Gun control is coming

Komak said:

The only word I have for this story is Bizzare Yeah, no US cop would've done that I bet, they are overcautious as hell when it comes to guns.

Click to expand...

Many vets and combat vets with military training are on police forces here. That's horribly bad training for civilian situations.

Offmymeds said:

Many vets and combat vets with military training are on police forces here. That's horribly bad training for civilian situations.

Click to expand...

That's a great point.
I'd suggest the duality of thought and hyper rationalization is more insidious than that and begins even earlier.

Kids are stuck in schools which are force funded (using guns or the threat of the use of guns for noncompliance with the force funding ) all the while the kids keep hearing about how they're being taught not to bully and to be scared of potential mass shootings.

Soldiers who invade foreign lands are told they're heroes and "thank you for your service" in some kind of bizarre truth bending that reinforces it's okay to use guns offensively if it has government blessing. That's fucked up.

Using guns or threatening to use guns against otherwise peaceful people who don't agree with your ideas, be it, "government schools" or which plants a person can or cannot grow etc. is all fruit from the same poisonous orchard.

Guns used against otherwise peaceful people aren't the fault of the guns though, they are inert. It's caused by people believing in two opposing concepts at once and the normalization of that lie.

Rob Roy said:

So you're not only aligning with racists on gun control, now you're saying if the government says it's not a right it isn't a right?

I wonder how those poor slaves who were held in legal captivity feel about your claim? "Sorry buddy, you don't have the right to run away and I own you, bdecause the government says so".

A slave ALWAYS has the right to defend himself, own himself and run away and / or kill anyone trying to re-enslave them.

YOU always had and will always have the right to grow, consume and roll around naked in marijuana if you want to.
The fact some thugs using guns and legislative offensive force tried to steal that right from you, doesn't mean you don't have that right. It's like if you owned something and I took it from you, you are prevented from using the thing, but it's still your thing.

I didn't think you would attempt to address my premise. Not surprised.

Click to expand...

Yes, I'm saying that if a right can be contravened by a particular government then it is not an operable right. If one cannot exercise a right then one does not have it. You can theoretically claim any right you wish but it is only in the nexus of action that any right truly exists.

.even our constitution only names one right as inalienable and that right is meaningless in a government free atmosphere. This high language of God given rights and inalienability is nothing but high minded rhetoric.

Stating the truth does not make me racist, it does not make me unpatriotic or foolish.

Do you have a right to property? Inalienable is it? Pick a homestead where a freeway is planned and see. Right to life? Pick a lonely road and be black and test that right.

No, rights are what rulers say they are, currently, the majority of your countrymen state what your rights are. Consider your own example. Slaves had no rights to freedom until they were granted such by those who rule.

Got a right to an abortion? That depends...doesn't it.


The only inalienable right YOU have in this country is the right to due process. And that is by issue and order of the government which takes its orders from the governed. (So far).

Now I give you the "right" to Full and responsive answers to your questions of me.


Pose them as such and you will get direct and non evasive answers.

Of course I expect the same of you.

Offmymeds said:

Many vets and combat vets with military training are on police forces here. That's horribly bad training for civilian situations.

Click to expand...

I spoke to an ex military police trainer about that and he gave an interesting answer.

He said that those who can keep their heads in life threatening situations may well be better suited for law enforcement. That those who have had bullets launched at them may be more understanding.

I am not certain. Is it not also important that police have calming, negotiating skills as well?

canndo said:

I spoke to an ex military police trainer about that and he gave an interesting answer.

He said that those who can keep their heads in life threatening situations may well be better suited for law enforcement. That those who have had bullets launched at them may be more understanding.

I am not certain. Is it not also important that police have calming, negotiating skills as well?

Click to expand...

That should be a primary objective in the training.

canndo said:

I spoke to an ex military police trainer about that and he gave an interesting answer.

He said that those who can keep their heads in life threatening situations may well be better suited for law enforcement. That those who have had bullets launched at them may be more understanding.

I am not certain. Is it not also important that police have calming, negotiating skills as well?

Click to expand...

The trainer might be right but how are they separated? Vets are trained to be aggressive and trained to use tactics not allowed on a police force but they do it anyway. They think of civilians as enemies, especially when they don't live in the areas they patrol. The recruitment process is terrible in places as well. Some local police force ads look like Army adventure ads with big weapons and tactical gear as enticements. They will get the wrong people.

Offmymeds said:

The trainer might be right but how are they separated? Vets are trained to be aggressive and trained to use tactics not allowed on a police force but they do it anyway. They think of civilians as enemies, especially when they don't live in the areas they patrol. The recruitment process is terrible in places as well. Some local police force ads look like Army adventure ads with big weapons and tactical gear as enticements. They will get the wrong people.

Click to expand...

But I thought the Armed forces trained it’s members to interact and become friends with the invaded population???? Oh right, they were invaded .

canndo said:

If one cannot exercise a right then one does not have it.

Click to expand...

People have no right of self defense unless other people give it to them? That's absurd. "Excuse me Mr. Ruler person, but it appears you are beating me near death, would it be possible for you to grant me the right to see if I can get you to stop? No? Oh well, it didn't hurt to ask, please carry on and beat me to death, sir !"

You appear to be using "shop lifter logic" to try to make your point. As I've mentioned before, a person can still have a right to do X, which even if they're forcibly prevented from exercising, doesn't mean the right ceases to exist. Much like you would still own something if I put it in my pocket and tried to hide it from you. It's STILL your thing isn't it ?

canndo said:

Slaves had no rights to freedom until they were granted such by those who rule.

Click to expand...

That's not even average trolling. Slaves have the right to use a gun, a rock, a club, etc. to gain and defend their freedom, because every person does.

canndo said:

No, rights are what rulers say they are,

Click to expand...

If one does not have a right to do x in the first place , then one cannot delegate that nonexistent right to any person(s) claiming to be government.


Nothing from nothing leaves nothing !

Offmymeds said:

The trainer might be right but how are they separated? Vets are trained to be aggressive and trained to use tactics not allowed on a police force but they do it anyway. They think of civilians as enemies, especially when they don't live in the areas they patrol. The recruitment process is terrible in places as well. Some local police force ads look like Army adventure ads with big weapons and tactical gear as enticements. They will get the wrong people.

Click to expand...

If there is "gun control" on a wide scale those will be the only people left to legally be armed. Let that sink in.

canndo said:

I am not certain. Is it not also important that police have calming, negotiating skills as well?

Click to expand...

The most important thing which is almost never considered, is the law being enforced a malum prohibitum type law or is it a law designed to protect a real person from becoming an actual victim?

Many laws when enforced invert justice to where the enforcement of the law creates the victim, rather than protects anyone. This is a weed forum, do I need to draw you a map the rest of the way to my point ?

Budley Doright said:

But I thought the Armed forces trained it’s members to interact and become friends with the invaded population???? Oh right, they were invaded .

Click to expand...

Yes, difficult to win their hearts and minds while they're planting IEDs to kill you.

canndo said:

I spoke to an ex military police trainer about that and he gave an interesting answer.

He said that those who can keep their heads in life threatening situations may well be better suited for law enforcement. That those who have had bullets launched at them may be more understanding.

I am not certain. Is it not also important that police have calming, negotiating skills as well?

Click to expand...

Agreed, calm and clear thinking, like knowing how to de-escalate a situation makes sense if you want an actual Peace Officer.

Another thing is, war features a lie that some murders can be euphemized away if they just call it collateral damage. I don't think having people who may have "collateral damaged"people or even just roughed up innocent civilians in a land that the USA has invaded is good training for a Peace Officer. I admit that I have a bias against cops in the present, the entire policing system is based in the idea of law enforcement rather than protecting individual rights and trying to facilitate actual justice. That will never work for the benefit of peace, only for subjugation and "do as I say", even when the law itself is the crime.

Rob Roy said:

People have no right of self defense unless other people give it to them? That's absurd. "Excuse me Mr. Ruler person, but it appears you are beating me near death, would it be possible for you to grant me the right to see if I can get you to stop? No? Oh well, it didn't hurt to ask, please carry on and beat me to death, sir !"

You appear to be using "shop lifter logic" to try to make your point. As I've mentioned before, a person can still have a right to do X, which even if they're forcibly prevented from exercising, doesn't mean the right ceases to exist. Much like you would still own something if I put it in my pocket and tried to hide it from you. It's STILL your thing isn't it ?






That's not even average trolling. Slaves have the right to use a gun, a rock, a club, etc. to gain and defend their freedom, because every person does.




If one does not have a right to do x in the first place , then one cannot delegate that nonexistent right to any person(s) claiming to be government.


Nothing from nothing leaves nothing !

Click to expand...

You confuse ability with "right". A "right" implies that there will be no legal ramifications as a result of one's excercing that right.

You seem to be missing that part of the concept here.
My being "able" to speak my mind in a public place in Iran is not a "right" if I am subject to arrest and punishment for having done so.

Rob Roy said:

Agreed, calm and clear thinking, like knowing how to de-escalate a situation makes sense if you want an actual Peace Officer.

Another thing is, war features a lie that some murders can be euphemized away if they just call it collateral damage. I don't think having people who may have "collateral damaged"people or even just roughed up innocent civilians in a land that the USA has invaded is good training for a Peace Officer. I admit that I have a bias against cops in the present, the entire policing system is based in the idea of law enforcement rather than protecting individual rights and trying to facilitate actual justice. That will never work for the benefit of peace, only for subjugation and "do as I say", even when the law itself is the crime.

View attachment 5240210

Click to expand...

We share that dislike and distrust of American police officers. I can successfully argue that ALL cops are inherently bad, that the "a few bad apples" refrain is proveably incorrect.

By the way, should I miss your direct questions it is not that I am avoiding them but missing them. I am unequiped to parse and respond to your posts point by point. Feel free to post questions on an individual basis.

Offmymeds said:

The trainer might be right but how are they separated? Vets are trained to be aggressive and trained to use tactics not allowed on a police force but they do it anyway. They think of civilians as enemies, especially when they don't live in the areas they patrol. The recruitment process is terrible in places as well. Some local police force ads look like Army adventure ads with big weapons and tactical gear as enticements. They will get the wrong people.

Click to expand...

We agree. Seeing "troops" wearing masks, bullet proof vests, arm on shoulder "stacking" maneuvers as they exit armored vehicles in order to serve a liquor license violation is a picture of armed occupation, not a civil enforcement proceeding.

Not only do the police see civilians as "the enemy" but they see our court system as an unnecessary and inhibitory drag upon their presumption of power.

"If you would all just OBEY us unquestioning and accept that we know what is best for all involved then we shouldn't need those meddlesome courts and there would be safety and order for all law abiding citizens".

Any review of scotus cases involving drug arrests makes this evident.

canndo said:

You confuse ability with "right". A "right" implies that there will be no legal ramifications as a result of one's excercing that right.

You seem to be missing that part of the concept here.
My being "able" to speak my mind in a public place in Iran is not a "right" if I am subject to arrest and punishment for having done s

Click to expand...

Your definition of "right" is wrong. What you are describing is the restriction of a right by a tyrannical government.

If you're saying rights can only come from government and you and I and a friend of mine get shipwrecked on an island, we could form a government, out vote you 2 to 1 and declare you were our slave.

You would of course accept that as legitimate, since rights don't exist until they come from government according to you.

Rob Roy said:

Your definition of "right" is wrong. What you are describing is the restriction of a right by a tyrannical government.

If you're saying rights can only come from government and you and I and a friend of mine get shipwrecked on an island, we could form a government, out vote you 2 to 1 and declare you were our slave.

You would of course accept that as legitimate, since rights don't exist until they come from government according to you.

Click to expand...

My belief is in the pragmatic. If one exerts his supposed "right" and lands in prison without recourse, he was without that right to begin with.

Americans romanticise their "rights" expanding and contracting their claim to them as expedient.

Have gays always had the "right" to marry?

Hospitals would say otherwise.

Who designates a "right"? The individual? If I firmly believe I have a right to enter your home, have I that right?

canndo said:

We share that dislike and distrust of American police officers. I can successfully argue that ALL cops are inherently bad, that the "a few bad apples" refrain is proveably incorrect.

By the way, should I miss your direct questions it is not that I am avoiding them but missing them. I am unequiped to parse and respond to your posts point by point. Feel free to post questions on an individual basis.

Click to expand...

Until something is declared legal, say breathing air, is it a persons right to do so, or should they hold their breath until given the okay from government ?

If government passed a law saying "no breathing air on tuesdays" nobody would have the right to breathe air on tuesdays ?

canndo said:

My belief is in the pragmatic. If one exerts his supposed "right" and lands in prison without recourse, he was without that right to begin with.

Americans romanticise their "rights" expanding and contracting their claim to them as expedient.

Have gays always had the "right" to marry?

Hospitals would say otherwise.

Who designates a "right"? The individual? If I firmly believe I have a right to enter your home, have I that right?

Click to expand...

Yes gays have always had the right, same as any other person to chose their human associations.

I should qualify that though...
Getting legally married isn't the expression of a right though, it's an expression of the equality of oppression for having to get permission via a marriage license from government.

Equality of oppression is a sly subterfuge when it's redefined as being a right. Rights don't come from government, never have, never will. The closest government could ever get to a right, is protecting it, which in many government situations isn't what happens.

Seeking permission to act, is not an expression of a right, it is asking permission.

We need it tbh, our gun laws are as nuts as me, who is mentally ill enough that the VA gives me %100 disability p&t, ue (permanent and total, unemployable) but I can walk into a gun shop and walk out with a weapon and ammo in under an hour.