

So since new news has come out.

A man robs a store, attacks a cop, tries to take his gun, punches the cop, charges the cop. Where is the innocence in what the robber did?

 

If everything points to the truth in what the cop said will Eric Holder still allow him to be innocent.

Were there black people in Mayberry? I keep seeing Mayberry and my brain is saying there weren't any black people in Mayberry. :lol2:

 

You just made laugh PP! That's why I like you, you just laugh at all the taboo stuff like I do

Aren't there more gun laws in place in Chicago? I think they have tried to achieve a city with fewer guns...I don't think it worked.

 

But, there's nothing to stop someone from driving across the border to Indiana or anywhere else and buying all they want. I agree with the people who say that criminals aren't going to obey the gun laws, but it stands to reason that these guns they are getting were purchased legally at some point.

Shucking and jiving still :lol2:

 

They were your first posts dude, are you clueless? :lol2:

 

And you still aren't giving suggestions, just saying what you wouldn't do. And don't make assumptions about my mindset cause all you can do is complain. No matter what they do, you will find fault in it.

 

Since you don't like how it's being handled and they're "dimwits", what do you suggest General Patton?

 

You really are a simple mind that only understands how to attack people. I will be civil to obey rules here. I went out of my way not to make any posts personal before you called me out earlier. Out of all the posts in this thread you really found mine to be the most inflammatory to call out . It's pretty obvious this is tension built up from a topic that happen months ago and I would figure a grown man would be mature than that.

 

 

If you want specifics local police departments shouldn't be riding in military vehicles against civilians because it's direct violation of the constitution. If people are being violent and cause harm pursue with agression and sub due. But LE should be able to distinguish between violent and non-violent protesters. It shouldn't be handled in a manner of everyone is guilty until we prove them innocent.

 

Listen I feel I have a unique perspective regardless of what you think. I grew up in Covington which is most urban area of NKY . But I was lucky enough to move on get a good good education and career. That career has taken me to both Detroit and Cleveland. Two of the most racially diverse but struggling communities in the country. I have been able to reach a level a success but still interact in communities outside of small communities in a Kentucky. So I feel I understand through friends and family in these different communities the mindset of a lot of people. You can continue to stick your head in the sand and not take any constructive criticism but my comments don't come from a position of hatred but a position like any opinion I have and that is to see a better America. My opinion is becoming the majority in this country because a large % of this country is sharply turning libertarian. So you can continue to put up the shield and deny any fault in LE leadership or you can open up and at least be civil to the idea a majority of your peers disagree with you. Even if you don't agree it seems a reasonable person in your field of work would want to understand why the citizens are moving in that direction.

I'm really just trying to have a discussion about it because, frankly, I am quite conflicted about it. I haven't proposed anything, but have just asked questions and I don't think they've been unfair. I would be more than happy to read any primary sources about the Second Amendment that I've missed.

 

But, you've raised the point I was wondering about when we started down this wormhole. You've said that the Second Amendment truly defines a free society. We've been inundated with arguments that the Second Amendment protects citizens from an oppressive government. I've been very critical of the national trend toward military-style policing in this country and think the mess in Ferguson has borne out my qualms. It seems that instead of the government fearing its citizens (as implied by the Second Amendment fights oppression argument), the government has simply scaled up its arms to overwhelm the threat. That's why I found the comparison to policing in the UK interesting.

 

I share your fears on police looking like the military. That is why I fear restrictive laws on a citizens gun ownership even more. If any anything a law abiding citizen should be able to own any weapon a local LE can .

 

I truly believe the second along with the first ammendment as I stated truly defines a free society. For a man can not truly be free if he can't speak his mind and defend his self and property.

But, there's nothing to stop someone from driving across the border to Indiana or anywhere else and buying all they want. I agree with the people who say that criminals aren't going to obey the gun laws, but it stands to reason that these guns they are getting were purchased legally at some point.

 

So you agree that criminals won't obey gun laws. Do you then agree that gun laws only disarm the law abiding citizen?