Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 20 [21] 22 23 24 ... 26   Go Down

Author Topic: open carry protests  (Read 106057 times)

kelteckiller

  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 110
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #300 on: July 09, 2008, 10:44:20 am »

Market activism can be 'messy', but is more likely a better path to freedom in that it doesn't need majority opinion to work.

I'm in favor of both market-based and political-based activism.  I'm glad both are going on in NH.  "Something for everyone!"

The skeptic of market activism (if we're talking about the same term) will point out that the majority can still be effective in impeding market activism, simply by passing new laws that turn certain market activists into criminals.  The effectiveness of market activists is greatly diminished when they're behind bars, or when their property is seized.

I think both market-based and political-based activism are great as well.  I just think the market-based ones need some discretion...and that is just MY opinion.  I don't think it should be illegal to do any of them.  I think a nice article in the Hippo press about open carry could be a good idea or even trying to get a spot on WMUR.  You know 107.7 will get you guys on.  I think just getting it to the front of people's minds that open carry is legal will take it "shock" factor away.  Hunters don't get shocked by it...we see them all the time. 
Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #301 on: July 09, 2008, 10:49:27 am »

I never said that you have never asked any questions.
And I never said that you said that I never asked any questions. (Whew. :p)
I asked questions. You said I didn't.
Reality hurts.

And, yet again, your pathetic little straw men don't hold water.

You claimed that I said, "public," which I did not.  You did not ask a question, there.  You made a statement that I said, "public."  I pointed that out, and you tried to build a straw man by replacing "public" (which I did not say) with "pedestrian" (which I did say).

Now, let's answer the complete question: what are a few pairs of unrelated laws used to attack people all the time?

Why?  Clearly, with all your massive legal expertise, you will have no trouble finding many such examples, right?

Only possible reason? For telling me to "go read" all the time, you might wanna try it. Go look at what I explicitly wrote. All of it.

If you look through a number of legal books, treatises, periodicals, etc. you will nearly always see a (much longer) disclaimer like that. It's a warning to people. To let them know the author isn't writing as their personal attorney, and that no attorney-client relationship is formed, and that advice shouldn't be relied on. Honestly, it's more an insurance reason than anything else. Sounds like a possible reason to me; and the the correct one.

Someone looking to avoid liability would state, "I'm not your attorney, and you should not consider this legal advice," without ever once mentioning anything about a license.

Try a little harder, next time...

Do you know what a straw man argument is?
You've used it quite a few times now.
But not once correctly.

Prove it.  Demonstrate how my claim is incorrect.

No, no, no. You misunderstand.
I don't just want "some attorneys to consult". Not just any 'ole attorneys.

Who are a few of the attorneys you previously said have read the particular statute?

I didn't refer to any attorneys, let alone specific ones.  I referred to a general class of competent legal professionals.

That you further research the law of libel. To claim you're aware of those laws, you would've had to look into it a bit more, since there was a gap in your understanding. Since you're now aware, you must've looked into it some more.

Actually, no.  I didn't say anything about "now."  I did no additional research.  My understanding of the laws of libel is, apparently, better than your own.

So if you're not being ambiguous on purpose, my memory just might be deficient!

If yours isn't deficient, could you please point out where these supposed contradictory statements are?
Again, I'd be more than happy to explain anything that wasn't clear.

I would suggest actually reading these posts.

What?! No. Just... no.
(hangs head in shame... I have failed to reach theeese keeeds.)
What I believe (about libertarianism) is not relevant to telling us whether you apply a differing standard by which you're treating other posters.
Even if, my personal beliefs would not alone tell anyone whether my posts are trolls or strawmen.
I could believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (or something equally crazy).
But I could still look at the ocean, and exclaim, "Oh. It looks wet."
And I'd be correct.
But neither of those facts tells us anything--not even remotely--about how you're treating other people when you communciate with them.

Given that your claims are blatantly false, I'm attempting to determine why they are false...

And, hey, look Ma', I can argue fallaciously too! If you're unwelcoming to the liberty-minded people who visit this web site, "you are no sort of libertarian at all."

--Sounds valid and convincing, doesn't it?

Not in the slightest.

You really have no idea what a straw man argument is, do you?
Read the third-to-last line above. That's an example of one.
You inappropriately expanded what I wrote ("we should welcome liberty-minded people") to a "We should convince folks to move to NH just because it's underpopulated". That's a no-no.

Expanding an argument is not necessarily a straw man.  Which you would know if you actually understood the concept.  A straw man involves replacing an argument with a different argument which one can disprove more easily.

Expanding an argument can sometimes make it into a straw man.  Expanding an argument to its logical conclusion to demonstrate its absurdity (reductio ad absurdum) is not a straw man argument.

And that pointing-a-gun-at-your-neighbors head-if-his-dog-barks thing?
You keep pulling that out of your hat.
But I don't think anyone has actually, ever said it.
Well, except when you first fabricated it.

I would suggest familiarizing yourself with this thread, in which someone claimed that he wanted to hire thugs with guns to stop his neighbor from having a barking dog.  You should be familiar with it, given that you defended his choice...
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=15358.0

--AND before it slips my mind, where in the world was that pedestrian so that he wouldn't have been in public?

A pedestrian is someone who travels by foot.  The obvious purpose of describing him as such is to say that he was most assuredly not on a roadway, where he would be in public.

Save that I'm wrong from time-to-time, you're right, there's little common ground. Most of the content above is just bickering (though I'm really hoping you realize about the lack of support in your posts). This thread could continue in perpetuity. We're hardly addressing the substantive issues any more, so it's fast becoming a waste (though, amusing use) of time. Unless you can address any of the original issues I identified (identify the unrelated laws, attorneys, etc.), I'll try really hard to ignore whatever illogical non-response you can cobble together. Unless I see something particularly juicy and just can't resist. But that's not a goal you should aspire to!

It's always quite amusing when individuals with delusions of grandeur try to rant like that.  I mean, it's not even worthy of literary praise, let alone containing any substance...

But your posts aren't even amusing.  They're just sad.  You'd have to at least make your silly claims complex enough to require more than a minute to respond do, in order to even hope to amuse me.

Joe
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #302 on: July 09, 2008, 10:57:23 am »

The FSP -- with only a couple hundred people having made the move to NH -- already has far more political success (especially per capita) than the LP ever has, or possibly ever will.

Of course, the majority of the early movers (who have had such great success), in my experience are the anarchist sorts...

I don't think it should be illegal to do any of them.

No, you just think that "the law" should be able to assault and coerce anyone they see doing it, with total immunity from the consequences.  How silly of us to confuse the two.  LMAO.

I think a nice article in the Hippo press about open carry could be a good idea or even trying to get a spot on WMUR.  You know 107.7 will get you guys on.  I think just getting it to the front of people's minds that open carry is legal will take it "shock" factor away.

Yes, because the best way to get people to not be shocked by something is to hide it so that they rarely see it.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.  People are "not shocked" by things they view as ordinary.  So long as open carry is not ordinary, they will view it as "shocking."  The only way to eliminate the shock value is to just go about our business, leading "normal" lives, while we just happen to be openly carrying guns.

Joe
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

rossby

  • Director of Development
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4801
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #303 on: July 09, 2008, 01:38:34 pm »

The barking dog thing keeps reappearing on a few threads.
So I'd like to do a bit of factual "clean-up".
Might be confusing for anyone just joining us.

Quote from: MaineShark
"Someone claimed that he wanted to hire thugs with guns to stop his neighbor from having a barking dog.  You should be familiar with it, given that you defended his choice..."

I went back to the thread you linked to.

No one mentioned the police going around threatening neighbors with guns because of a barking dog.
The word gun doesn't appear anywhere until you wrote it.
Fishercat was the first person to mention police. But it looks like he was only explaining what he heard from a CoP about a new ordinance.
But you did say it. And kept repeating it:

Here.
And here.
And here again.

These words, combined together, are what's being into the posters' mouths.

Quote from: MaineShark
"Someone claimed that he wanted to hire thugs with guns to stop his neighbor from having a barking dog.  You should be familiar with it, given that you defended his choice..."
No one ever claimed that "he wanted to hire thugs with guns to stop his neighbor from having a barking dog" in that thread.
Just didn't happen.

At best, the whole "dog barking-thugs with guns"-thing is a gross exaggeration of what was being talked about regarding noise. If you read the thread carefully and for comprehension, you'll find that the posters set out pretty clearly their own opinions about what is acceptable and what is not.
Logged

J’raxis 270145

  • First 1000
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1955
  • DILIGE·QVOD·VIS·FAC
    • Jeremy J. Olson
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #304 on: July 09, 2008, 02:20:39 pm »

Yes, you do. This is why the LP can't elect anything beyond school board, and this is why I'm skeptical of hauling my life to New Hampshire. If you run around acting self righteous and arrogant, then you win no allies in the public sphere. Whether you like the system or not, you can't do anything about it so long as it has the legitimacy of the majority.

For the one thousand, three hundred, seventy fourth time (but maybe only the 4th time in this thread)...the opinions expressed by Joe, Powerchuter, or any individual you might come across on these forums are just that: opinions of individuals on the forums.  AKA, opinions of a very tiny percentage of FSPers.  AKA, not necessarily representative of the opinions of anyone except the persons expressing their opinions; and certainly not the "opinion of the FSP" -- whatever that is.

Suppose you were thinking about going to a concert given by your favorite musician, and about 20,000 people were expected to attend.  If you found out that two kids from high school that you didn't get along with were going, would you sit home and fret about it, and miss the concert of your life?

Furthermore, while your skepticism of the FSP vis-a-vis political failures of the LP is understandable, it's wrong.  There is already an FSPer in the NH house of representatives, there are a bunch more running this fall, and I know of at least two FSPers who have been or currently are selectmen in their towns.  Then you have effective pro-liberty organizations that were founded by or are heavily supported by free staters, like the NH Liberty Alliance.  The FSP -- with only a couple hundred people having made the move to NH -- already has far more political success (especially per capita) than the LP ever has, or possibly ever will.  And yes, there are plenty of free staters who want nothing to do with the political process, but this does not impede the actions of those free staters who are trying to use the political process to gain freedom.

This.³



jrod:—

Perhaps you should come up and visit before forming any impressions of who all of us are. Or at least watch some of the videos of freestaters in real life and how we actually work, e.g., The Ridley Report, or the “Finding Life and Liberty in the Free State” (part 1, part 2) videos. And here is a great post on the NHLA forum from someone who was originally wary of freestaters (as a result of reading the forums) after he actually met some of us last Sunday.



Fortunately, "we" don't need your agreement on our "ways"...since the only thing we are demanding from you and everyone else is for "everyone to leave everyone else alone"...

Seriously, Rob, tone it down—how are comments like this and others conducive to educating people about voluntaryism? I remember you telling me that such an opportunity for education was the primary reason you supported the Ron Paul campaign, for example. How are belligerent comments like this helpful?
Logged

J’raxis 270145

  • First 1000
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1955
  • DILIGE·QVOD·VIS·FAC
    • Jeremy J. Olson
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #305 on: July 09, 2008, 02:31:42 pm »

No one mentioned the police going around threatening neighbors with guns because of a barking dog.
The word gun doesn't appear anywhere until you wrote it.
Fishercat was the first person to mention police. But it looks like he was only explaining what he heard from a CoP about a new ordinance.
But you did say it. And kept repeating it:

Here.
And here.
And here again.

These words, combined together, are what's being into the posters' mouths.

Any threat of using the government to stop someone from doing something implies threatening people with guns. It doesn’t matter how light the initial penalty is. Just ask yourself: What happens if you refuse to pay a $1 fine? And then what happens if you refuse to go with them when they come to arrest you?

This is what any supporter of any law has to ask themselves: Do you believe __________ should be enforced by killing the offender?
Logged

margomaps

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 708
  • I'm a llama!
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #306 on: July 09, 2008, 04:09:24 pm »

This is what any supporter of any law has to ask themselves: Do you believe __________ should be enforced by killing the offender?

This is a key point, and one that results in much consternation when you question those who refuse to believe it.  It's fascinating watching their thought process unfold.  All manner of justifications are invented to avoid the inescapable conclusion...

"Of course the offender shouldn't be killed for not paying his taxes.  That's what <jail/fines/etc.> is for."

But what if the person refuses to pay the fine, or show up for his court date?

"Well, I guess they'll be arrested."

But what if the person won't open the door when the police come?

"The police can kick in the door, but I doubt the person would resist to such an extent."

But what if they did?  And what if the person decided to use a weapon defend himself from the armed intruders?

"Ok, there might be a shootout or something.  But nobody would take it that far."

And if they did?

"Well they might get shot by the police.  But only because they escalated the situation in the first place.  This never happens!"


I've had this conversation with many people.  Almost all of them start off denying that you could be killed for not paying your taxes.  Then they agree that death is not an appropriate punishment for doing so.  By the end of it, they've admited that you could get killed, and it would be your own fault.  At the last moment, they quickly revert back to "This hypothetical is impossible!  It would never happen!" in order to prevent their head from imploding in a vacuum of cognitive dissonance.
Logged

J’raxis 270145

  • First 1000
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1955
  • DILIGE·QVOD·VIS·FAC
    • Jeremy J. Olson
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #307 on: July 09, 2008, 04:21:54 pm »

This is what any supporter of any law has to ask themselves: Do you believe __________ should be enforced by killing the offender?

This is a key point, and one that results in much consternation when you question those who refuse to believe it.  It's fascinating watching their thought process unfold.  All manner of justifications are invented to avoid the inescapable conclusion...

"Of course the offender shouldn't be killed for not paying his taxes.  That's what <jail/fines/etc.> is for."

But what if the person refuses to pay the fine, or show up for his court date?

"Well, I guess they'll be arrested."

But what if the person won't open the door when the police come?

"The police can kick in the door, but I doubt the person would resist to such an extent."

But what if they did?  And what if the person decided to use a weapon defend himself from the armed intruders?

"Ok, there might be a shootout or something.  But nobody would take it that far."

And if they did?

"Well they might get shot by the police.  But only because they escalated the situation in the first place.  This never happens!"


I've had this conversation with many people.  Almost all of them start off denying that you could be killed for not paying your taxes.  Then they agree that death is not an appropriate punishment for doing so.  By the end of it, they've admited that you could get killed, and it would be your own fault.  At the last moment, they quickly revert back to "This hypothetical is impossible!  It would never happen!" in order to prevent their head from imploding in a vacuum of cognitive dissonance.

Or ask them why it’s a hypothetical: Why would a person not resist to that extent? Why would no one take it that far? Because they fear being killed. Because they know there’s a gun pointed at them. Hypothetical or not, the conclusion that there’s a death threat from the State is inescapable.
Logged

rossby

  • Director of Development
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4801
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #308 on: July 09, 2008, 07:22:00 pm »

Quote from: Margomaps

This is a key point, and one that results in much consternation when you question those who refuse to believe it.  It's fascinating watching their thought process unfold.  All manner of justifications are invented to avoid the inescapable conclusion...

"Of course the offender shouldn't be killed for not paying his taxes.  That's what <jail/fines/etc.> is for."

But what if the person refuses to pay the fine, or show up for his court date?

"Well, I guess they'll be arrested."

But what if the person won't open the door when the police come?

"The police can kick in the door, but I doubt the person would resist to such an extent."

But what if they did?  And what if the person decided to use a weapon defend himself from the armed intruders?

"Ok, there might be a shootout or something.  But nobody would take it that far."

And if they did?

"Well they might get shot by the police.  But only because they escalated the situation in the first place.  This never happens!"

I've had this conversation with many people.  Almost all of them start off denying that you could be killed for not paying your taxes.  Then they agree that death is not an appropriate punishment for doing so.  By the end of it, they've admited that you could get killed, and it would be your own fault.  At the last moment, they quickly revert back to "This hypothetical is impossible!  It would never happen!" in order to prevent their head from imploding in a vacuum of cognitive dissonance.

Or ask them why it’s a hypothetical: Why would a person not resist to that extent? Why would no one take it that far? Because they fear being killed. Because they know there’s a gun pointed at them. Hypothetical or not, the conclusion that there’s a death threat from the State is inescapable.

I had a meeting a couple towns over this morning.
After, I was walking back to my car, I saw a cop pull up to it.
He hopped out. Flipped open his ticketbook.
I asked him what he was doing.
He said a parking permit was required; and he'd have to fine me.
I said no parking permit was required.
He said, "You can fight it out in court with me."
I swear, that's exactly what he said. I'd never met this guy before.
I pointed at the lack of the "Permit Required" sign (there was a sign pole, but no sign).
And said, "No way I'm gonna pay this."
He paused for a second. And he put his ticketbook away.
Then I drove home and made a roast beef sandwich.
'Twas delicious.

Point is, sometimes threats are just threats.
Rarely is there ever really a gun. Largely, this is how our system works.
If someone caves because he always fears a gun is being pointed at him, that's his own problem.
(Until it becomes everyone's problem; like population immunity in reverse :P)
You might "make" a free society. But so many people will never be free from fear.
And you can't force them. Government ostensibly tries to do that. And fails miserably.
If you really want to "fight back" within the "system", there are many ways to do it. (Pfff, taxes...)
That's why a lot of people are here. And I think that's great.
But applying the "everything-by-the-barrel-of-a-gun" analogy is a slippery slope. It's a good analogy and makes a great quote. But it's not an accurate reflection of day-to-day happenings, especially in the civil case. Tax collection is really it's own nasty beast... but I could talk about that all day :-\
« Last Edit: July 09, 2008, 07:23:55 pm by B.D. Ross »
Logged

Keyser Soce

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1256
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #309 on: July 10, 2008, 08:26:53 am »

"Point is, sometimes threats are just threats.
Rarely is there ever really a gun. Largely, this is how our system works."

Waco, Ruby Ridge, the Browns, millions of people locked in cages for non-violent offenses. Rarely huh? Have you ever had a cop physically point a gun at your head? I have and it's not just us, the entire world is being terrorized by the thugs we continue to finance. Rarely...(shakes head).
Logged
"In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man; brave, hated, and scorned. When his cause succeeds however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." -- Mark Twain

NHArticleTen

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 720
  • Join The Ron Paul Write-In Revolution Today!
    • Adventures In Legal Land
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #310 on: July 10, 2008, 08:47:10 am »

"Point is, sometimes threats are just threats.
Rarely is there ever really a gun. Largely, this is how our system works."

Waco, Ruby Ridge, the Browns, millions of people locked in cages for non-violent offenses. Rarely huh? Have you ever had a cop physically point a gun at your head? I have and it's not just us, the entire world is being terrorized by the thugs we continue to finance. Rarely...(shakes head).

THIS!!!!!!!!!

OH JESUS!!!!!!!!!THIS!!!!!!!!!

GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS!!!!!!!!!!THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote
If someone caves because he always fears a gun is being pointed at him, that's his own problem.

NO...IT'S EVERYONE'S PROBLEM BECAUSE THE MAJORITY SUPPORT IT...AND THE MINORITY RESIST IT...BUT ALL ARE AFFECTED BY IT...

and...um...a gun is always there/threatened/used by the looters, bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries for the simplest and most common things...

in some areas an unpaid 57 cent library fine will get your driver's license suspended which will get you jackbooted...and if you resist then the ultimate threat escalation is gunfire...

"the fifty-seven cent gunfight"...

go figure...


and that's EXACTLY why jackboots should know EXACTLY why they are doing what they are doing and not get "carried away" with the "you must obey my authority" bullshit...

Why might someone resist arrest for fifty-seven cents...
Who knows...
Why should the jackboots murder them for 57 cents...
They shouldn't...

Go figure...




www.campaignforliberty.com

Porcupine The Godful Heathen

  • First 1000
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 943
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #311 on: July 10, 2008, 08:54:02 am »

"Point is, sometimes threats are just threats.
Rarely is there ever really a gun. Largely, this is how our system works."

Waco, Ruby Ridge, the Browns, millions of people locked in cages for non-violent offenses. Rarely huh? Have you ever had a cop physically point a gun at your head? I have and it's not just us, the entire world is being terrorized by the thugs we continue to finance. Rarely...(shakes head).

Oh but, but, but, you ASKED for that gun to be pointed at your head!!
Logged
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as judge in the field of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods." - Einstein

NHArticleTen

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 720
  • Join The Ron Paul Write-In Revolution Today!
    • Adventures In Legal Land
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #312 on: July 10, 2008, 09:04:26 am »

Fortunately, "we" don't need your agreement on our "ways"...since the only thing we are demanding from you and everyone else is for "everyone to leave everyone else alone"...

Seriously, Rob, tone it down—how are comments like this and others conducive to educating people about voluntaryism? I remember you telling me that such an opportunity for education was the primary reason you supported the Ron Paul campaign, for example. How are belligerent comments like this helpful?

J...
I don't see ANYTHING wrong with my statement/demand(that you quoted)...as it was one of my more "reasonable" requests/demands...(you should know that by now)...

And then you write...
Quote
Any threat of using the government to stop someone from doing something implies threatening people with guns. It doesn’t matter how light the initial penalty is. Just ask yourself: What happens if you refuse to pay a $1 fine? And then what happens if you refuse to go with them when they come to arrest you?

This is what any supporter of any law has to ask themselves: Do you believe __________ should be enforced by killing the offender?

and...
Quote
Or ask them why it’s a hypothetical: Why would a person not resist to that extent? Why would no one take it that far? Because they fear being killed. Because they know there’s a gun pointed at them. Hypothetical or not, the conclusion that there’s a death threat from the State is inescapable.

Both of which are accurate in describing the continued threats of murder made by those who erroneously believe that they have some sort of "magical mystical murder wand" that they wave around and use to keep us all "in-line" here in the slave-nation on the global-gulag prison-planet...

and...

my statement/demand still stands...
it doesn't matter whether or not you, or anyone else, subscribes to my philosophy...
but it does matter whether or not you, or anyone else, LEAVES EVERYONE ELSE COMPLETELY ALONE...

so...

please don't ever insult me again with such a request...
it's definitely not productive to challenge our comrades to duels...

further...

my efforts at "shock doctrine" allow others to accurately and factually point out that their methods and positions aren't as "shocking" as some...

go figure...

Enjoy!

Love Ya All!






www.campaignforliberty.com
www.fija.org

Porcupine The Godful Heathen

  • First 1000
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 943
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #313 on: July 10, 2008, 09:15:41 am »

**sigh**
Logged
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as judge in the field of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods." - Einstein

rossby

  • Director of Development
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4801
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #314 on: July 10, 2008, 11:08:18 am »

Waco, Ruby Ridge, the Browns, millions of people locked in cages for non-violent offenses. Rarely huh? Have you ever had a cop physically point a gun at your head? I have and it's not just us, the entire world is being terrorized by the thugs we continue to finance. Rarely...(shakes head).

Those are some extreme outliers. We could talk about those for weeks. Imprisonment for non-violent (e.g. chemical possession) crime is a slightly different issue. Not all of those people necessarily had guns pointed at them. And you might be amazed how many people willingly submit themselves for punishment...

Yes. I've had a cop point a firearm at me.
What was he going to do--shoot me?!
Fat chance.

Depending on your state, a cop should not be pointing a firearm at your head just because he feels like it. There are rules they are supposed to follow. Most people do not hold the police to the rules. If you're assaulted by a police officer and you weren't physically endangering his safety, the cop's probably done a no-no. And, there's nearly a 100% probability you will survive this encounter. Real problem is, most people will never go to a public forum and charge the cop for his bad acts. And that's a legal- and a market-based solution.

Quote from: Powerchuter
Quote from:
If someone caves because he always fears a gun is being pointed at him, that's his own problem.

NO...IT'S EVERYONE'S PROBLEM BECAUSE THE MAJORITY SUPPORT IT...AND THE MINORITY RESIST IT...BUT ALL ARE AFFECTED BY IT...

Think I said something similar.

Quote from: Powerchuter
in some areas an unpaid 57 cent library fine will get your driver's license suspended which will get you jackbooted...and if you resist then the ultimate threat escalation is gunfire...

Hmm. Where's that happen?
In some places, a $0.57 is too small to bother collecting. Some municipalities will sell this "debt" to debt collection companies. Gives you a number of federal legal protections. Fairly, sure Chicago (or maybe it was one of the cities north) used to do this.

"Threat escalation" is half the problem. (1) Because many problems can be solved alternatively (e.g. try asking kindly to have the overdue charge removed; has never failed for me); (2) Because, in the grand scheme, you're vastly outnumbered. Unless your life is in imminent danger, it doesn't do you any good, long-term, to continually escalate the level of violence. Unless you have a large armed force, willing to die for an overdue book charge, you will lose. And that's a waste of energies and talent that could really be used for something far more productive.

If you don't want to finance the "thugs", one of the very best things you can do, is open a business, find a good good lawyer/cpa (or, of course, do the research yourself), and pay next to nothing in taxes.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 20 [21] 22 23 24 ... 26   Go Up