Jump to content
Cato

Fire them and throw them in jail (cops violate rights)

Recommended Posts

I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who carry around  massive firearms in public, act belligerent for the specific reason of getting in trouble, and then whine about it.

 

I can't stand people who do that, especially those morons who brought them into Target. 

 

My thoughts exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The weapon isn't automatic, first off. It's an AR-15, a civilian weapon.

And yes, if someone was on my property with a gun I could call the police and have him removed. I could do the same if I didn't like his facial hair. The outrage here doesn't seem to be in support of property rights, but in a nonsupport of "gun rights" (not that I really think that's a real thing).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your initial reaction was along the lines of "he is a tool and I want to say curse words" if I remember correctly.

 

My first post was not a discussion of legal pragmatism, but rather a reaction against his boorish attitude. 

 

And yes, if someone was on my property with a gun I could call the police and have him removed. I could do the same if I didn't like his facial hair. The outrage here doesn't seem to be in support of property rights, but in a nonsupport of "gun rights" (not that I really think that's a real thing).

 

Actually, business establishments cannot discriminate so easily against people. And this has absolutely nothing to do with nonsupport of gun rights. Crazy libertarians think that any sensible regulation on the part of the Government is a violation of their beloved anarchy. Do not blame us, because we refuse to give into the same delusional thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was a little younger and considerably more radical than I am now, an admin at a forum I frequented cooked up a gift for us American members; namely a video montage of clips from the 60s and 70s showcasing National Guardsmen, riot police, soldiers and such patrolling the streets, controlling riots, marching, beating up protesters, etc. It was the image of a society which we wished for; a society of rigid order and the suppression of leftists and free radicals as opposed to today's society of pluralistic democracy. Those were the times when America was closest to a police state and was also, conveniently for our romantic image of such a time, ethnically homogeneous with something approximating a national culture. That video showed us what we wanted to see around us: violent destruction and suppression of those who wished for a freer society.

 

Since that time, my views have shifted and moderated and I do not regret that. My Catholicism now makes such a position ethically untenable, and I have since abandoned American nationalism altogether. But I will admit, that the gentleman in that video so angered me. he and his 'rights', that I was prompted to search up that video (which, I might add, is entitled "**** your rights, Hippy") and was able to view it with a lingering satisfaction which was albeit tempered by my amazement at my former radicalism. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really just think that any aggression by any entity, including the government, is a violation of principle, firstly. That leads me to libertarianism. It is worth noting that this topic on "gun rights" isn't a specifically libertarian view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really just think that any aggression by any entity, including the government, is a violation of principle, firstly. That leads me to libertarianism. It is worth noting that this topic on "gun rights" isn't a specifically libertarian view.

 

Then you should condemn the aggression of this gun totting man, first and foremost. Aggression comes in many forms. The horrible men who shouted sexual obscenities at my friend while walking to the gym are guilty of verbal, sexual aggression. I would not object to a police officer telling them to disperse and leave for such acts. That would not be undue aggression on the part of the police. Likewise, it is not undue aggression on the part of the police to investigate and control a man who is purposefully acting in a threatening manner with an AR-15. Ironically, however, libertarians are fine with violence so long as it is used to protect their idea of private property. The libertarian state is a gigantic gun making sure nobody destroys the exploitation of capitalists.

 

Gun rights are not a specifically libertarian view, but the absolutism that defends gun-extremism against all common sense is most decidedly libertarian. Libertarians tend to be extremists in that their abstract idea of capitalistic "liberty" is idolized as a sacred cow. 

Edited by Wesker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then you should condemn the aggression of this gun totting man, first and foremost. Aggression comes in many forms. The horrible men who shouted sexual obscenities at my friend while walking to the gym are guilty of verbal, sexual aggression. I would not object to a police officer telling them to disperse and leave for such acts. That would not be undue aggression on the part of the police. Likewise, it is not undue aggression on the part of the police to investigate and control a man who is purposefully acting in a threatening manner with an AR-15. 

 

Gun rights are not a specifically libertarian view, but the absolutism that defends gun-extremism against all common sense is most decidedly libertarian.

Aggression meaning an offense to the natural rights of life, liberty, and property, not offense to one's feelings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aggression meaning an offense to the natural rights of life, liberty, and property, not offense to one's feelings.

Threatening people = aggression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Threatening people = aggression.

I used the word in the way I described.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used the word in the way I described.

Your usage/description is incorrect.

Edited by Iuppiter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aggression meaning an offense to the natural rights of life, liberty, and property, not offense to one's feelings.

 

It must be nice when you arbitrarily define terms and think the natural thing is for people to simply agree with you. 

 

The libertarian state is a gigantic monopoly of violence, a violent machine that creates aggression against anybody who dares contradict its exceedingly narrow understanding of property. Yet, of course, libertarians just magically eradicate this fact through redefining the term "aggression" to suit their own predilections. In other words, the libertarian state violently enforces its own concept of private property, over and against traditional conservative and socialist understandings of property.

Edited by Wesker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I expressed a thought, I can only hope it is clear. I'm not terribly interested in talking about what words mean. Feel free to recommend a new term that is better suited, until then, address the idea itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, this has been fun, but let's not stray far off topic. As always, especially with these more interesting debates, continuing in a debate thread is encouraged, so long as it is civil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The libertarian state is a gigantic monopoly of violence, a violent machine that creates aggression against anybody who dares contradict its exceedingly narrow understanding of property. Yet, of course, libertarians just magically eradicate this fact through redefining the term "aggression" to suit their own predilections. In other words, the libertarian state violently enforces its own concept of private property, over and against traditional conservative and socialist understandings of property.

In what way does a libertarian state a "gigantic monopoly of violence" or create aggression? In what way does the libertarian state violently enforce anything?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mike Spero

And we're off topic >~<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And we're off topic >~<

Yes, we are. Seeing NN's post, I suppose this should adjourn for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mike Spero

Good. I'd love to see how this plays out, it's been a rather interesting debate :3 I'd hate to see this one closed TT.TT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no fruitful debate to be had here. We can only learn what one-another's stances are. This is because our core fundamental beliefs are quite different, or in other words, we have different "starting axioms."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mike Spero

Well, I know my mind is up to be changed. Though I still stand by the fact the police are here to protect us. And when someone is consciously violating the law and heavily armed, a life could have been lost had they not acted. I feel as though this was a wise precaution. What if that man was drunken (to explain his belligerence) and set out on that property with a gun with the intent of settling a score? If the police made the reasonable assumption that he was a danger (as they had abundant reason and legal justification to) they would be clearly, potentially jeopardizing someone's well-being by turning a blind eye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JAG

The cops did a good thing by checking on the man.  The cops did a bad thing by trying to regulate which direction he could walk.  He committed no crime by open carrying, and thus shouldn't have been detained.  Of course, the laws may be different there than where I live.

 

On another note: people are silly afraid of guns (like my business partner) because we don't teach gun safety in your high schools anymore.

Edited by JAG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mike Spero

The cops did a good thing by checking on the man.  The cops did a bad thing by trying to regulate which direction he could walk.  He committed no crime by open carrying, and thus shouldn't have been detained.  Of course, the laws may be different there than where I live.

 

On another note: people are silly afraid of guns (like my business partner) because we don't teach gun safety in your high schools anymore.

Or because you never see anyone lugging around an AR on the street O.O

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×