No.6289[Last 50 Posts]
File: 1597379395724.jpg (45.41 KB, 600x438, 100:73, kamala-harris-170.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
"All cops are bastards"Biden: *Picks a cop to be his running mate*
Interesting choice. And yeah, Kamala Harris is actually a former prosecutor, not a cop, but it's close enough. And she did
have responsibility for bringing charges against cops who broke the law. Query: During her tenure as prosecutor, how many cops within her jurisdiction engaged in unlawful violence, and of those, how many did she indict?https://reason.com/2019/06/03/kamala-harris-is-a-cop-who-wants-to-be-president/
I'd personally say a prosecutor is worse, especially with her track record.
Seems like an absolutely terrible choice that basically guarantees Trump for 2020.
The Democratic political candidates have never been anti-cop. Also, being a cop is far different from a prosecutor. Not noting the difference fails to really consider what the issues against police actually are. >>6290
There's been a big push for Biden to pick a person of color as his running mate, which he did. Most people I've seen have been celebratory over the decision. I don't see how this improves Trump's chances in any way. People of color are already massively against Trump and this isn't going to change that. The only thing that will change is suburban white votes, which already lean toward Biden too.
Most people i've seen have considered it a total and complete disaster, basically dooming the entire thing.
Seems a bit sad that her only benefit is being a PoC.>>6292
Nobody cared about her because she had no chance before.
Problem is, she's a corrupt prosecutor who seemingly had absolutely no issue whatsoever keeping innocent people behind bars.
She's basically every problem groups like BLM had with the system personified.
It's all common mud-slinging. Trump's even busting out his old birther bullshit for this one. >>6293
And who have you "been seeing"? Are any of them Democrats or are they all people with a vested interest in seeing her fail?
Very much democrats. It's mostly been tweets and retweets by furry artists who pretty much post 90% BLM and such things outside of their art.
The people who want to see her fail are just laughing their heads off, as I've seen.
File: 1597457856319.png (17.74 KB, 625x295, 125:59, tulsi-saudi-bitch.png) ImgOps Google
>>6291>There's been a big push for Biden to pick a person of color as his running mate, which he did.
He should have picked Tulsi Gabbard instead.
Tulsi might've convinced some of the people who voted Trump initially to switch over.
Really don't think he's going to somehow change the people who voted for Trump last time with Kamala.
File: 1597458316583.png (112.05 KB, 350x386, 175:193, sunset-shimmer-849855.png) ImgOps Google
>>6297>Tulsi might've convinced some of the people who voted Trump initially to switch over.
Indeed, it certainly would have done a lot to make me vote for Biden. Especially for someone as close to death as Biden, the VP pick is very important. Now I'm pretty sure I'm going to vote for either Trump or Jo Jorgensen.
I didn't realize she wasn't white, considering all the times she's been on Fox News.>>6295
That... doesn't mean they are Democrats. Are you saying that only Democrats can think that black lives matter? >>6298>>6297
Nobody is really on the fence about this anymore. Anyone who still supports Trump is going to support him even if he put on a Klanhood in public. Most of them would enjoy that.
Ah, sorry, the way you framed it in >>6294
it gave the distinct impression you meant to suggest the only two options were 'democrat' or 'people who have an interest in seeing her fail', and since these people don't fit the 2nd, it was presumed your standard for "democrat" was "someone on the left who would typically vote democrat", at bear minimum.>Are you saying that only Democrats can think that black lives matter?
Everyone bar some actual racists thinks black lives matter.
This is different than supporting Black Lives Matter.>Nobody is really on the fence about this anymore
I'd very much disagree. I've run in to quite a few people who hate Trump, but think the democrats are completely insane at this point. There's quite a few people I've seen basically on the 'fence', I'd say. Especially with Biden being the pick, and definitely now that he's chosen a corrupt prosecutor as his 2nd.> Anyone who still supports Trump is going to support him even if he put on a Klanhood in public. Most of them would enjoy that.
Well that's just complete and total nonsense.
You have a hyperactive imagination that does not reflect reality.
File: 1597508953037.jpg (21.04 KB, 236x374, 118:187, 3640b33c439ab738c605ef8828….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>6299>Nobody is really on the fence about this anymore.
I just told you that I am on the fence between Trump or Jo Jorgensen. Hell, if Joe Biden comes around on gun control, I'd vote for him.
I do not like Trump. I think he is an awful person and an incompetent president. I would vote for him only because his opponent seeks to take away my rights. Just look at https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/
. Biden wants to enact all sorts of infringing laws, including banning many standard-capacity magazines, which the Ninth Circuit just ruled was unconstitutional (https://reason.com/2020/08/14/ninth-circuit-ban-on-magazines-with-10-rounds-violates-second-amendment/
>>6300>Everyone bar some actual racists thinks black lives matter. This is different than supporting Black Lives Matter.
It's really not. That's the point. If you think it does, you are playing into the hands of people who don't think black lives matter. Also, why did you say "some" racists? Pretty sure it's all racists.>I've run in to quite a few people who hate Trump
Many of his own staff hate him. But there's a big difference between hating Trump as a person and disagreeing with his stances and what he's trying to do while in office. My point is that however one might feel about Trump the person, most people have made up their mind on whether to support his presidential campaign or not because of whether or not they agree with his stances and political goals. >You have a hyperactive imagination that does not reflect reality.
That doesn't really counter what I said and is very much against the rules of this board. Clearly what I said was meant to be hyperbolic. I do not think Trump would put in a KKK hood in public. The people around him are much too savvy about hiding their racism to allow that to happen. What I'm saying is that Trump's supporters have agreed with (or publically denied) his racism up to this point, so anything short of a hyperbolic ridiculous act of open racism would not cause them to change their minds. >>6301
If you're still "on the fence" about Trump you are either ignorant of his racism and corruption, or you agree with it. There is no other option.
Guns do not matter more than people's lives. Anyone who would see what he is doing to others, to democracy and to the office itself and choose to protect their hobby over all that, is a BAD person and no amount of pleading to their better nature will change that. I sincerly hope this is not you, I will not assume this is you. But what you are saying is what that bad person would say.
>>6298>Especially for someone as close to death as Biden, the VP pick is very important.
I've never seen a presidential candidate before where the expectation is that he's going to croak as soon as he takes office. Not to this extent. Interesting election year.>>6302>Also, why did you say "some" racists? Pretty sure it's all racists.
You could consider your race superior without also believing that other races don't deserve to exist. There's plenty of levels of racism that aren't genocidal.
>>6302>It's really not. That's the point.
It really is. That's the problem.
There's this rather backwards idea people have that you have to support a movement that seems to have no problems whatsoever violating the rights of innocent people who have not harmed them, in order to believe black lives matter.
It's not the case.>If you think it does, you are playing into the hands of people who don't think black lives matter.
Ah, the classic "you're either with us or against us"... It's never correct. It's just a cheap way to try to force people onto your side who would have objections to what you do.
No; I do not agree that it's "playing into the hands of people who don't think black lives matter" to say supporting a movement that seems to have no issues committing acts of violence is a bad idea.> Also, why did you say "some" racists? Pretty sure it's all racists.
Because I do not believe there's a lot of them.>My point is that however one might feel about Trump the person, most people have made up their mind on whether to support his presidential campaign or not because of whether or not they agree with his stances and political goals.
I'd very much disagree. Biden's goals and stances weren't set in stone until he picked his VP, and so there's no real reason to think anyone would have 'made up their minds' before that selection.
Besides; I don't think stances and positions are entirely known, to begin with. Many people listen to the debates and campaign speeches for exactly this reason. To find out the politics of the candidates.>That doesn't really counter what I said
What you said is 100% nonsense. Yes, people absolutely would care if Trump suddenly said he's joining the KKK and put on a hood.
I might as well say "You'd vote Biden even if he fingered children on live television".
It's equally a stupid, dishonest comment to make, that only serves to try to suggest your opposition is morally deficient.
It's a dick move.>Clearly what I said was meant to be hyperbolic.
Then why did you, just moments before this line, act as though it's something that requires a counter? As though it's something that make a point?
Hyperbole isn't accurate. So obviously it wouldn't require any 'counter' beyond pointing out that it is an absurd dishonest tactic.>What I'm saying is that Trump's supporters have agreed with (or publically denied) his racism up to this point, so anything short of a hyperbolic ridiculous act of open racism would not cause them to change their minds.
Most I've seen is people saying what you assume is "racist", isn't.
Probably because most the time it's not based on anything actually real.
I mean, it's not like he said "If you don't vote for me, you aren't black", right?
This is also true, actually, yeah.
For example, assuming minorities are incapable of achievement without handouts solely given based on race.
This would be very racist, but obviously not genocidal or otherwise thinking minority lives don't matter. >>6302> Anyone who would see what he is doing to others, to democracy and to the office itself and choose to protect their hobby over all that, is a BAD person and no amount of pleading to their better nature will change that.
That would require them to actually believe your
interpretation of events.
I certainly don't.
File: 1597514120566.jpg (787.75 KB, 1536x2048, 3:4, 1511926056173.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>6302>If you're still "on the fence" about Trump you are either ignorant of his racism and corruption, or you agree with it. There is no other option.
I disagree. There is another option. I oppose Trump's race-baiting and his corruption, but I oppose Biden's proposed shredding of the Bill of Rights even more.>Guns do not matter more than people's lives.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." The founders of this country risked their lives to secure our freedom and liberty. I am not prepared to sacrifice our Constitutional rights in exchange for a small reduction in violent crime. Give me liberty or give me death!>Anyone who would see what he is doing to others, to democracy and to the office itself...
Then why did the Democrats nominate such an anti-gun candidate? If they really cared about removing Trump from office, they should have nominated someone who would be palatable to supporters of the Second Amendment.
There's not even a guarantee of a supposed reduction in violent crime, anyway.
That's just the assumption people have. Usually based on dishonest information fed to them which considers only the tool used, as opposed to deaths in their entirety.
Gun murders are no worse than regular murders, after all. You're just as dead either way.
Incidentally, guns is one of the big reasons I don't like Trump. He's shaky on the preservation of that right. Biden'd be worse, undoubtedly, but it's one of the big reasons why I wouldn't consider myself 100% on board no matter who else comes along.
Though I do admit I have misgivings about voting 3rd party, due to feeling like it's a wasted vote.
If you are denying the issues that BLM and other protesters are protesting, then you are dismissing the very things causing black lives to have diminished value. That shouldn't be hard to understand.
There are mountains of evidence to show that police are killing black people are disproportionate rates, but all I've ever seen you do is deny this and make excuses for it. Those aren't the actions of someone who cares about these lives being lost. Who thinks that black lives have the same value as other people's. It speaks of someone with an agenda, or a vested reason to deny this is happening. >Because I do not believe there's a lot of them.
It's easy to believe there's not a lot of racists if you keep moving the goal-post of what racism even IS. You don't think Trump is a racist, despite... literally all of this (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/09/the-end-of-denial/614194/
)>Most I've seen is people saying what you assume is "racist", isn't.
Pfft, you just did what I described! I knew you would!>>6306>That would require them to actually believe your interpretation of events. I certainly don't.
Literally pointing out what Trump says and does are "my interpretation"? Or are you saying my "interpetation" or what is and isn't racist? Because you aren't the arbitor of what is and is not racism. Sure you can make excuses for why (picks one at random from Wikipedia) refusing to rent to black people somehow ISN'T racist... but you'd look either like a buffoon, or like someone trying to excuse racism.
racist back in the 1970s, when being racist was profitable. Nowadays, being racist isn't so profitable. So I'm not sure whether Trump still is
>>6307>but I oppose Biden's proposed shredding of the Bill of Rights even more.
This is a made up thing with no chance of happening. It's all fear-mongering for people who value guns over people.>The founders of this country risked their lives to secure our freedom and liberty.
While owning slaves. They weren't infallible. But that doesn't even matter because those rights are not in danger
. Your right to your hobby to own killing tools IS NOT in danger at all. And those who would want you to vote against your own self-interest and the morals you claim to hold are the ones who have convinced you that they are. >Then why did the Democrats nominate such an anti-gun candidate?
1) His supposed "anti-gun" stance is being blown out of proportion by his opponents and 2) Many Democratic voters have been wanting gun control legislation.
The right sees any kind of regulation on guns, no matter how small, to be a threat to the second amendment. The fact that your'e even going on about this, and are undecided in voting for someone who you think is a "race-baiter" (not even sure what this term means. He's a racist.) and a corrupt politician shows that they are successful in manipulating your fear of losing your killing-tool hobby even when there is literally no danger to it. If you're not a bad person, then you are naive and being manipulated.
>>6311>If you are denying the issues that BLM and other protesters are protesting, then you are dismissing the very things causing black lives to have diminished value. That shouldn't be hard to understand.
I think he is denying some, but not all,
of the issues. Particularly since BLM as an organization supports Marxism and other things unrelated to racism.
I do not have to deny the issue to oppose the movement.
Communists have plenty of points in regards to flaws within capitalism. I'd hardly say an ideology that killed millions is something you ought to support, however.
This shouldn't be hard to understand.>There are mountains of evidence to show that police are killing black people are disproportionate rates, but all I've ever seen you do is deny this and make excuses for it.
This being an anonymous board, I have no idea "who" you think I even am, let alone where you think I've said any such thing.
There are major issues with police overuse of force. While I personally am not convinced it's specifically racially motivated, it doesn't really matter, because the solution'd be the same either way; Police accountability. >Those aren't the actions of someone who cares about these lives being lost. Who thinks that black lives have the same value as other people's. It speaks of someone with an agenda, or a vested reason to deny this is happening.
And I could relay the same to you.
The immediate insistence that you must support a movement, regardless of its actions, demonstrates you do not care about black lives or justice. You are out for your own ideological ends. You have an agenda and a vested reason to insist people must either support BLM, or be racist.>It's easy to believe there's not a lot of racists if you keep moving the goal-post of what racism even IS.
I do not believe I ever have. My standard for racism is simple; Prejudice based on race.>You don't think Trump is a racist, despite... literally all of this
Opinion pieces are not evidence. Moreover, nationality is not race.>Pfft, you just did what I described! I knew you would!
Yes, I applied a standard for what is and is not racism based on the actual definition, as opposed to my political leanings.
How horrible of me.>>6313
So long as you understand the reason I said he had a hyperactive imagination is that he had claimed those who would vote for Trump like myself wouldn't care if he literally joined the KKK.
It should be rather obvious, but, I'm going to take offense at someone sitting around insinuating I'm racist, and call them out for it.
>>6314>This is a made up thing
It's not made up! Biden's own campaign page (which I linked to in >>6301
) describes multiple infringements that he wants to enact! >with no chance of happening
I am more worried. Especially if the Republicans lose their Senate majority, some of Biden's proposals could be enacted.
>>6314>This is a made up thing with no chance of happening. It's all fear-mongering for people who value guns over people.
The same could be said for your assumptions of Trump.
This said, here's the man's site. I do not assume Biden would lie about his positions on his own site. Or, at least, I'd certainly hope not.https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/#>Your right to your hobby to own killing tools IS NOT in danger at all.
. Not so, based on the information Biden puts out on his stance for the matter.
Nor for that matter, Harris's positions.>1) His supposed "anti-gun" stance is being blown out of proportion by his opponents
Easy to say when you do not care about the right to keep and bear arms.
I would certainly disagree with you. Hell, I think Trump's stance on guns is untenable.
Oh man, we got some time-traveling McCarthyists over here... We don't want the black commies to beat us to the moon!
Do you even know what you're afraid of anymore? >>6316>This being an anonymous board, I have no idea "who" you think I even am
You're the one who consistently defends Trump, denies his racism, paints BLM as violent "communists", and makes excuses for police brutality. Even if this is an anonymous board, we only have less than 100 consistent posters on the entire website. It's not hard to find patterns. >Opinion pieces are not evidence.
That's why I also gave a Wikipedia article with it's own sources. Also, Opinion pieces can also contain facts and give sources for those facts. This is common, actually. "Here are the facts that lead me to my opinion." You are just looking for an excuse to dismiss it.
True. But, still.>>6321
Way to completely miss the point of what I said for cheap character attacks.
I said Communists had some points
. As in, Communists are right
about some things.
My point was that even though Communists are right about some things, that doesn't excuse what they do
I am not going to support a movement I find morally reprehensible because they have some good points. Actions always speak louder than words.>You're the one who consistently defends Trump, denies his racism, paints BLM as violent "communists", and makes excuses for police brutality.
I do not think I "constantly" defend Trump, considering I've got quite a lot I hate that he's done. Especially as it pertains to red flag laws.
I don't deny any actual
racism, just the dishonest mischaracterizations people make.
I wouldn't really call BLM "communist", even if their founders were 'trained marxists'. They are definitely violent, though.
I definitely do not make excuses for police brutality. I'm someone who very much believes we need police reform. Accountability is vital.
I think you've seen a few of my posts, combined them with a few others from other people, and fabricated a boogeyman in your head.>That's why I also gave a Wikipedia article with it's own sources.
Wikipedia, likewise, is not evidence. > Also, Opinion pieces can also contain facts and give sources for those facts. This is common, actually. "Here are the facts that lead me to my opinion."
Then you know what would make a better source?
Linking the actual facts
rather than someone's interpretation of them.
You make it rather clear you don't when you're willing to say Biden isn't a threat to your rights while his website quite clearly says that he not only supports, but actively wants to encourage red flag laws.
But, hey, keep piling on the character attacks.
I'm sure eventually your ad hominems will land alright.
File: 1597516474699.jpg (88.39 KB, 800x504, 100:63, 1504491852575.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>6317>If you know that Trump was racist at one time, and you still see Trump being called out for racism to this day by others, why deny or excuse those claims?
Money was Trump's main motivation to be racist back in the 1970s. Renting to black people reduced the value of his real estate, because there were a lot of racist white people who didn't want to live next to blacks. Nowadays this isn't really the case nearly as much.
>>6322>I don't see anything that could be described as an "infringement". Could you please share a few you are interpreting that way?
- A ban on many standard-capacity magazines (which can hold more than 10 rounds). CA's ban was just ruled to be a unconstitutional infringement (see >>6301
- Banning """assault weapons""" (a derogatory term for AR-15-style guns)
- "Put America on the path to ensuring that 100% of firearms sold in America are smart guns." (There is a reason why I use a mechanical lock instead of an electronic lock on my pistol lockbox. The same applies with even more force to the guns themselves.)
- "Require gun owners to safely store their weapons." This might or might not be an infringement, depending on the details.
- "Require firearms owners to report if their weapon is lost or stolen." Failing to do so shouldn't be a crime
- "legislation requiring that purchasers of ... 3D printing code pass a federal background check." This violates the First Amendment. Code is speech.
File: 1597517350207.jpg (34.89 KB, 431x447, 431:447, 1466250000785.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>6324>Wikipedia, likewise, is not evidence.
I've found Wikipedia to usually be pretty good. Plus, you can check the sources listed at the end of the article.
If they're requiring storage, it won't be able to be used in a HD situation, so it's probably an infringement I'd say.
I'd also chuck in the manufacturing liability nonsense. It's crazy to hold a manufacturer liable for what some thug uses their product for.
Do we hold Kobalt responsible for when a criminal cuts off someone's arm with one of their saws?
Unless they were gifted by the corporation, it just makes no sense.>>6328
I find Wikipedia to be chock full of assumptions, opinion pieces, and cherrypicked stuff, as it pertains to politics.
It's definitely something I avoid for the subject. Regular stuff I can at least be relatively sure are accurate, since I rather doubt anyone would care to lie about the metalurgy behind a given armored vehicle or whathaveyou, but I avoid political articles like the plague.
>>6326>Money was Trump's main motivation to be racist back in the 1970s
You don't know that. Moreover, you can't
know that. It's your assumption, based on just ONE of the pieces of evidence to Trump's racism.
>>6327>A ban on many standard-capacity magazines (which can hold more than 10 rounds).
So you can still buy these weapons and bullets, you're just limited to 10 bullets a clip. And the amount of clips you can isn't limited either. Still sounds like you can have guns.> Banning """assault weapons""" (a derogatory term for AR-15-style guns)
You are assuming he means "AR-15-style" guns. You should be asking for more clarity on what an "assault weapon" is before making that assumption. >Put America on the path to ensuring that 100% of firearms sold in America are smart guns."
I see nothing wrong with this statement. It's vague enough it could mean anything, but at the very worst, most cataclysmic assumption, he could be requiring some sort of minimum gun training to own certain types of guns. Sounds like you can still have guns. I have no idea what you are talking about with the gun locks, could you elaborate for people who don't collect murder tools? >"Require gun owners to safely store their weapons."
Isn't this already a law? I don't see HOW this could be an infringement at all. >Require firearms owners to report if their weapon is lost or stolen."
Completely reasonable. Gun enthusiasts are always talking about how mass shootings are caused by bad eggs who shouldn't have guns getting their hands on them. So shouldn't they be endorcing this idea of reporting when a gun has been stolen?
"legislation requiring that purchasers of ... 3D printing code pass a federal background check."
I'm not sure what "code is speech" means. But this sounds reasonable.
None of these things seem to be putting your right to own murder tools in danger. At most they are half-measures to regulate guns, not remove them. This is what you're afraid of so much you'd support someone who goes against the morals you claim to have? Only being able to shoot 10 bullets at a time? It makes me skeptical you even hold those morals.
>>6324>I don't deny any actual racism, just the dishonest mischaracterizations people make.
No true Scotsman fallacy. Anything you agree with can just be classified as "not actual racism" and dismissed. >Wikipedia, likewise, is not evidence.
Yeah, what he said. You are looking for excuses to discredit what is being said rather than actually look at the evidence. This is intellectually dishonest. >Linking the actual facts rather than someone's interpretation of them.
I did? You just dismissed them because they were on websites you didn't like.
>>6331>Still sounds like you can have guns.
The 2nd Amendment doesn't require merely owning a
If it did, couldn't the argument be "You can only own a single air rifle"?
Restricting the capacity of magazines from the standard factory-issue default is an infringement.>You are assuming he means "AR-15-style" guns. You should be asking for more clarity on what an "assault weapon" is before making that assumption.
The problem is the term is purely political. It is not defined well at all. The only constant is a detachable magazine, and a pistol grip. >I see nothing wrong with this statement. It's vague enough it could mean anything, but at the very worst, most cataclysmic assumption, he could be requiring some sort of minimum gun training to own certain types of guns.
I would recommend you read the text, then. It rather specifically refers to firearms with a fingerprint or similar scanner built in.https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/
"Put America on the path to ensuring that 100% of firearms sold in America are smart guns. Today, we have the technology to allow only authorized users to fire a gun. For example, existing smart gun technology requires a fingerprint match before use. Biden believes we should work to eventually require that 100% of firearms sold in the U.S. are smart guns. But, right now the NRA and gun manufacturers are bullying firearms dealers who try to sell these guns. Biden will stand up against these bullying tactics and issue a call to action for gun manufacturers, dealers, and other public and private entities to take steps to accelerate our transition to smart guns."
These have major issues, between reliability concerns, power concerns, the ability to just flip a switch and disable these guns, and of course being unable to allow your loved ones to use your firearms in an emergency.
It's a bad idea all around. But, something people who enjoy the safety offered by private security sadly do not seem to understand.>Isn't this already a law? I don't see HOW this could be an infringement at all.
No. You can have a firearm ready in your own home. That's perfectly legal at the moment in, near as I am aware, all states.
This constitutes an infringement if it requires you to have your firearm locked up whenever it is not on your person. This would mean you cannot access it in the event of an emergency.>>6332
Ah, I understand. In that case, you are racist, so why should I care about your opinion on racism?
And remember: if you say you aren't, "no true scotsman".>I did? You just dismissed them because they were on websites you didn't like.
You say Wikipedia has sources.
Why not link to those sources?
You say these opinion pieces are based on evidence.
Why not link to that evidence?
File: 1597519473153.jpg (148.77 KB, 960x960, 1:1, Magazine-vs-Clip.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
pic related>Still sounds like you can have guns.
OK, but that doesn't mean that the magazine limit isn't an infringement.>You are assuming he means "AR-15-style" guns.
Biden talked a lot on that page about the expired federal AWB, which did ban AR-15-style guns.> I have no idea what you are talking about with the gun lockshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_gun>Isn't this already a law?
No.>I don't see HOW this could be an infringement at all.
If it impedes access to the guns in a home-defense situation, as >>6329
said.>So shouldn't they be endorcing this idea of reporting when a gun has been stolen?
I think people should voluntarily report when their guns get stolen. But I don't think that the heavy hand of government is appropriate to punish those who fail to report. Or at most it should be a small civil fine.>I'm not sure what "code is speech" means.
Computer code is protected as free speech under the First Amendment. Censorship violates the First Amendment.>murder tools
Why do you insist on using inflammatory and inaccurate terminology?
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.>OK, but that doesn't mean that the magazine limit isn't an infringement.
The second amendment doesn't say anything about magazine size. Just the right to bear arms. Which isn't being infringed. >Biden talked a lot on that page about the expired federal AWB,
But still hasn't said anything about banning AR-15s personally. That's an assumption on your part. Personally, I think they should be banned. Or at the very least regulated. But you can't ascribe an opinion to Biden he hasn't actually expressed. That's letting your fear of certain outcomes dictate override your reason.>No.
It's not a requirement that gun owners safely store their weapons? Well yeah, that sounds like a good idea! For gun owners too, why would you want to store them in a way that's dangerous?>If it impedes access to the guns in a home-defense situation
It doesn't. You know how to unlock the guns. It's actually better because now the home invader doesn't have access to your weapons.>I think people should voluntarily report when their guns get stolen.
Why should that be voluntary? A dangerous weapon is now in the hands of someone who shouldn't be allowed access to it. I don't think gun owners should be allowed to just shrug and forget about it when that weapon could be used to commit a crime or kill someone. >Computer code is protected as free speech under the First Amendment.
OK? What's that got to do with anything we are talking about?>Why do you insist on using inflammatory and inaccurate terminology?
It is neither of those things. Guns are tools for killing things. That is what they are designed for, that is what they are primarily used for. If you'd prefer "killing tools" I can accommodate, since "murder" has it's own connotations. But let's not pretend these things aren't what they are. Tools designed for killing.
File: 1597531695997.jpg (742.08 KB, 3024x3024, 1:1, Eb36jYGXYAA5WHa.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>6337>OK? What's that got to do with anything we are talking about?
There's been more than a few pushes to ban the design, files, and documentation of 3D printed firearms.
I believe the Liberator is still blocked, legally speaking.
File: 1597531697915.jpg (2.59 MB, 4032x3024, 4:3, 1591932625112.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>6337>The second amendment doesn't say anything about magazine size.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals disagrees with you. (>>6301
And your claim is like saying "The First Amendment doesn't saying anything about keyboard size, so restricting people to keyboards with only 10 keys would be constitutional.".>>6337>But still hasn't said anything about banning AR-15s personally. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPig-AllQe8>For gun owners too, why would you want to store them in a way that's dangerous?
The concern is that the law would criminalize even some situationally safe ways of storing guns. If the law was just something like "Don't store a chambered rifle/shotgun by leaning it against a wall if it doesn't have a mechanical drop-safety", I wouldn't really object to the law.>You know how to unlock the guns
It takes time, and sometimes seconds count. Plus, some people like the aesthetic of hanging a shotgun over the fireplace. It shouldn't be illegal.>Why should that be voluntary?
A better question would be: Why should someone be imprisoned for forgetting to inform the authorities? Plus, I think you understand that the police aren't always your friends. If many of the local cops are racist against black people, I think black gun-owners might understandably be a bit wary about interacting with the police. >If you'd prefer "killing tools" I can accommodate, since "murder" has it's own connotations.
Yes, that would be much better. "Murder" has a different denotation
as well: it has an element of unlawfulness that "kill" doesn't. (E.g., the Mosin Nagant and the M1 Garand killed a lot of Nazis during WW2, but those killings weren't murders.) I'd still have some minor quibbles with "killing tools", but it's not nearly as bad as "murder tools".
OH, 3D printed guns. Yeah, that's a danger to everyone. I see no reason why those should be spread.>>6339
I mean... it would be? You don't need a keyboard to practice the first ammendment. And you're ignoring the fact that keyboards don't kill people>It takes time, and sometimes seconds count.
Jason Voorhees isn't going to kill you. This is ridiculous that the few seconds needed to unlock a gun is enough for you to throw away the morals you claim to hold.> It shouldn't be illegal.
It should be, if it's a danger to people. These are killing tools, after all. They should have safety regulations on how they are stored.>Why should someone be imprisoned for forgetting to inform the authorities?
Because they let a dangerous tool for killing fall into the hands of the wrong person and are responsible for anything that person does with it? Which is why I find it ridiculous someone would "forget" that someone stole a killing weapon from them. A weapon you claim is so important you are arguing against requiring locks that need mere seconds to open. If those second without a gun are so dangerous then surely having it be stolen completely would be massively more dangerous.> I'd still have some minor quibbles with "killing tools", but it's not nearly as bad as "murder tools".
It's splitting hairs, but "killing tools" is the most innocuous way to put it. That is what they are. Tools for killing.
File: 1597534196487.jpg (211.57 KB, 1080x841, 1080:841, EYqRsRqVAAAxzGn.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>6340> I see no reason why those should be spread.
As Walrus said, code is code. It's a clear first amendment violation.
Besides; The armament of the citizens ensures they can only ever be pushed so far.>Jason Voorhees isn't going to kill you. This is ridiculous that the few seconds needed to unlock a gun is enough for you to throw away the morals you claim to hold.
While Jason Voorhees isn't going to kill me, someone absolutely could kick in my door and rush me.
Spending time fumbling with a keypad or lock isn't going to end well for me.
That's why my pistol stays by my desk at all times.
What morals do you presume we hold? I do not think any morals would at all be violated by allowing people to keep their arms where they please in their own homes.
In fact, I'd say the restriction thereof would be the greater violation of morality.
>>6341>What morals do you presume we hold?
Happy Walrus claims to think Trump is corrupt, but is willing to vote for him because he likes guns, apparently. >>6307
He would ignore this corruption and allow it to continue to protect his killing tools. That is ignoring your morals. He also says he knows that Trump has done racist things in the past in >>6312
and he's willing to ignore the possibility Trump still holds them for the same reasons.
I think he's massively ignorant if he thinks people just stop being racists when it's "no longer profitable" as if being a racist is a rational choice, but at least he admits that some of Trump's past actions were racist.
So in his eyes, Trump is corrupt, and willing to act with racism if it benefits him. He claims to be against these things, yet is willing to ignore them if it protects his killing tools. THOSE morals.
You do understand people can have superseding values, correct?
I am, for example, more than happy to vote for a thief that will respect my rights over an honest man who intends to violate them.
Or are you going to tell me there's nothing at all wrong with Biden in any capacity, he's 100% good, and has never done anything wrong?
File: 1597535156952.png (782.15 KB, 800x600, 4:3, 1596905174515.png) ImgOps Google
>>6340>I mean... it would be? You don't need a keyboard to practice the first ammendment.
Pretty sure it would be unconstitutional. You don't need
ink and paper to practice the First Amendment, but special taxes on ink and paper are unconstitutional. Minneapolis Star Tribune Company v. Commissioner
, 460 U.S. 575 (1983).>>6340>It should be, if it's a danger to people.
Knives, matches, and cars are also dangerous to people. By your logic, all cars should come with ignition-interlock breathalyzers.>>6340> Which is why I find it ridiculous someone would "forget" that someone stole a killing weapon from them.
Oh, I didn't mean "forget that someone stole the gun", I meant "forget to inform the police". And what about my argument that black gun-owners might have legitimate fears about interacting with racist local police?>>6340>It's splitting hairs
The distinction between "murder" and "kill" is certainly not just "splitting hairs". It's the difference between (1) brave soldiers who fought against the Nazis and (2) violent criminals who murder innocent people. Quite a difference!
File: 1597537638403.png (836.75 KB, 1130x2500, 113:250, 1461305285449.png) ImgOps Google
>>6340>Because they let a dangerous tool for killing fall into the hands of the wrong person and are responsible for anything that person does with it?
The law includes guns that are stolen, not just guns that the owners let fall into the wrong hands. And I'd say that owner shouldn't be responsible unless, at the very least, the owner knew
that the transferee was going to use it for illegal purposes.>>6342> is willing to vote for him because he likes guns
I don't think Trump personally likes AR-15s. But he is willing to refrain from trying to ban them, which is more than be said of Biden. And like >>6343
says, what Trump will actually do
is more important to me than his personal flaws. >He claims to be against these things, yet is willing to ignore them if it protects his killing tools.
Do you remember Trump's recent tweets about postponing the election so that he could stay in power longer? There is a reason that the civilian population needs killing tools; sometimes they are necessary for removing tyrants from power. Without an armed populace, the Republicans in Congress might have gone along with Trump instead of shutting down his idea of postponing the election.>>6340>OH, 3D printed guns. Yeah, that's a danger to everyone. I see no reason why those should be spread.
Why are 3D printed guns any more dangerous than guns produced by more traditional methods? Do you think that only people rich enough to buy traditional metal-working equipment should be allowed to manufacture their own guns?
Limiting the amount of people one can kill isn't limiting the second ammendment. A keyboard with only 10 keys does not work properly. A gun with only 10 bullets does. In fact, a gun with ONE bullet does. But 10 is plenty to kill this supposed home invader. >Knives, matches, and cars are also dangerous to people.
And we have regulations on all those things. We license people to drive cars, and we have safety regulations on things like knives and matches. And guns kill far more people than all those things.>Oh, I didn't mean "forget that someone stole the gun", I meant "forget to inform the police".
Why would they "forget"? Your dangerous weapon has been stolen, and could be used to commit a crime and/or harm someone. You wouldn't just "forget" to tell the police. You have to make sure you aren't blamed for anything done with that weapon registered to you. >>6345>Do you remember Trump's recent tweets
That's not a good example. Gun nuts swore up and down they needed their guns to protect us from a tyrannical government, but when Trump used secretive federal agents against US civilians, not a peep was heard from them. It's clear that was always just BS to make their stances sound more legitimate.>Why are 3D printed guns any more dangerous than guns produced by more traditional methods?
Easy to conceal and don't set off metal detectors. Plus to get them you you just need access to a 3D printer, available in numerous homes and at many public libraries now. My library has one.
>>6347>It's clear that was always just BS to make their stances sound more legitimate.
I'm not so sure that was the meaning behind it. More likely is people wanted to hold the threat of civil war over the government, but just chickened out when they realized they might have to actually kill and/or die to defend things.
Which is kinda still bad, but not wanting to jump up and shoot people is pretty normal, even if it's an important cause. I still think the populace should be armed, even if no one at time of writing is forming a rebel militia.
>>6347>but when Trump used secretive federal agents against US civilians, not a peep was heard from them.
Probably because many disagree with what you believe is or has happened.
This said, there absolutely were 2A guys standing with BLM in the beginning.
Still ,it seems silly to say "Because you guys didn't have a revolution for my
cause, you won't ever have one.>Easy to conceal and don't set off metal detectors.
Yeah, that's just movie nonsense.
No 3D printed firearm is undetectable by metal detectors, to my knowledge. They all have metal parts within them.> Plus to get them you you just need access to a 3D printer, available in numerous homes and at many public libraries now.
As opposed to Lowes, or any equivalent hardware store carrying two pipes and a nail.
Or alternatively, and I'd say more likely, the plight of liberal city communists is not much a concern to the average 2nd Amendment supporter.
As I understand it, what he's referring to is the people in Portland who got held for a bit by feds after participating in a riot that attacked a federal courthouse.
Leaving aside that they weren't "secret police", I don't really see a major violation of my rights there, nor do I really care what happens a rather large pile of miles away from me to people who actively hate my guts.
File: 1597548665612.png (168.25 KB, 300x486, 50:81, akane-11498-2124416559.png) ImgOps Google
>>6347> And guns kill far more people than all those things.
Not true! In 2018, guns killed just marginally more people than motor vehicles:
36,560 deaths in the US from motor vehicles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year
39,740 deaths in the US from firearms (https://health.ucdavis.edu/what-you-can-do/facts.html
And 61% of gun deaths were suicides, which safety regulations wouldn't address.>Why would they "forget"?
Maybe they don't think the police will be able to do anything about it, so they consider notifying the police to be low-priority. Or, like I said, black gun-owners might be reluctant to interact with racist local cops and deliberately refrain from notifying them.>but when Trump used secretive federal agents against US civilians, not a peep was heard from them.
Did you ever visit /k/ during that time period? There were absolutely gun-owners opposed to that. It could have easily erupted into open shooting if the feds continued pushing too far.
And anyhow, that wasn't as clear cut as Trump postponing the election and overstaying his term.>Easy to conceal and don't set off metal detectors.
[Citation needed]. AFAIK, all functional guns require strong metal components. The receiver can be 3D-printed polymer, but the chamber, barrel, and firing pin are all metal. Certainly on an AR-15. Polymer of any reasonable thickness won't be able to contain the pressure generated by a 5.56x45mm round. It would literally explode. If you hear about a gun that was completely 3D-printed, that was using a metal 3D printer, which is significantly more expensive.
File: 1597548958962.jpg (39.28 KB, 696x392, 87:49, FGC9_WIP_Photo-696x392.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
The FGC9, what I'd consider to be "the" 3D printed firearm at this point given it's the only one I've seen without any regulated gun parts while remaining reliable and having functionality on par with standard firearms, uses metal for its barrel, springs, trigger group, and firing pin like you say. It also uses a number of bolts, if I'm not mistaken.
Oh, and of course, ammo has to contain metal anyway.
>>6347>Limiting the amount of people one can kill isn't limiting the second ammendment. A keyboard with only 10 keys does not work properly. A gun with only 10 bullets does. In fact, a gun with ONE bullet does. But 10 is plenty to kill this supposed home invader.
Regardless of all of that, the magazine ban is still an infringement of the Second Amendment. Remember, it is the Bill of Rights
, not the Bill of Needs
. Just because you don't need
a 15-round magazine doesn't mean that the 15-round magazine isn't protected. Quoting from the Court ruling:
The panel held that under the first prong of the test, Cal.
Penal Code § 32310 burdened protected conduct. First, the
panel held that firearm magazines are protected arms under
the Second Amendment. Second, the panel held that LCMs
are commonly owned and typically used for lawful purposes,
and are not “unusual arms” that would fall outside the scope
of the Second Amendment. Third, the panel held that LCM
prohibitions are not longstanding regulations and do not
enjoy a presumption of lawfulness. Fourth, the panel held
that there was no persuasive historical evidence in the record
showing LCM possession fell outside the ambit of Second
Proceeding to prong two of the inquiry, the panel held
that strict scrutiny was the appropriate standard to apply.
First, the panel held that Cal. Penal Code § 32310 struck at
the core right of law-abiding citizens to self-defend by
banning LCM possession within the home. Second, the
panel held that Section 32310’s near-categorical ban of
LCMs substantially burdened core Second Amendment rights.
I guess that's possible. But it's still means that trying to use government overreach as an excuse for not regulating guns rings hollow. >>6351>And 61% of gun deaths were suicides, which safety regulations wouldn't address.
Actually, they might. If we make sure only the mentally sound get access to firearms. Psychological evaluations could prevent gun suicides. >Did you ever visit /k/ during that time period?
Why would I go to 4chan? It's full of racists and conspiracy nuts.>Certainly on an AR-15.
I was only aware of 3D printed handguns, which could only fire one or two shots before breaking. If people are making assault weapons at home, then it's an even bigger danger than I originally though. This DOES need to be regulated.>>6353
Yeah, the bill of rights says nothing about how many bullets a gun can have. When that was written people were using muzzleloading muskets!
They're definitely capable of firing more than once. See vid.
What does this even mean? Pistol grip with a detachable magazine?
Why is that a bad thing? Why shouldn't people be allowed to own "assault weapons"?
>>6308>Though I do admit I have misgivings about voting 3rd party, due to feeling like it's a wasted vote.
What do you think about adopting Approval Voting  for the presidential general election? I think it would help a lot in this situation.
Probably better than the current system of just forcing a 2 party system.
I'm skeptical, mostly because I think it'd mean you basically never get the 'ideal' candidate, you just get the person you selected because they were the least offensive remaining choice. But, maybe that's the point.
File: 1597551164377.jpg (233.73 KB, 525x1063, 525:1063, 1593907752246.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>6354>Actually, they might. If we make sure only the mentally sound get access to firearms. Psychological evaluations could prevent gun suicides.
Um, we were talking about regulations for safe storage, not background checks.>I was only aware of 3D printed handguns, which could only fire one or two shots before breaking.
Well, do you have convincing evidence that those guns don't have detectable metal components, not even a firing pin?
>>6354>When that was written people were using muzzleloading muskets!
While true, that hardly means they wouldn't think of the concept of repeaters capable of firing not only more than once, but more than once in rapid secession.
The Chambers was submitted to the US War Department only a year after the 2nd was put in place. While they wouldn't be adopted until the Navy saw use for a multi-barreled variant, it's definitely a concept they would've been made aware of in the context of potential development in firearms in the future.
Each barrel on the Chambers was loaded with 32 rounds, for a total of 224 shots, at about 120 rounds a minute. Certainly equivalent to modern firearms in concept enough for the founding fathers to be informed of such potential.
File: 1597551430071.png (394.75 KB, 420x420, 1:1, 1467642102155.png) ImgOps Google
>>6357>I'm skeptical, mostly because I think it'd mean you basically never get the 'ideal' candidate, you just get the person you selected because they were the least offensive remaining choice. But, maybe that's the point.
I'd be hesitant to adopt Approval Voting for the primary election. But in the general election, it's basically the two main party nominees plus various 3rd-party nominees. So Approval Voting there would basically boil down to picking one major-party candidate plus zero or more 3rd-party candidates.
True enough. Which would have some potential benefits, I could see. Especially making it so that we didn't get stuck so much in a two-party system where only the primary really matters for nuance.
I'd be interested in seeing it attempted. I think some level of voting reform is necessary, after all. And maybe this is the way to get some better options.
File: 1597552070460.jpg (93.91 KB, 512x810, 256:405, 1517454705023.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>6354>Yeah, the bill of rights says nothing about how many bullets a gun can have. When that was written people were using muzzleloading muskets!
The Bill of Rights also says nothing of email or Internet posting, but they are still covered by the 1st Amendment, just like magazines are covered by the 2nd.
Ultimately, it's all up to interpretation. The bill of rights didn't specify much in regards to the modern day, so we have to decide what counts as we move forward.
Personally, I'd say the intent was to protect civilians from being overpowered by a military, regardless of whose military it is, so any limitations on bearing arms have to at a minimum also apply to the military, if not to the entire global populace. Anything less doesn't fulfill the purpose.
File: 1597561067019.jpg (63.95 KB, 550x449, 550:449, firearm-3d-printed-lower.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>6354>If people are making assault weapons at home,
People have 3D-printed AR-15 lower receivers. (The lower receiver is the regulated part of the AR-15; you can buy the rest of the parts without the hassle of a NICS check.) Of course, the pressure-bearing parts of the finished gun are steel.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCbYBF5E3rc
(making a 3D-printed lower receiver, 2015)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zz8mlB1hZ-o
(test shooting, 2015)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtGccqu665s
.r.e. 3D-printed gunshttps://www.nbcnews.com/technolog/journalists-smuggle-3-d-printed-gun-israeli-parliament-6C10570532
Israeli journalists essentially simulated an assassination of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and managed to get past security twice with the Defense Distributed weapon.
Story worth pondering as far as their effect if widely distributed goes.
Reminds me of stories that a majority of guns in carry-on luggage get past the TSA. Although I'd imagine that Knesset security is bit more competent than the TSA.>Had an actual assassin taken The Liberator into the Knesset, he may have had just one shot at his target. A video by Channel 10 filmed at a firing range shows The Liberator's barrel flying off and splitting in two after one shot. The tester, a retired police officer, placed the gun in a vice instead of holding it, and activated it remotely using a string attached to the trigger.
A gun that blows up when you shoot it isn't going to have great accuracy. Maybe in the same ballpark as someone blowing or throwing a poisoned dart.
I'm a touch skeptical given their image chosen, and saying it's "semi auto".
The Liberator is, to my knowledge, single-shot. Only one I know about that is semi-auto is the FGC9.
Still, it's an interesting concept to consider. A lot of security is just for show, as the threat of getting caught is enough to deter people from the front entrance.
I wonder if something like this would change that.
r.e. gun rights in general
If you're a regular, law-abiding and otherwise normal citizen who happens to own something labeled as an 'assault weapon' and therefore are worried about being targeted by the government, it's hard for me to distinguish that from how all other kinds of minorities with similar concerns.
As somebody who's non-Christian, transgender, bisexual, and a bunch of other things, I basically have to vote to protect my right to exist all of the time since one American political party basically regards me as 'life unworthy of life'. It's a matter of self-defense. Basically.
If you're a gun owner, like... you're stereotyped? You're insulted? You're subject to mindless hatred for no good reason? You're assumed to hold all kinds of beliefs that you don't just because of quick judgement?
Yeah... it doesn't feel good, does it? Welcome to being black, gay, Jewish, Muslim, et cetera in America.
So, I get voting Republican as a matter of self-defense against a hostile government essentially threatening your safety, but understand that that's exactly what people who vote Democrat are doing. Have some tolerance. I think.
While I understand your perspective, I would say you have fallen for a false narrative in regards to what these parties stand for.
If, for example, democrats really cared about black lives, then it wouldn't constantly be their cities which seem to have the greatest issues in regards to race, in both segregation, as well as, as we saw with George Floyd, police violence.
The same could be said for Republicans. While many say they will defend the second amendment, that rarely actually means anything. Trump, as I recall, was supportive of red flag laws. One of the greatest violations of people's rights out there at the moment.
It's a big part of why I don't personally love him as a candidate.
File: 1597713214295.png (545 KB, 1034x862, 517:431, c47e078ca5656f6d92cc380488….png) ImgOps Google
That is all very true. Neither Republicans nor Democrats are perfect. This year in particular, both of their presidential candidates are shit. I certainly won't begrudge someone voting for Biden who acknowledges Biden's horribleness on the Second Amendment but emphasizes other areas where Trump is worse than Biden. Unfortunately, there isn't a viable candidate who is good on the issues.
>>6370>I certainly won't begrudge someone voting for Biden who acknowledges Biden's horribleness on the Second Amendment but emphasizes other areas where Trump is worse than Biden.
That's kinda where I'm at, like there's a lot about Biden I don't like. The gun rights thing is definitely high on the list, I'm also very much not a fan of unions 'cause they've screwed me over basically every time I've been in one, albeit sometimes more strongly than others. His health care plan explicitly says that he does not want to get rid of private insurance, which is the opposite of what I think we should be doing, because insurance is largely a gambling scam that people benefit from just enough that they don't realize the insurance companies are making fat bank while completely ruining our health care system. I'm actually fairly open on whether we need to go to a fully public health care system or if we can allow it to operate on free market competition, but insurance companies will ruin that either way.
And all that said, I still really don't like Trump. He vastly overreaches on what a president should be allowed to do, constantly pushing out executive orders like some kind of monarch, making a lot of decisions that suspiciously seem to benefit him and his properties. I'm very directly opposed to him on immigration, because I actually support open borders (which even Biden won't actually go for, but at least he wants to loosen immigration restrictions). And I'd say I oppose Trump on his concept of police and law, but with a Biden/Kamala ticket I'm more than a little afraid that their police state is just going to be blue instead of red. I can't even say for sure that Biden/Kamala will disband ICE, much less reign in any police departments.
There is, of course, Jo Jorgensen, someone who seems to share most or all of my ideals and I don't think I've ever seen her say something and not agreed in full. Unfortunately the Libertarian party is not going to win under any circumstance, so I sit here facing the same problem all Libertarians face every election: knowing that ultimately my vote won't matter regardless of who I vote for because I will not receive representation in the Executive Branch of the government. A branch that ratchets up its authority every four years.
While I can understand the issue with Trump's executive orders, keep in mind he's basically following in Obama's footsteps here. He was the one who started overreaching executive orders, after all, and a fair sized chunk of Trumps was literally just reversing his.
I agree that the powers of the president should be shrunk, but I'd critique the source rather than the guy who came after and did the same the other way.
I find far too many people never said a word when Obama did it, but now that it's someone they don't like doing it, the powers should be shrunk.
Just doesn't seem fair. "rules for thee but not for me", and all that.
Then again, maybe it's just a lot of folk weren't really politically active during Obama.
Obama only signed 96 more executive orders than Trump in double the time in office. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders#Barack_Obama_(2009%E2%80%932017)
) But what's important is what's IN those executive orders, not just the number. How dare Obama... try to give people health care...
Sure, but it's because of
Obama that he's able to do those executive orders.
Especially when you consider a whole lot of those orders were explicitly undoing the stuff Obama did.
As to Obama's healthcare, I can tell you, as a kid from a poorer family living off one main income source that, while not minimum wage fortunately, wasn't exactly high, it did absolutely nothing for us other than give a 'sword of damocles' in the form of potential fines for the crime of being unable to pay for Obama's mandated healthcare.
It was an absolutely awful system.
While I fully agree we need to revamp American healthcare, Obama's way of doing it was the absolute worst possible route.
I can't think of any better indication of how bad things have gotten now, in 2020, as far as politics goes.
Can we please replace both Joe Bide and Donald Trump on the ballet with a giant asteroid that will exterminate humanity?
If we're all going to die, then I'd rather it be something glorious than... this.
Yeah, it's pretty crazy right now. You can have violent rioters smashing property, and DAs will refuse to charge, yet people defending their home from those some rioters are somehow priority 1 to the point of even outright tampering with evidence.
I dunno. Maybe this stuff is a good thing, in a way. Maybe we'll end up fracturing the country into more bitesized chunks where one person can actually make a difference, regardless of the corruption of the political class.
Maybe we can actually get a system where justice isn't determined by if you've got enough money to fight nonsense, and instead actually dictated by the facts of a given case.
Or maybe we get Fallout. I dunno. I'd be game for trying to start from scratch again at this point.
Uh, no, it's not a matter of "violent rioters smashing property" and "people defending their homes". What's terrifying that we have identity politics out of control to where it's considered okay for mediocre straight white cisgender Christians to threaten innocent, peaceful protesters who are people of color out of nothing but bigotry. And they're getting a wrist slap. It's insane.
I'm kind of getting to the point where I sort of openly feel something like hatred to these people. This insufferable identity politics. There's something in the DNA of certain people that make them think that they're a 'master race' superior to everybody else, and I don't know how to deal with this garbage. I really can't.
I agree identity politics are out of control, but they were absolutely not "peaceful protesters'. And it sure as hell wasn't out of "nothing but bigotry".
That's a pretty thorough mischaracterization of the case. And the prosecutor absolutely doesn't want to give them a "wrist slap" for doing what they are lawfully allowed to do.
Thank goodness that area has an honest governor, who's already said he'd pardon them. Hopefully he sticks to his word.https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/crime/i-suggest-you-quickly-re-assess-this-evidence-st-louis-prosecutor-to-detective-on-mccloskey-case/63-8abf5d89-1aeb-46b7-bad2-cc1a482e945e>I'm kind of getting to the point where I sort of openly feel something like hatred to these people
I'd suggest taking a break from social media. That'd probably help a significant way. Especially if it makes you start doing your own research on things. Might make you find out, the reasons you were told to hate these people aren't actually legitimate after all.
File: 1597797405142.png (200.88 KB, 451x500, 451:500, bebe-1421807509828.png) ImgOps Google
>>6377>What's terrifying that we have identity politics out of control to where it's considered okay for mediocre straight white cisgender Christians ...
It is indeed very unfortunate that irrelevant attributes like race, sexual orientation, religion, etc. influence people's opinions on incidents such as these. Personally, I'd feel the same if it were lesbian black transsexual atheists defending their property against marching neo-Nazis or drunk white frat boys, but I believe many on the right would be less inclined to support the property owners in such a case.>innocent, peaceful protesters >out of nothing but bigotry.
IIRC, the protesters broke open a gate and were trespassing on a private road.
Okay, so they were "trespassing on a private road". All the reason to get threatened by yahoos in with a lynching. Got it.
I'm sure that if/when I get killed at some point in my life, my death will be deserved as well for "wrong place, wrong time".
An angry mob breaking onto your property and threatening you with a history of violence absolutely do warrant defending your home, yes.
It's not "lynching" to do so. That's something all Americans should have the right to.
It's not "irrelevant" when you're told day in and day out that being of a certain category makes you inferior, and when a certain political party and its overall ideological movement is based on a superiority complex.
You and I know Goddamn well that black 2nd amendment activists, Jewish ones, gay ones, et cetera get the short end of the stick when it comes to defending themselves.
If you're a certain class of human, then the NRA and their ilk will support your gun rights. IF not? Nope.
File: 1597799850574.png (563.48 KB, 700x526, 350:263, 1 CGcVFNqU4iG-wai2O7iA0w.png) ImgOps Google
You realize there's plenty of white folk joining in these BLM riots, right?
But, sure, keep pushing your racist conspiracies I guess.
And yeah, if you have to break in, it's pretty obvious it's a private area. Besides; That sure as hell doesn't give you the right to threaten people who haven't done anything to you.
It's the biggest problem with BLM, after all: In all their claim to be fighting for justice, of black lives, for the guilty to be punished, it seems like their primary target is always innocent people who have not done anything wrong to them
File: 1597799967123.png (264.03 KB, 486x361, 486:361, 1 WSKxbaG71sOEEYLtd1Emyg.png) ImgOps Google
Maybe they should've gone to that elected official, instead of taking a detour to harass a family who did absolutely nothing to them, then?
Maybe they shouldn't've broken in to the place, and started threatening them, yeah?
And as to "history of violence", I'm reffering specifically to how BLM protests around the country seem to devolve quickly into assaults, looting, arson, vandalism, and general harm to innocent people.
It has nothing to do with "godless communists who hate our freedom", it's plainly directed to a bunch of thugs hurting people who had done nothing to them.
You realize that they're not riots, right? The vast majority are peaceful protests. There are some "police riots' in terms of cops attacking people in Nazi-like fashion, but that's not the protester's fault.
And that white people support BLM because they actually believe that black miles matter?
File: 1597800122167.jpg (518.5 KB, 1250x1650, 25:33, 60171f06d124b3e21b722d9d73….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>6381>All the reason to get threatened by yahoos in with a lynching. Got it.
The lady admittedly had horrible muzzle discipline and horrible trigger discipline. But protesters elsewhere in the country had recently looted and burned down various buildings, so I can't really the property owners for being on edge and feeling the need for armed self-defense.>>6383>It's not "irrelevant" when you're told day in and day out that being of a certain category makes you inferior, and when a certain political party and its overall ideological movement is based on a superiority complex.
Oh, sorry, I meant it was irrelevant as to whether they were in their rights to defend their property. Abstractly I think everyone except literal racists will agree that it should irrelevant and that all people should have the same rights, but as you say, unfortunately it doesn't always play out that way with public support.>You and I know Goddamn well that black 2nd amendment activists, Jewish ones, gay ones, et cetera get the short end of the stick when it comes to defending themselves.
This is true, and unfortunate. I'm not sure how much to go about addressing it.
File: 1597800145513.png (287.82 KB, 515x360, 103:72, 1 31So-pteFLydxos0UGjhlQ.png) ImgOps Google
You realize that when you have an angry mob who literally broke onto your property and are threatening you, you're going to think of the cases where that "mostly peaceful" line wasn't the "mostly" part, right?
And I gotta say, I don't see many people in BLM, in general, let alone leaders and such, condemning the violence.
Instead, I hear them shouting "By any means necessary" and similar rhetoric.
I'll repeat what I said, as it appears you failed to read it:
If they were going to go to an elected official, maybe it'd've been better if they didn't take a DETOUR AWAY
from that elected official, to harrass INNOCENT PEOPLE
Did you do absolutely no research into the event?
Or do you just not care, because "Hey, they're black, therefor they must be the good guys?"
Would you really apply this logic to any other "private street" in any other protest?
If a group of, say, pro-life protesters went to an abortion clinic and decided to go a route that crossed into a residential street, would you be A-OK with me screaming my lungs out marching out into said public street threatening them with assault weapons?
Nope.>broke into your property
Walked in a "private street". Not as if they smashed into somebody's house. Come on.>are threatening you
You're really, really misinformed here.
I abso-fucking-lutely would apply this logic to ANY American, ANYWHERE;
An angry mob that BREAKS IN to your property, and THREATENS YOU, absolutely
warrants you defending your home.
If a bunch of pro-life 'protesters' broke on to the property of someone else on their way to harass some legislator they don't like, and threatened them, I ABSOLUTELY would defend their right to defend their property with firearms if necessary.
ANYONE, ANYWHERE, ANY RACE, ANY IDEOLOGY, ANY RELIGION ought to enjoy that right
File: 1597800764725.jpg (214.24 KB, 600x377, 600:377, gate.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Your opinion. I guess it's okay as long as they say they're fighting for black people.>Walked in a "private street". Not as if they smashed into somebody's house. Come on.
It was gated. That gate was smashed.
They sure as fuck didn't just "walk in".
Again; Did you do no research into this matter?
Did you just look and see "BLM supporters" and say "Oh, they must be the good guys"?>Nope
They say otherwise. There's certainly stuff to suggest otherwise.
"“Once through the gate, the victims advised the group that they were on a private street and trespassing and told them to leave,” the police summary further states. “The group began yelling obscenities and threats of harm to both victims. When the victims observed multiple subjects who were armed, they then armed themselves and contacted police.”"https://www.foxnews.com/us/armed-st-louis-rioters-threatened-couple-guns-attorney
I guess we should just insist they're lying, because white people are obviously evil, right?
"assault weapons" is a meaningless termed invented by people who want to get an emotional response to an otherwise perfectly normal firearm.
The only consistent factor is a pistol grip. Something that could hardly be said to change any major function of the firearm. All it does is make it slightly more comfortable to shoot, depending on the particular shape of the gun. On some, it doesn't even do that. Personally, I've always preferred more traditional rifle grips.
I see an open gate leading to a public street. There's no chance in hell I would as a regular, normal pedestrian walk into this street thinking that I would be assaulted by gun-toting yahoos for the "crime" of just being in the wrong place.
But apparently just being in the physical presence of a private road is enough to be lynched, then?
File: 1597801066289.jpg (100.54 KB, 300x449, 300:449, mako-1382396433266.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>6397>They were wannabe lynchers
Do you have any evidence of that? I still think they were simply interested in defending their home, given all the recent news coverage of looting and arson committed by protesters.>threatening innocents with assault weapons.
Again, I would like to see some evidence of that. IIRC, the man with the AR-15 never pointed it at any of the protesters. > They, at the very least, escalated the situation tremendously.
In hindsight, their actions were unnecessary. But without the benefit of hindsight, I think they had legitimate concerns that protest might devolve into looting and arson.
File: 1597801088584.jpg (241.59 KB, 1473x679, 1473:679, Private.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
I would suggest that if the prosecution literally has to tamper with evidence, they're probably not on the moral side.>>6402
Point me to who was shot.
Where's the gunshot victim, injured by the McCloskey's.
I'll wait. There is none.
Angry mob breaks onto your property and threatens you, you better believe I'll defend your right to defend yourself.
I do not care if the angry mob has a lot of people too stupid to pay attention to what's going on around them. That's their problem.
And, sure, the couple states that after harassing the protesters that they were threatened and had to grab weapons. That's exactly what would say. They were threatened.
Just like how every other single time there's something like this, the white person with the gun "feels threatened". Just like how when George Floyd was choked. The officer felt threatened.
The point is that they had no reason to feel threatened.
You say that because it wasn't your life, your property at risk.
You say that because you are not in their position.
You say that because you lack emapthy to examine a situation from their understanding. To look at it from what they see.
They see an angry mob who has just broken on to their property, and threatened them.
You assume they're lying. Why? Just their skin color?
The pistol was, as I understand it, but I do not recall ever seeing anything where the so-called "assault weapon" was.
Not that it really ought to matter, of course. It's a minor detail that doesn't change anything. Just like how "assault weapon" is a purely political term.
If a large group of people BREAK IN to my neighborhood, and THREATEN me, yes, I would.
If you're just walking in, on your own, you didn't break in or anything, and you're not threatening me, I wouldn't give a fuck.
They saw a group of peaceful protesters crossing through what explicitly was for all intents and purposes is/was a public street. They panicked. They grabbed weapons and started pointing them at innocents.
They belong in jail. Do I have empathy for them? Maybe. They still belong in jail.
File: 1597801551813.jpg (241.59 KB, 1473x679, 1473:679, Private.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
The street explicitly says PRIVATE
They had to BREAK THE GATE to get in
It in no way whatsoever looks like a public street. You'd have to be an absolute idiot, and completely illiterate, to think a gated street with a big sign that says 'PRIVATE' is "public".
They confronted the group first, UNARMED. They told them it was a private street, and got an angry response wherein they were THREATENED. They then went back inside, to get ARMED.
They do not belong in jail. This is the right of everyone. You can defend yourself and your property from violent thugs who tresspass and threaten you. Everyone ought to enjoy that right regardless of skin color or politics.
Again with the "break in" terminology...
It's a fucking street. People walking in the middle of the street. There's no indication for a normal person that it's nothing but a regular, public street.
Look, normal people don't consider this kind of shit to be "breaking in". Somebody walking in front of my fucking street, minding their own business? If I'm not genuinely fucking insane, then I'd leave them be. Because I'm a normal person.
The photo is a bit blurry, but if you closely at the sign, it says
Funnily enough this is also a great example of evidence that shows they absolutely did not think it was a public street. it's quite clearly a gated community.
But, fair enough; In that case they just tresspassed and threatened people. Though, I am very curious how they unlocked the gate, if that's so.
That, and why they smashed it after.>>6415
They're definitely not on the street. Looks like they were off the sidewalk, even, towards the McCloskey's house.
And, again, see picture; It's quite clearly a gated community.
You'd have to either be an idiot, or illiterate, to believe otherwise.
Or, really, both.
Look at the picture. Both gates say in big letters "PRIVATE STREET".
Hell, it's a gate, for god's sake.>Somebody walking in front of my fucking street, minding their own business?
Yeah, good thing that's not what fucking happened, right?
Instead you got an angry mob threatening you.
File: 1597802127796.png (382.29 KB, 608x649, 608:649, Capture.PNG) ImgOps Google
Again; It doesn't.
I refuse to believe you cannot read.
You're here right now, typing after all.
The sign clearly says 'PRIVATE STREET'.
There's a LOCK on the gate, as we saw in the video I posted here >>6420
Nobody rational would think that's a public street.
"It's a fucking street. People walking in the middle of the street. There's no indication for a normal person that it's nothing but a regular, public street."
Guess that was a lie, then?
Do white people just not deserve the right to defend themselves, to you?
Or is it just that anyone saying "Black lives matter" must be holy saints who can do no wrong?
Honestly, what the fuck are you even talking about now?
It was an open street that looks like a public street. People walked in. On the street. On the sidewalk. Then, some wannabe lynchers accosted them with firearms. That's the story.
File: 1597802392669.jpg (241.59 KB, 1473x679, 1473:679, Private.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
The lock is in-built into the gate.
And as this image shows, clearly before the damages, it's not open by default.
If the crowd stupidly followed someone guiding them through, that's their own issue.>>6426
You claimed they were "walking in the middle of the street".
They weren't. Rather clearly.>It was an open street that looks like a public street.
It literally says "PRIVATE STREET".
This is a fact.
It's literally got a GATE
You would have to be exceptionally stupid to not realize that the place that is GATED, WITH A LOCK ON IT, WITH SIGNS THAT SAY "PRIVATE STREET", is actually 'public'.
I am not willing to assume most BLM supporters are incapable of such basic cognitive considerations. Let alone are completely illiterate.
I'm willing to believe that the McCloskeys were legitimately scared, and whether the protestors knew it was private property or not, castle laws probably apply. It's even possible that the McCloskeys assumed the gate was closed and locked, and therefore believed that it must've been broken down for anyone to get inside.
But were the protestors actually violent or threatening? That's the point I'm pressing, and I would say no. The most violent thing they did was get within 20 feet of someone, unarmed.
File: 1597802522171.png (1.25 MB, 714x665, 102:95, map.PNG) ImgOps Google
Hell, look at this picture here.
It's quite clearly not even the same material as the roads around it.
Everywhere is paved as is typical of government roads. This place isn't. Looks like it might even be a gravel type drive.
Not at all something typical of "public roads".
Doesn't look like a public street. This is an objective fact as demonstrated by the gate, sign that clearly says 'PRIVATE STREET', and fact it's not even paved like the rest of the surrounding area.> CRIME PUNISHABLE BY INSTANT DEATH
Point to who was shot.
There is no one.
They got armed response because they trespassed and then threatened people.
Tough shit for them. Supporting BLM doesn't mean they get a pass to terrorize whoever they want.
They didn't "tresspass" as normal people understand it. They didn't threaten. They didn't terrorize.
BLM, once again, got accosted by racist yahoos as has happened multiple times.
it's not what they claim. They claim they were threatened.
I see no cause to doubt them, given BLM's usual rhetoric. I wouldn't personally say "Prosecute the BLM activists" as there is, of course, no evidence. But, that's the thing, isn't it?
Presuming guilt and saying "this couple belongs in jail" is doing exactly that.
Again, it's quite clearly not typical of the surrounding area.
And, no, there are not many government roads made solely of gravel in the middle of a city.>>6434
Right, and I'm sure Secoriea Turner was actually firing at a BLM peaceful protest when she was killed.
I do not believe you. >>6437
Tucker Carlson is not a white supremacist.
Why do you assume automatically if someone's white and disagrees with you politically, they must be the devil?
That seems exceptionally racist of you.
Witty Gorilla: Do you agree that "the use of deadly force isn't lawful in response to simple trespass" (>>6435
It doesn't seem to be just one, and it certainly does not seem to be based on evidence.>>6441
Depends on the tresspass.
Tresspassing into your yard? Sure.
Tresspassing into your house? Maybe not.
Now, there's some particular circumstances around the 2nd, and I'm sure there could be some odd exceptions for the 1st, but overall, I think that answers your question.>>6442
What's wrong with that?
Don't tell me you believe that complete nonsense about him somehow surrounding and harassing this guy, do you?
Let me guess, you're one of those people who thinks that calling out racism and bigotry makes the person doing the calling out an actual racist and bigot, right?
"Wooloo, you're the real prejudiced type because you hate people who hate first! Checkmate, libtards!" then?
No; I'm someone who thinks prejudice based on someone's race makes you a racist.>>6447
Good on him. Shame what happened.
All he is, as a guy, is some regular guy.
Why is he some kind of Paris Hilton style major celebrity now?
He should be able to just live his life.
Likewise, has it occurred to you that calling out racism doesn't automatically mean you aren't racist?
I tend to hold to the belief that all forms of bigotry, discrimination, and prejudice are things that people get afflicted by and aren't absolute categories that're unchangeable: somebody being bigoted is akin to having bad breath or pneumonia or something; it's something that can fade in and out, be totally gone at some point, come in all of a sudden, and so on. It would be easy if people were either devils or angels. But that's not the case. Instead, people work at cross purposes though with positive motives.
Admittedly, this belief has been highly disproven over the past several years under Donald Trump and the rise of irremediable bigoted assholes such as him, Tucker Carlson, et al-- people who are just bad people-- but hope springs eternal.
I don't necessarily disagree, as I find most people unfortunately lack introspection on their beliefs. They do not think deeply about them. As a result, even political stances on a given topic can change radically dependent on when you talk to them.
That is the unfortunate reality of things. I blame it on the erosion of philosophy as a recognized and valued field, but that's just me.
In any case, of course, I disagree with the idea that Trump and Carlson are racist.
File: 1597805953257.png (70.88 KB, 600x600, 1:1, def-bigotry.png) ImgOps Google
I don't think that >>6454
claimed Trump and Carlson are racist? Only that they are bigoted. And I'd say that Trump is definitely bigoted and a bad person.
I suppose we're just at an impasse.
I do want to be clear: I'm not accusing Trump of being a white supremacist. Personally, I don't not believe that he is one. I do think based on the evidence documented by multiple reportings that Carlson is one.
>>6459>evidence documented by multiple reportings
Do you have any links handy? I'm not very familiar with Tucker Carlson in recent years. My impression from pre-2015 was that he was more libertarianish than far-right, but I might be misremembering or simply wrong.
I don't throw this around lightly. It's covered by stories like: https://www.mediamatters.org/tucker-carlson/tucker-carlson-completely-ignored-rep-steve-kings-racist-comments-except-attack
Yes, I know that Media Matters has a bias. However, the point of the matter is that Carlson had a guest on who said "we can’t restore our civilization with somebody else’s babies" and defended him for that.
File: 1597810197888.jpg (77.68 KB, 483x589, 483:589, 1471673336002.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
I took a look, but I didn't find much to support him being a white supremacist. Most of it seems to be about superiority of traditional Western culture, rather than racial. The best evidence I found of white supremacy is him saying this: “Iraq is a crappy place filled with a bunch of, you know, semiliterate primitive monkeys -- that’s why it wasn’t worth invading.”. The "primitive monkeys" part is pretty damning.
File: 1597948671740.jpg (114.41 KB, 681x960, 227:320, 109297982_3261198640609712….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
"defund the police" isn't the same as "abolish the police". Police will still exist.
Also, Biden has never said he supports defunding the police.
How about you do all those things BEFORE you defund the police so it doesnt become a fucking nightmare hellscape and the productive people leave and the gdp of those states tank
Once the gdp tanks and the cops dont have the resources to keep the order, the state becomes FUBAR and then the national guard has to come in, and thats where people get seriously hurt
Do it in the proper order, or else the now-defunded police will go to a right wing state for work or will find a new job entirely, you arent entitled to their protection, they've already refused to defend the DNC convention because they were disbarred from using basic riot control tools
Is that what you want? cops getting fed up and leaving high crime areas to fend for themselves?
>>6475>How about you do all those things BEFORE you defund the police
Because those things require money to do. Money we are currently giving to the police to handle them and they aren't doing a good job of? Like, that should be obvious. You can't just conjure the money needed to do these things from thin air. Especially since the right keeps denying funds for and shrinking any of these kinds of social services.
All of the rest of what you said is is ridiculous doomsaying you have no way of predicting.
The privileged left is outnumbered by the poorer conservatives, we don't have to comply with your demands, we're just being nice. If you won't meet us halfway I say let your kind be torn apart by the monsters the politicians you voted for created. Let your demise serve as an example to future generations, either way problem solved.
Your kind won't be getting away with what you pulled during the last recession, no place to flee plus with the system that allowed you to get away with this crumbling, we're likely going to have our way. Either fall into line or perish.
This always seemed like such a weird argument to me considering the way government spending works.
You do realize we're in massive debt, with spending outpacing our revenue, right?
Funding in one area doesn't really affect anything else. If it did, we wouldn't have a massive deficit.
What do you even mean by "your kind"?
All of this sounds like paranoia and conspiracy theory.
Well it's more about creating new programs and organizations to remove responsibilities from the police than it is about the police budget itself. But the point seems pretty clear to me. Instead of giving the police 20, give them 10 and also give them less responsibilities and use the other 10 to handle those things in better ways than the police currently are.
It's only as complicated as you make it.
Answer my question: Who is "your kind"?
Also, I'm far from privileged. You're speaking directly from your ass on that one.
None of what I said was ridiculous, you have no idea how people work
If you open up a vulnerability in your state(defunded police with nothing to solve the problems police currently need to solve) then your state will be exploited by bad actors, this isnt rocket science
And cops are people too, people that have to deal with bullshit every day and in high crime areas put their lives on the line, once their paycheck dips, they're gone mate, they aint coming back, and then defenseless people will be hurt and/or exploited like never before
Then I would suggest filling that gap first
, before you go on to remove the rotted pillar.
If you just yank it out before you bother to put in new supports, you're just knocking the whole thing down.
Which, given the rioting, violence, looting, arson, and general disregard for justice or people's rights, is starting to seem like the idea.
Pretty much this.
We're saying to areas with a lot of problems, with a lot of people at risk, "You're on your own for a while until we figure out what kind of new system we want".
It's an absolutely horrible idea.
We do need police reform, yes. I think most people agree with that.
But cutting off your leg to handle a broken toe is only going to make it so you can't stand up.
And how would you suggest we "fill the gap"? Pull the money from thin air? >>6483>And cops are people too, people that have to deal with bullshit every day and in high crime areas put their lives on the line
They knew the job was dangerous when they took it. >once their paycheck dips, they're gone mate, they aint coming back
I mean... good? We need less corrupt cops and more cops willing to do the job because they want to make a difference, not get rich or have power. And with less stuff on their plate and more time to devote to keeping the peace, their jobs will actually be safer.
Mate, it's the government
They're literally doing that right now
Yes, you can just "pull money out of thin air". If you couldn't, we wouldn't be in a massive pile of debt with a spending deficit.
And of course it goes without saying that until such a time as you have the new pillar in place, you're going to have to make sure the old one's still able to hold things up anyway.
Again; Just ripping out the pillar collapses everything.
Which isn't exactly beneficial to the people most at risk.>We need less corrupt cops and more cops willing to do the job because they want to make a difference, not get rich or have power.
Lower paying jobs get lower quality workers, anywhere you go.
While idealism is all well and good, you can't expect altruism to be common enough that people will sacrifice their own financial well-being and their families for the sake of others.
It's just not realistic.
That only makes sense if the old pillar isn't a danger to people. The old pillar is killing
us. No politicians running have supported just ripping it out, it's the people who are being killed by the police who want that.
File: 1597954131949.jpg (54.91 KB, 960x960, 1:1, 102263847_1016403796809579….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Yeah, I'm not interested in getting into another "police are killing us." "no they aren't." circular argument. Deny it all you want, the evidence is out there for people actually interested in it.
A broken toe is an issue.
You need to get that fixed.
Sawing off your leg does a fuckton more damage.
That would be very stupid.
Can we agree on that?
File: 1597955310383.png (49.62 KB, 487x404, 487:404, homicidebyrace.PNG) ImgOps Google
Maybe. Though I think these days we have better cures for that.
It'd still be pretty stupid of you to saw off your leg with nothing handy to replace or otherwise support that loss of a leg, however.
You certainly wouldn't figure to go as "business as usual".
Nonetheless; I wouldn't agree that this case the loss of the leg would be worth the broken toe.
Police absolutely do kill people unjustly, I agree.
Personally, I don't think it's particularly racial given the per capita crimerates, since you wanted to get in to that.
But, nonetheless, it's absolutely something that needs to be fixed.
The trouble is, the proposal is to saw off the leg with nothing handy to support it, without any concern for the damage caused without that support.
Funnily enough, this was often an issue with sawing off legs that turned gangrenous. Many people would as I understand it choose to end their own life, or beg to keep the leg, as they understood they would be completely unable to support their family, and live out the remainder of their days as a leach.
But, that's just picking at the hypothetical there.
The federal reserve printed a few billion dollars in a single day during the height of the wuhan flu pandemic, so yes, they can, in fact, "pull the money from thin air"
No one wants to risk their lives to defend a place that hates their guts and wants them dead, and the acab crowd absolutely wants them dead, and some have succeeded, some cops have been run over during the riots for instance
With record numbers quitting, and instability on the rise, you want to...make the problem worse by cutting their paychecks and denying them the resources to do their jobs
What you want will do the opposite, corrupt cops are all you will have left once this is over, from cops who enjoy hurting people, to cops with drug deals with certain gangs, and thus access to drug money>>6492
If your toe is gangrenous you cut off the foot or part of the foot, not the whole leg
>>6494>The federal reserve printed a few billion dollars in a single day
Do you have a source on that? >wuhan flu pandemic
That's not what it's called, and it's also not a flu. >No one wants to risk their lives to defend a place that hates their guts and wants them dead,
We "hate their guts" because they are corrupt. An uncorrupt police force wouldn't have to deal with them. Also, the vast majority of protesters don't want cops dead. We want them fired. We want them held accountable. "All Cops Are Bastards" is only a call for killing cops if you believe the corrupt and criminal are deserving of death without trial. An attitude that is the cause of all of this and not one I or most protesters share.
The system itself is the part that's corrupt, not the individuals. That's what needs to be changed, and changing that will change the perception of police officers as a whole. You act as if people just have an irrational hatred of cops that stems from nothing. That's not true. Change the things we are protesting and you change how we look at cops. And if it causes corrupt cops to quit and find other jobs... good? I mean I don't see a downside to that.
And there's definitely something to be said for a lot of these situations being more "guilty until proven innocent" for police.
Not likely to keep even decent people when you say "Doing your job may land you in prison, unless you can prove for sure you did nothing wrong, in which case it'll just destroy your career instead".>>6495https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/07/federal-coronavirus-relief-spending-worsens-debt-crisis/
Remove immunity, place legal requirements for DAs to prosecute criminals or put the city as potentially liable should said criminals go on to commit more crimes, put better training in place, notably without the paranoia and fear that a lot of them seem to encourage, and get some basic community outreach stuff so they aren't always immediately in investigation mode whenever they see someone, talk to someone, or otherwise engage with someone.
Outside of that, get rid of the drug war, put a separate section in charge of things like tickets and other minor "pay fine" offenses, get rid of no-knock warrants which'd probably go with the drug war anyway, and make IA a separate, state department, as a dedicated branch with specific requirements of transparency.
You realize a lot of what I proposed, especially in regards of training, would require more
Ok well "get rid of the drug war" would require funding for drug treatment programs and to decriminalize and regulate certain drugs. "Put separate section in charge of things like tickets and minor "pay fine" offenses" would also require funding for such a section. A separate section for dealing with the homeless and mentally ill would also be possible. A group in charge of Mental health services and creating affordable housing. More funding for that.
"better training" doesn't require more funding. It requires the funding we use on training right now to be better applied and more regulated. So which ones require more funding? We have all these new programs that need funding and money being wasted on the old one that is botching it.
A simple duckduckgo search, no idea if USAToday is a left or right wing website because I don't look at news from this one, I know the "haha money printer go brrr" meme was very popular for a while during that time though>wuhan flu
It's a meme name you dummy, its also to point out and remind people where this virus came from >we hate their guts because they are corrupt
You target innocent people by slandering all of them, same deal with black people in blm protests slandering every single white person as evil or whatever other crazy mumbo jumbo some may say, making them not much different from the white supremacists that hate them>THEY ARENT ALL LIKE THAT
No shit they arent, these types are a fringe group, just like white nationalists/supremacists, but trump supporters arent given the same grace despite most of them being civnats at worst and not being racist at all, thank fucking god votes are anonymous here, unlike places like sweden>>6497
If someone sees a risk to working as a cop like that, then they'll look elsewhere, its already dangerous enough, theres a line that should not be crossed>>6498
No-knocks are terrible for everyone from gun owners to pot smokers, I agree
Hard drugs need to stay out of communities though and the flow of those drugs should be targeted as opposed to its users
When I say "better training", I mean "better" in the sense of longer, harder, and more encompassing.
Not just repurposing what we have now. That's inadequate.
As I understand it, police training is a short process. It ought to be at least on par with the military, I would say, considering its application.
This aside, 'community outreach' would also cost more, as would a dedicated state agency for law enforcement on these police departments, especially considering the requirements of transparency. As you say, a separate portion to take care of tickets would also
All in all, I'm looking at it as though we need a significant expansion of police. Definitely not "defund".
Oh, and I didn't mention anything about drug treatment programs or housing the homeless... Frankly, I consider that a very separate issue. I do not think police do much of anything to change that, in regards to the drug war, or enforcing fines. It seems irrelevant to me.
Saying it "came from" there implies that it was created there when really it just originated there out of coincidence. So there's no need to remind people "where it came from", as it's not relevant to how we combat it. >You target innocent people by slandering all of them[b]
They aren't innocent. They are part of a corrupt system. That's why it says "All". All cops are part of that corrupt system.
I didn't say they aren't all like that, I said the majority of them aren't. The vast majority of them. Unlike with Trumps supports and white supremacy...
In my view, all the "separate sections" we mentioned would be unconnected from the police force entirely and be their own entities. One that require funding from somewhere. And since police are no longer tackling these problems, the portion of their budget formerly used to do so seems like the most logical way to fund them.>Oh, and I didn't mention anything about drug treatment programs or housing the homeless...
Those are issues the police are dealing with now and doing poorly at it, so I don't see how it's irrelevant. Police deal with drugs addicts and homeless vagrants because we do not have things in place to deal with those issues. Treating drug addicts and creating affordable housing is the best way to deal with those issues and get it off the police's plates. It would also lessen drug-dealing, a problem cops deal with, if less people are addicted to drugs.
>>6504>Saying it "came from" there implies that it was created there when really it just originated there out of coincidence.
I disagree. It literally just means that it came from there.>So there's no need to remind people "where it came from", as it's not relevant to how we combat it.
But it is
relevant to how to prevent something like this happening again in the future. The CCP fucked up even worse than Trump did. At least Trump didn't arrest anyone for telling the truth.>All cops are part of that corrupt system.
So are you.
How does knowing where it came from help prevent it? It spread to most of the world fairly quickly.
And no, I'm not. I'm not a cop, or part of law enforcement in any way.
>>6507>How does knowing where it came from help prevent it?
E.g., ban wet markets.>>6507>And no, I'm not. I'm not a cop, or part of law enforcement in any way.
But you pay taxes that go to funding the police.
I would consider all these aspects a part of "law enforcement", and thus the police.
It would seem rather strange not to count them to me. Dare I say, a little Orwellian.
People who are enforcing the law are law enforcement. Of course they're attached. Separating them as though they're not a part of law enforcement while they enforce the law makes it feel like they're just some completely autonomous political action squad not beholden to the legislation and judicial requirements of the rest of law enforcement.
But, yes, we can reappropriate some of the funds from standard agencies for these, AFTER
they're set up.
Doing it ahead of time is sawing off the leg to spite the toe.
If you pay taxes, you're quite literally funding the police.
Arguably, funding the murder.
If we're going to slap on group responsibility for being a part of the 'system', probably should stop paying taxes.
Where it came from is important because the CCP incompetence allowed unhygenic people to not only spread it, but also contaminate outgoing products, its a sign that we need to bring more production back home, we also desperately need more jobs for people to work once this virus is no longer a massive threat, so bringing it all back home can only be a good thing, the chinese nationals dont need sweatshop factories with suicide nets as the norm anyway, its literally slavery
I dont support trump with everything, but I see him as the better option than dementia biden, we need someone who can fight the CCP, and stop normalizing mass immigration, instead of helping people in their own country we're pushing them to abandon their homes and families for a "better life" here, which basically is only a thing so we can oversupply labor and keep wages low and keep housing prices up
And thats not even considering the brain drain of countries like india which is keeping them from advancing>inb4 you're a racist bigot nazi etc
I'm not white and I probably care more about the future of minority countries than you do, stop stealing good people, its just overloading america's job market and making people more racist once their livelyhood is taken from them, we never had this problem 20, 30 years ago, and racial strife was very low
>>6508>But you pay taxes that go to funding the police.
Yeah, and that's why I'm for defunding the police. >>6510
I would, but then I'd go to jail. It makes more sense to try and change where my taxes go and pay for, rather than needlessly get myself arrested and possibly killed. More than one way to fight a system. Besides, I'm barely paying any taxes at the moment because i'm between jobs.>>6509
They might be "law enforcment" but they shouldn't be part of "the police". The police system is corrupt to it's core. We want to make new organizations that deal with these problems. Dealing with homelessness, drug addiction, non-violent crimes, the mentally ill. All of that taken off the police's plates and given to people more equipped to deal with it. The people dealing with it would NOT be "police", because they would not need to use violence to deal with them in most situations. They wouldn't need guns or body armor or anything like that. "The Police" as we know them, the jack-booted thugs who show up with guns to shoot people who are (ostensibly) a danger to someone else don't need to be involved. We reserve them just for violent crimes and other situations where a trained squad of killers is necessary. I'm not sure where this is falling apart for you.
All law is backed by violence. It's the same as taxes. The IRS doesn't carry guns, but you might get those who do if you refuse to pay. This is the case for any systems proposed. A refusal to comply gets people with guns involved. Thus there's not really any practical distinction between "the police" and any other agency enforcing law.
They all bring the same threat behind them.
I disagree. Because of exactly what you said. The IRS doesn't carry guns, but they will get those involved who do ONLY if you refuse to pay. Meaning if you do everything you're supposed to and act within the confines of what is acceptable, then there is VERY little risk of losing your life when dealing with the IRS. Very few people are accidentally killed by the IRS doing routine audits or collections. Because there's that separation. Only call the guys with guns IF there's a problem, otherwise don't get them involved.
Keeping these new organizations separate and ONLY calling police when and if someone breaks the rules or endangers someone else is part of the police's peace-keeping job. But for 99% of the time, when people follow the rules and aren't a danger, the police don't need to be involved.
There's very little risk of you losing your life anyway, dealing with the police.
If we're getting into that, the chances are pretty minor anyway.
I'm fine with having a separate group, but, the distinction doesn't seem a practical one. All that changes is the response with force comes after the initial interaction, which is more likely to be heavy-handed since they now expect to deal with somebody uncooperative.
The main thing though, there isn't a moral distinction between the two.
One merely relies on the force of the other.
Arrests are still going to require those violent actors, as violence is the ultimate authority by which all others are derived.
File: 1597968586783.jpg (54.91 KB, 960x960, 1:1, 102263847_1016403796809579….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>6519>There's very little risk of you losing your life anyway, dealing with the police.
Yeah, if you're white. Not everyone is. >All that changes is the response with force comes after the initial interaction
Much more rarely, since the majority of interactions will go smoothly without needing to involve the police. That's the point.>Arrests are still going to require those violent actors
Arrests will. The point is to deal with these issues WITHOUT arrests.
Then let's hear the rate of police homicides to black population.
If it's such a huge risk, surely the numbers will reflect that.>Much more rarely, since the majority of interactions will go smoothly without needing to involve the police
Only with those willing to do as they are told, which is hardly a significant portion of police homicides incidents anyway.>Arrests will. The point is to deal with these issues WITHOUT arrests.
The trouble is, as I understand it, most the time there is trouble, it is because of an arrest being made.
File: 1597969853326.png (49.62 KB, 487x404, 487:404, 1597955310383.png) ImgOps Google
Oh, and since we're bringing stats up again;
Black people are disproportionately affected by police shootings when compared to their portion of the population. Hispanic people as well.
But I'm not really interested in listening to a bunch of white kids on a pony website deny what is happening.
File: 1597970846995.png (49.62 KB, 487x404, 487:404, 1597955310383.png) ImgOps Google
So your complaint isn't that it is likely or common or affects a large portion of people, just that it isn't evenly split among the population.
I'm sorry to say, I don't much care, and moreover, given the higher rate in regards to violent crime, I'm not even shocked there's a higher share.
You'd have to prove it to be unjustified, given that.
If you want to say we need police reform I'd agree. If you say it's racial, though, that's where I disagree
If you want to say a small number of incidents is worth sawing off the leg, again, I'd disagree.
It's why I push you for numbers, and I think a large part of why you won't provide them.
People know a lot of things. Hardly means much. We haven't exactly had a great track record when it comes to mass assumptions of reality.
Present somebody with the facts, and they have no choice but to accept them.
As to me, well, frankly, you do not have to prove a negative. The burden of proof is on you. You are the one who made a claim. you believe that this is a major danger to people of a particular race.
The data that I have seen, as already pointed out to you, does not seem to suggest what you say is true. >>6528
As I believe had been shown prior, though that may have been a different thread
I am pretty confident if you had a recording of Trump saying "God, I hate n****rs", "don't hire him, he's black", and so on, people would have no issue.
The trouble is, people expect us to accept what is not overt, but rather as they put it, "dog whistles". that or just assume the absolute worst, anyway.
There is also some conflict in the definitional standpoint.
I believe that racism is simply bigotry based on race. That is to say, judgment may not on the basis of ones character, but just the color of their skin. Metaphorically speaking, in regards to the color aspect, anyway.
Some people buy into this strange notion that, for example, black people cannot be racist. This causes some skewing. Especially when somebody liked him can say some extremely racist things, and get excuse after excuse.
File: 1597973562283.jpg (14.6 KB, 415x211, 415:211, atoms_bonding.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>6527>interactions with the police are dangerous and more likely to result in death than when white people do the same
Well then show the data that supports this. As I said earlier, I think it is false, based on the study I cited in >>6528
. Black people have more encounters with the police per capita, but the per-interaction probability of getting killed is the same as for white people.
>>6534>Well then show the data that supports this.
Now that you've been presented with the facts, you have no choice to accept them just as >>6531
said. But I won't be surprised if this doesn't actually happen and you find more excuses to discredit black people's experiences and data.>>6533
If anything short of saying "God, I hate niggers" isn't racism to you, then almost no one is a racist. But it's simply ignorant to ignore all of this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump
) and claim he isn't racist. Ignorant, or intentionally ignoring the facts.
The first one says that so far in this year, only 598 total, of all races, have died.
The black population in the United States is around 40,610,815.
Even if we take all of the deaths involved, this is not likely as you suggested.
Your second source confirms this.>"Risk is highest for black men, who (at current levels of risk) face about a 1 in 1,000 chance of being killed by police over the life course. "
This is quite literally sub 1%.
And that particular number is also sorting down to particular risk factors.
Your third source just seems to be an opinion piece about black on black crime, your fourth source is talking about racial differences, not the likelihood, and does not seem to bother taking an account the higher violent crime rates anyway, And does not seem to list The numbers, at least in the summary.
Your facts have to prove what you claim. Obviously.
If I tell you the Earth is flat, and then I give you a proof of the existence of clamshells, that doesn't mean you have to accept the Earth is flat.
Let's try to be rational about this.
File: 1597980844833.png (19.78 KB, 892x333, 892:333, forthewhitekid.png) ImgOps Google
Except in the very first link, there is a statistic that shows how black people are more likely to be killed by police.
Alternatively, it could simply be that he doesn't agree with your conclusion of the facts.
In the same sort of way someone doesn't have to agree with the conclusion of the /pol/ type who does the whole "despite being 13% of the population" thing.
>>6544>You're going to deny this issue because you don't want it to be true
No, I am denying the claim because the data that I have supports the negation of the claim. If the data supported your claim, then I would have affirmed it. >... because it actually means soing something about it rather than telling black people it's their own problem.
Well, even though the police don't act racist in regard to use of lethal force, they *do* act racist in regard to non-lethal use of force (again, according to the paper that I cited), so something still needs to be done about that.
It's not "my" conclusion. It's something everyone who isn't a bigot can see with the data we have and the evidence we see every day. >>6546
Well since I have to convince you not to be a bigot and ignore the obvious, what exactly would you want as "proof". Because if what you want is unfeesible, then you are being unreasonable.
File: 1598038832026.png (49.62 KB, 487x404, 487:404, homicidebyrace.PNG) ImgOps Google
So you say. I'd disagree, as there's plenty of explanations. Such as for example the higher crime rates.
I'm sure if we broke down policing by class, we'd see similar results, for example.
File: 1598041602186.png (262.29 KB, 496x876, 124:219, diana_update____by_devil_v….png) ImgOps Google
>>6547>I have to convince you not to be a bigot
Personal attacks are against the rules here.>ignore the obvious
I think you might be failing to consider the exact semantics of the question at issue. Many people who aren't careful in their reasoning mistakenly believe that a proposition is "obviously true" when it is actually false. For example, consider the proposition "A function which is continuous everywhere must be differentiable somewhere". It might seem obviously true at first glance, but if you think more carefully, you'll find that it's not obviously true, and in fact it is false.>what exactly would you want as "proof"
The same sort of evidence that convinced me that police are racist in non-lethal use of force.
YOu realize how increidbly racist posting this chart is, right? You are basically saying "Black people commit more murder, so it's OK for the cops to murder black people". Completely ignoring the other socio-economical factors and biases that go into that kind of data. You're basically saying "Anything bad that happens to black people at the hands of cops is because they deserve it for being criminals." If I have to explain to you why such a notion is racist, then I don't think you'd ever accept the facts.>>6549
Give me an example of the kind of data you're looking for for some other issue, then.
I do not consider facts to be racist, no.
I certainly wouldn't say that particular chart is the case because black people are inherently prone to violence, or any other such aspect based solely on their racial characteristics, so I can't see how you would assume it to be racist.
Anyway, I never used the word deserved.
But a natural outcome of higher rates of criminality is going to be higher rates of policing, higher policing rates are obviously going to correlate with higher counts of police violence, higher police vons are obviously going to correlate with higher instances of police shootings, higher instances of police shootings are obviously going to correlate with higher instances of unjustified shootings.
Thus, it does not appear to me to be any bigotry at play here. Not in regards to police killings, anyway. >Completely ignoring the other socio-economical factors and biases that go into that kind of data.
Yes, as it is ultimately irrelevant to the question in this particular matter. Likewise, you did the same. Although I would argue it is relevant in your aspect, as it represents the difference between increased likelihood of police shootings based solely on the color of one skin, versus based on the higher rate of crime.
Again, it isn't something deserved. But not being "deserved" doesn't mean "because they were black"
>>6551>Give me an example of the kind of data you're looking for for some other issue, then.
Consider a study of two treatments for kidney stones performed at a given hospital.
Treatment A successfully treated 273 of 350 patients (78%).
Treatment B successfully treated 289 of 350 patients (83%).
Yet, for any given patient seeking treatment, Treatment A is more likely to be successful, even though it successfully treated a lower percentage of patients in the study. I think you can see where this is going, but if you don't, head over to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox>>6551>You are basically saying "... so it's OK for the cops to murder black people".>You're basically saying "... they deserve it for being criminals."
He didn't say anything remotely like that!
I just want to point out that the chart is somewhat misleading. Like it's all drawn to scale, sure, but it's so zoomed in that it makes it look like there's just this huge gap, like "Wow, 5 times the murders!"
But what we're actually talking about is .025% against .005%. In other words, the percentage chance of anyone committing murder is so negligible that it shouldn't be taken into account for any given interaction with an officer. It is correct to say that 99.9% of people, regardless of race, do not pose a violent threat to you. So in all cases, you should not assume violent intent.>>6553>He didn't say anything remotely like that!
Ultimately, one person is saying "People should not be shot and murdered." The other person responding "Well these people are more likely to be criminals." inherently implies that it is okay to shoot criminals. The first statement of "We should not murder people." includes criminals, it says that criminals also shouldn't be murdered. Whether it is okay for the police to murder people at all is the direct conflict here.>>6515>>6519
I would go on to suggest that these other organizations actually have no legal backing and no violent power of law to enforce. Especially with something like drug laws, we should have programs for rehabilitation and those programs should be voluntary
, not an enforced mandate upon people who use drugs.
As another example, police currently enforce a lot of traffic laws, and that enforcement is a big part of what gets people killed, cops or otherwise. I think an ideal enforcement of traffic laws would be entirely done after
an accident occurs, something that we're nearly incapable of preventing anyway because the number of cops we'd need would be astronomical. After an incident, the incident gets reviewed and your license may get revoked. Driving without a license gets you put in jail. And at the point that people are driving without a license, I'm more okay with the police going in guns drawn, because the subject has already been determined to be a serious danger to society.
File: 1598401785873.jpg (41.58 KB, 600x545, 120:109, pokemon-jelly-donuts-189.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>6565>inherently implies that it is okay to shoot criminals.
Not per se
. But criminals do things that justify the use of deadly force in self-defense much more often than law-abiding citizens.> criminals also shouldn't be murdered.
I agree with that. (And sometimes a SWAT team accidentally goes to the wrong house and shoots innocent people and dogs. So even for crimes with the death penalty, the police definitely shouldn't be the executioners.)
Doesn't a large percentage of the American population, though, actively want the police to be executioners?
Look at the mass reaction every time, say, a member of the mafia or a serial killer or somebody else gets off on a technicality in terms of the legal system. You see forums online and even chatter on news interviews from people wishing that the cops would've just given the arrested criminals the Popeye Doyle treatment.
This is something that honestly makes criminal justice reform close to impossible, in my opinion. Some x% to a gigantic degree of the populace really and truly don't believe in law enforcement as merely being law enforcement-- they want something tougher.
>>6565>But what we're actually talking about is .025% against .005%. In other words, the percentage chance of anyone committing murder is so negligible that it shouldn't be taken into account for any given interaction with an officer.
Perhaps, but it's also worth noting that the percentage chance of anyone getting killed by an officer is, likewise, exceptionally rare.
It is correct, as you put it, to say that 99.9% of officers are not a violent threat to you, so you shouldn't assume in all cases it's representative of some kind of bigotry at play.>Ultimately, one person is saying "People should not be shot and murdered." The other person responding "Well these people are more likely to be criminals." inherently implies that it is okay to shoot criminals.
No, because this isn't at all what is being said.
This is a dishonest mischaracterization.
What is being said is very simple; The disparity between white and black people killed by police can be explained by looking at the disparity between white and black crime rates.
This does not mean it is OK to murder. Never was this suggested by anyone here whatsoever. That is a hostile presumption solely on your part, with no basis whatsoever in anything anyone has yet stated thus far.
I have said it is not racism. I never said that it is just.> Whether it is okay for the police to murder people at all is the direct conflict here.
Of course it's not.
Everyone, bar some crazies, are against police just murdering people.
I rather doubt anyone here are some kind of "line dissidents against the wall" loonies, after all.
The disagreement at play, the "conflict", is whether it's because of racism.
Definitely not. There is some bad reaction when justice fails to be carried out, especially due to technicalities, sure, but it is absolutely unfair to claim that represents the majority of Americans.>>6570
If that were true, we wouldn't still have gun rights.
>>6571>Perhaps, but it's also worth noting that the percentage chance of anyone getting killed by an officer is, likewise, exceptionally rare.
The key difference there is that we've collectively sanctioned the police to perform these actions. We can mostly stop police murders by just like...telling them not to murder. I agree that it would be incorrect to see a police officer and, out of fear for your life, preemptively shoot them in the back. But solving murders done by police where everything is, or at least should be, recorded and documented, should be a lot easier than solving murder as a general concept that's plagued humanity since its inception.>>6572>If that were true, we wouldn't still have gun rights.
People who agree with the police state have gun rights. People who disagree with the police state tend to lose their gun rights.
File: 1598448124177.png (424.46 KB, 393x641, 393:641, kyouko-cereal.png) ImgOps Google
>>6573>We can mostly stop police murders by just like...telling them not to murder.
I disagree. We already
tell them not to murder. Occasionally a cop is even prosecuted for murder.
The main problem is that the line between murder and justifiable homicide is rather thin in many cases. It's not like we have cops just randomly shooting people. For a long time, cops have been trained to be quick to use deadly force in self-defense. To reduce the number of unjustified shootings by police, probably the most effective solutions would be to (1) reform police training to emphasize avoiding unnecessary shootings and (2) develop a protocol for how people should interact with police and, after approval by a majority of the states and a majority of the population, start teaching it to police and to the general population (probably starting in middle school) across the country. As Archilocus said, “We don't rise to the level of our expectations; we fall to the level of our training.”>People who agree with the police state have gun rights. People who disagree with the police state tend to lose their gun rights.
Not really. Exercising your 1A rights to disagree with the state doesn't tend to remove your 2A rights. People who obey
the state retain their rights; people who disobey
the state lose their rights. But, I would argue that Section 922 unconstitutionally deprives many people of their rights. Simple possession of contraband should not permanently deprive a person of his right to armed self-defense. It should be the government's burden to prove that a person is especially dangerous, and the disenfranchised person should be able to periodically challenge this legal disability.
>>6571>This is a dishonest mischaracterization.
I wouldn't say that Funny Gazelle was necessarily dishonest
. It is quite possible that he/she simply misunderstood
your argument before you clarified it in >>6571
>>6575>I disagree. We already tell them not to murder.
You are right, I somewhat oversimplified things there. My point was that to at least some extent we have more control over the police department than we do over the base urges of the entire human population. "Telling them not to murder" could actually be a relatively extreme undertaking, but we are capable of seeing what needs to be done and doing it, which makes it relatively simple.>>6575>People who obey the state retain their rights; people who disobey the state lose their rights.
This is also a more accurate statement, yes.>>6576
I perhaps misunderstood the argument of both people. To clarify, though, my
argument is certainly that people should not be shot and killed, generally regardless of their criminal status. In what I will claim is a majority of cases, it is better to have a criminal alive and free than it is to have them dead.
File: 1598469995981.jpg (781.55 KB, 1624x2087, 1624:2087, 1492220127301.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>6577>To clarify, though, my argument is certainly that people should not be shot and killed, generally regardless of their criminal status. In what I will claim is a majority of cases, it is better to have a criminal alive and free than it is to have them dead.
I'm pretty sure police are supposed to shoot only to protect themselves or others from imminent or extreme risk of death, serious bodily injury, rape, etc. I don't think they normally shoot merely to arrest a fleeing suspect.
"Supposed to", sure, but it's not what happens, and perhaps more importantly it's not what I tend to see from people responding to police murders. Whether or not anyone in the thread believes it, one of the first reactions to someone getting shot by the police is "Oh but they were a criminal." To again what I believe to be a majority of the American populace, if you're a criminal in any way, no matter how minor, you've largely given up your right to life. This is what I mean when I say people want a police state. There is a list of things they personally find acceptable, and if anyone falls outside of that list of acceptable behaviors, they are completely okay with them being shot and killed.
Now do police follow up on that desire? Not necessarily, because there is another part of the country that gets very upset by this, if the recent riots were any indication. But the country does not entirely agree on "criminals should not be shot and murdered", which is going to make any reform of the police department very difficult.
File: 1598474233133.png (772.35 KB, 269x720, 269:720, 1531423593233.png) ImgOps Google
>>6579>one of the first reactions to someone getting shot by the police is "Oh but they were a criminal."
I have an alternative hypothesis for the reasoning of people with those reactions. Maybe instead of thinking "He was a criminal, therefore he deserved
to get killed", they were thinking "He was violent criminal, therefore, in the absence of conclusive video evidence, it is likely that he acted in such a way that justified the police shooting him". An example explained by my hypothesis: Eric Garner had a long criminal record, but hardly anyone thought the police were justified in killing him, because there was clear video evidence showing that he didn't do anything that would require the police to kill him.
Sure, and I agree, it's just that none of that was relevant to the conversation we were having.
Murder is murder, and certainly not something supportable.
The contention here is that it was happening on racial lines.
I do not believe it's because of racism.>People who agree with the police state have gun rights. People who disagree with the police state tend to lose their gun rights.
Here in this country, gun rights are universal to all citizens. You can only lose those rights if you are a felon. It's not dictated by political belief.
I certainly disagree with the police state, yet I certainly still have my gun rights.
Perhaps what you're thinking of is the tenancy of left wing areas to be anti-gun. Though I wouldn't really say they tend to disagree with the 'police state' anyway, as much as want their own police state in charge.>>6576
Maybe. I'll be honest, I took significant offense at being told I was arguing that it's okay to murder people.
Just seems like a shitty thing to accuse someone of.
Murder is certainly wrong, but killing itself is not inherently a moral failing.
If it is morally justified for the police to shoot them, either due to threatening someone else, or in an instance of self defense, there's nothing inherently 'wrong' with killing someone.
Or is the complaint more towards the 'likelihood' aspect? In that case, I'd just say unfortunately very often there is little information before these cases go to the public eye. These things usually require an investigation, and it isn't really productive to presume the worst.
>>6582>You can only lose those rights if you are a felon. It's not dictated by political belief.
Whether or not you're a felon is determined by the police state. Not all political beliefs get you labeled a felon, but there are certainly things that I'd count as political beliefs that will, and there's no telling what will count as a felony tomorrow.>>6583>>6584
It is more the likelihood aspect, yes. The average citizen is considered innocent until proven guilty, so I'm hesitant to simply allow citizens to be assumed guilty.
Contrarily, I'd say the police should indeed be guilty until proven innocent, at least while on the job. Assuming innocence on the part of the police is a gateway to the sort of abuse stories we're seeing on a weekly basis now. Assuming them to be guilty ideally prompts them to keep as much evidence proving their innocence as possible, such as the mentioned body cams.
The onus should not be on the rest of the populace to demand higher scrutiny. Police should be incentivized to provide that level of scrutiny themselves, with every failing to do so forcing them to reconsider how best they can prove their innocence.
File: 1598479663997.jpg (55.96 KB, 1366x768, 683:384, monogatari-Pic9401.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>6585> Not all political beliefs get you labeled a felon, but there are certainly things that I'd count as political beliefs that will
Huh? What beliefs are thinking about? The First Amendment protects even advocating for the violent overthrow of the government (as long as you don't cross the line into inciting imminent lawless action).>the police should indeed be guilty until proven innocent, at least while on the job.
In regards to employment-related penalties (e.g., getting fired), that might work. (After all, in the private sector, people in at-will employment can be fired for whatever reason or no reason at all.) But I'm pretty sure it would be unconstitutional to have "guilty until proven innocent" in regards to criminal penalties.
>>6586>The First Amendment protects
The First Amendment protects speech, which is nice. It doesn't protect doing
. Doing things can still get you labeled a felon, at which point your rights are forfeit. If all you're doing is advocating that people should be able to smoke weed, no problem. If at any point you actually smoke weed? Now you're in danger. (Note that I'm not 100% about what level of possessing drugs is a felony, but I'm pretty sure it's in there somewhere.) And what counts as a felony can be adjusted, it's not set in stone, so theoretically if you wanted to remove the rights from a group of people, you can find something objectionable they do and declare it a felony.>In regards to employment-related penalties (e.g., getting fired), that might work.
That's largely all the farther I'd like to take it, I'm not a vindictive person. Being a police officer should (perhaps already does?) require some kind of license which can be removed if you screw up and murder people. I don't need them to be excessively fined or imprisoned or executed, but I do need them to no longer be cops.
File: 1598481309273.png (512.02 KB, 510x606, 85:101, 1597634300194.png) ImgOps Google
>>6587>Doing things can still get you labeled a felon
Well, yeah, but we were talking about mere beliefs
, not actions.
File: 1598482342700.jpg (124.42 KB, 850x1214, 425:607, sample_f224c78776d3dd9684b….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Beliefs don't need to be useful for some purpose. People just have beliefs, and they can't truly change their beliefs via will power alone. So it would be greatly unfair to punish someone for his beliefs alone. It would be akin to punishing someone just because he is black or has Jewish heritage, etc.
Speaking hypothetically here, but what if your belief was some Pagan thing about a certain festival or something, and that a ritual needs to be performed in order to appease a god for good harvests. Doesn't really matter what it is, but let's assume it's all 100% non-violent. The thing is, actually performing that ritual is a felony. If you perform the ritual, you are now a criminal of some severity.
In that hypothetical situation, you are allowed to believe that this important non-violent act should be performed, but you aren't allowed to perform it. Is that not basically just as bad as outlawing the belief itself?
>>6585>but there are certainly things that I'd count as political beliefs that will, and there's no telling what will count as a felony tomorrow.
Like what? I can't really think of any political beliefs that would get you landed in jail. The closest I could even think of is maybe if you said "we need to go out right now and kill every Jew we see", but I would say insightment to violence is solid reason to act in that particular regard.
Maybe, if we're talking actions, political things can make you a felon, sure. The silk road for example was made for political reasons as I understand it. But, that's an action, not a belief. There was reason to arrest him, as much as I might disagree with it. It was based on an action made, not purely a political belief.
File: 1598483292615.png (1.97 MB, 2534x3542, 181:253, o1ifpfn7aq621.png) ImgOps Google
>>6591>Is that not basically just as bad as outlawing the belief itself?
No, because the person is in conscious control of whether to perform the action in question, but is not in conscious control over whether to keep believing the belief in question.
I think I can agree with you in regards to the police meeting to proofings, though I would say as far as criminal charges go, they ought to be held to the same standard as anyone else.
But if you can't prove you were completely justified in what you did, you probably should lose your job for sure.
This said, though, it's a fairly different argument from whether or not the police are racist, as the initial trail went on
They let you advocate to be allowed to do those things. They let you try to get political support to be allowed to do those things.
It's why in many places weed is now legal.
I Don't think it's unreasonable to tell somebody who thinks property shouldn't exist that they should be arrested if they try to steal from somebody.
they can still advocate for the abolishment of property if they so desire, it's no restriction on their rights.
Maybe somehow they'll get support for it, and somehow put in place political change.
this isn't to say civil disobedience can't be useful, in regards to changing political policy, I just don't really consider The inability to act itself to be a violation of your ability to have a political belief.
As an example, I think it is reasonable for the gym in New Jersey to engage in civil disobedience by reopening, despite its illegality. I think that it could be argue there is a violation of their rights, in regards to restricting them from opening, but not to their Right to hold a political belief.
it may be morally justified, like in their case, to disobey the law. That doesn't mean being arrested for disobeying the law is itself a violation of your rights, or somehow preventing you from having a political belief
Well it's obvious at this point that I disagree, but let's move to a slightly different question.
Rather than "as bad", is it "good"? Or is that still bad, and just not "as bad"?
My fundamental claim was not the technicalities of what a belief is and what separates it from an action. My claim is that the police state removes rights from people based on laws that the felon had no influence in making. It's one thing for someone to agree to a contract and upon breaking that contract being penalized by the other side. It's another thing entirely for someone to write a contract without direct input and then hold an individual to this contract whose existence they opposed.
To expound upon my first post, living under a police state is fine if you agree with all the decisions said police state has made. If you support the police state, then there is likely no disagreement in what they are doing, and if one surfaces then it's probable that the fault doesn't lie with the state.
If you disagree with the police state, and then live out your life in defiance of the police state, an entity that has decided to enforce rules without your consent, then the fault lies squarely with the police state, and not the person who has simply attracted the social ire of the people the police state represents.>>6594>This said, though, it's a fairly different argument from whether or not the police are racist, as the initial trail went on
I erroneously skimmed the argument and responded out of hand, it seems. I won't say the police aren't racist, but I also won't say I have any evidence proving that they are, nor do I think it's relevant. Finding general solutions regardless of race should also solve any problems wherein the police use their position for racism.>>6595>I Don't think it's unreasonable to tell somebody who thinks property shouldn't exist that they should be arrested if they try to steal from somebody.
The problem is in determining what is or isn't "reasonable". There's plenty of extreme examples in history wherein "reasonable" things at the time were in fact rather horrifying. With things like theft or murder, I think it would be easy to get an overwhelming majority of support, likely at least 90% if not higher. But if anything falls short of that base level of agreement then maybe it doesn't have enough support to be considered "reasonable".
File: 1598487242128.jpg (20.38 KB, 236x333, 236:333, df9640e5f16f7ffc2b03ffbd10….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>6596>Rather than "as bad", is it "good"? Or is that still bad, and just not "as bad"?
I'd say it's still bad (assuming you're referring to criminalizing the pagan ritual in >>6591
).>It's one thing for someone to agree to a contract and upon breaking that contract being penalized by the other side. It's another thing entirely for someone to write a contract without direct input and then hold an individual to this contract whose existence they opposed.
Personally, I lean towards being a moderate libertarian. I feel individuals generally shouldn't be punished for acts that don't pose a significant risk of being harmful. But things like driving recklessly while heavily intoxicated, or dumping pollution into a river, or building a nuclear power plant without modern safety features --- those things I think can be justly criminalized. Also, I think some level of taxation can be justly imposed, and that tax evasion can be criminalized.
>>6596>Finding general solutions regardless of race should also solve any problems wherein the police use their position for racism.
I can definitely agree 100% there. Police reform should not require any specific consideration of race, as the entire point is to have law as fair and neutral, without the concern of the color of somebody's skin.>But if anything falls short of that base level of agreement then maybe it doesn't have enough support to be considered "reasonable".
sure, but if you have that kind of support, you can probably get political change without breaking the law in that regard.
Though again, like I said, civil disobedience to prove a point is not inherently wrong.
There are plenty of cases of people doing that for good reasons. Like I said, I think the gym in new jersey is a good example, there's also the feminist I recall Trump posthumously pardoned who voted it legally, And I would say the activists painting over a political slogan in New York who as I understand it inevitably get arrested for vandalism are likewise, ultimately, justified in their civil disobedience.
It's just that, getting arrested for civil disobedience doesn't mean you aren't allowed to believe something. Nor does it mean you aren't allowed to push for something.
You are still free to say, and believe, however you like.
It's the actions that have consequences.