To Protect and to Serve...

Status
Not open for further replies.
#10,602
#10,602
LouderVol said:
the government isn't, and imo, shouldn't ever be equated to a market system. You don't get to pick and choose. if we did that, it would make the system so fricking complicated it would make what we have look like a stick figure drawing compared to a Van Gogh.

and talking about opting out, do you read all of your apple agreements? or are you like most people who just click yes? in order to listen to music on my Ipod I have to agree to let them monitor what I listen to, I have to agree to let them use whatever information I use/provide upto them selling the information to third parties. (apple isn't the only one so not hating on them) government works the same way. You like the FDA, CDC and a few others, well guess what you have to do all the rest as well. so if you consider it like a free market system it works in similar ways. I don't like the US laws i leave and have to pay a tax. I leave my verizon contract early I pay a fee. etc etc.
Click to expand...

I never equated the government to a free market enterprise. I wish to abolish government in its entirety. The government gains compliance by two means and two means only, threats of violence, and actual violence. Also, the government lives off the production of the citizenry by stealing nearly half of their income through taxation.
The question that needs to be asked is, what gives these laws as well as these "lawmakers" their validity? And, can you actually look at government as anything else other than a criminal organization? After all, crime organizations gain compliance by force, just like the government.
 
#10,603
#10,603
Grand Vol said:
There is nothing further from the truth in your post. And you only see what you want to see because it's slanted against cops.

Let me ask you this. Would you prefer to have police making arrests because they are mandated to from some arbitrary law from some politician that has a personal peeve? Or would you prefer they continue to have some discretion in what they cite and/or warn for? Because again, that's what this case was all about. Maintaining the ability to have discretion instead of making arrests mandatory.

Here's the slippery slope...

Drug possession is now a mandatory arrest because someone wrote it into law.

Domestic disturbance is now a mandatory arrest because someone wrote it into law.

If the case hadn't been won in favor of the Castle Rock PD, this is exactly the kind of thing that could (and probably would) happen. But you continue being brainwashed by the New York Times. They are a reputable news agency that's unbiased in reporting.
Click to expand...
Cops are the pointy end of politics. They enforce the edicts of the politicians. They also have 0 duty to protect anyone, other than their masters the politicians.You can slant me as a cop hater all you like, it's really just a short cut to not actually thinking about the completely schizophrenic nature of your belief system.
 
#10,604
#10,604
Grand Vol said:
Here's the slippery slope...

Drug possession is now a mandatory arrest because someone wrote it into law.

Domestic disturbance is now a mandatory arrest because someone wrote it into law.
Click to expand...

Really, if a law violates a person's Constitutional rights such as drug laws (9th Amendment) and just kicking someone out of their residence without due process over a domestic dispute (5th and 14th Amendments), then cops have an obligation to uphold Constitutional law over any of these other petty, nonsense laws anyways.
 
#10,605
#10,605
Rasputin_Vol said:
Really, if a law violates a person's Constitutional rights such as drug laws (9th Amendment) and just kicking someone out of their residence without due process over a domestic dispute (5th and 14th Amendments), then cops have an obligation to uphold Constitutional law over any of these other petty, nonsense laws anyways.
Click to expand...


Let's not forget civil asset forfeiture. If they deem money or property to be derived from the profits of the drug trade.
 
#10,606
#10,606
It amazes me that most of you can actually articulate that politicians are all corrupt, lying, thieves, yet, you still view their threats as law.

Perhaps you are correct Ras, cops could stem the flood of abuse by not enforcing these silly laws. I just think we're too far gone.

It would take a serious rethinking of what is considered an actual crime. We know a crime as damage to persons or property. Not so with the government and their revenue collectors.
 
Last edited:
#10,607
#10,607
Rasputin_Vol said:
Really, if a law violates a person's Constitutional rights such as drug laws (9th Amendment) and just kicking someone out of their residence without due process over a domestic dispute (5th and 14th Amendments), then cops have an obligation to uphold Constitutional law over any of these other petty, nonsense laws anyways.
Click to expand...

So do you support the decision of the Supreme Court to strike down mandatory arrest warrants or not?
 
#10,608
#10,608
jp1 said:
We talking beef and cheeder, or you going with one of those froo froo sammichs?

Take Ras with you.
Click to expand...

i thought that was him working there :lolabove: on a side note here I just dont agree with the police unions boycotting all Arbys just because one franchise had a couple idiots working at it -- what did they want free lunch for life as an apology from the CEO ? Get over it I would bet they cleaned house at that Arbys by now.
 
Last edited:
#10,609
#10,609
Grand Vol said:
So do you support the decision of the Supreme Court to strike down mandatory arrest warrants or not?
Click to expand...

That particular case is a complicated affair. First off, I disagree with the entire restraining order situation in this country to begin with. It is far too easy for men that get involved in a dispute with a woman to have one of these thrown on them. My advice would be for women to either leave an abusive situation or if the guy continues to follow or harass you, use their 2nd Amendment right to self defense. I also don't like the fact we allow a person to be set free, yet we place limitations on where they can be or how far they can be from certain people or institutions. If they are dangerous to me within 100 ft or even 1 mile, then they are a danger to me anywhere. If it is so bad that a court feels the need to place restrictions on a person's movements, then maybe that person needs to be in jail.

As far as mandatory arresting, of course you know I'm against citizens being arrested on all occasions and officers having the discretion to make an arrest. I just wish more officers would exercise that ability in more instances.

And lastly, this may be where I may respectfully disagree with DEFENDTHISHOUSE, but as they say in any situation, whether it be a domestic situation or armed robbery... but when seconds count, the police are just minutes away. It is unreasonable for the police to be at all places at all times, so you can't expect them to protect you 24/7. Which goes back to what I said earlier, that is why we have the 2nd Amendment.
 
#10,610
#10,610
I do not expect the police to protect everyone, I highlight the fact that they are under no obligation to do so, as upheld by the megalomaniac filled Supreme Court.

It goes back to the tired statist argument "without government, who would protect us" they in fact don't protect us now, and can't ever protect us. So why bother with having a parasitic class of people who do nothing but take from us, and limit our freedoms with their "laws"

As I asked earlier, what gives these laws their validity? The constitution? If that's fact, then the constitution is in fact a contract. However, it's a contract for those alive at the time of passage, not future generations. You cannot bind people to a document for over 238 years without their consent.

Perhaps I should clarify as it seems some wires have been crossed somewhere. I do not need, nor do I want police protection. I handle my own problems.
 
Last edited:
#10,612
#10,612
Rasputin_Vol said:
That particular case is a complicated affair. First off, I disagree with the entire restraining order situation in this country to begin with. It is far too easy for men that get involved in a dispute with a woman to have one of these thrown on them. My advice would be for women to either leave an abusive situation or if the guy continues to follow or harass you, use their 2nd Amendment right to self defense. I also don't like the fact we allow a person to be set free, yet we place limitations on where they can be or how far they can be from certain people or institutions. If they are dangerous to me within 100 ft or even 1 mile, then they are a danger to me anywhere. If it is so bad that a court feels the need to place restrictions on a person's movements, then maybe that person needs to be in jail.

As far as mandatory arresting, of course you know I'm against citizens being arrested on all occasions and officers having the discretion to make an arrest. I just wish more officers would exercise that ability in more instances.

And lastly, this may be where I may respectfully disagree with DEFENDTHISHOUSE, but as they say in any situation, whether it be a domestic situation or armed robbery... but when seconds count, the police are just minutes away. It is unreasonable for the police to be at all places at all times, so you can't expect them to protect you 24/7. Which goes back to what I said earlier, that is why we have the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...

This is probably the most reasonable post you've made in this entire thread.
 
#10,613
#10,613
In this video Mr. Hornberger, who is a minarchist type, makes some good points. Me being an anarchist, I can agree with whacking away at the government until we get it down to just a judicial system. Then, we can debate the merits of if the system works, or if it would be better privatized.
I do find strong disagreements with his voluntary funding notion. After all, who do you know that would want to voluntarily pay taxes? I agree with his take on open borders as well. Nationalism is a dangerous thing, many wars have been fought that proves that out.
Anyway, it's a good video. I'll learn how to embed videos one day. I mostly post on mobile, so there's that.

http://youtu.be/PVSaVbuUGh8
 
#10,614
#10,614
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
As I asked earlier, what gives these laws their validity? The constitution? If that's fact, then the constitution is in fact a contract. However, it's a contract for those alive at the time of passage, not future generations. You cannot bind people to a document for over 238 years without their consent.
Click to expand...

You agreed to it when you choose to stay here (in your home that belongs to you) so If you don't like it then why don't you just leave jerk?
 
#10,616
#10,616
Rasputin_Vol said:
How are the two of these in any way similar?

c3651857613625714ae2bb7e1c15d49e.jpg


[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k-sG5bbuV0[/youtube]
Click to expand...

I will explain it again. Your comment to the meme was something along the line of not questioning an officer that has to make a split second decision between a BB and a real gun. My take on the meme was you cannot tell the real gun from the toy gun and you don't have time to find out for sure so one had better act on the threat.

My retort to your comment was you downright disagreed with the officer that had to make a split second decision to stop the guy toting the loaded rifle down the sidewalk of a residential neighborhood. He didnt have time to pull alongside him and ask "excuse me sir....what are your intentions with that loaded weapon that you have been firing?" He had to stop the threat quickly for public safety. Yet the responses on here worried about the damn block wall that he crashed into.
 
#10,617
#10,617
508mikey said:
i thought that was him working there :lolabove: on a side note here I just dont agree with the police unions boycotting all Arbys just because one franchise had a couple idiots working at it -- what did they want free lunch for life as an apology from the CEO ? Get over it I would bet they cleaned house at that Arbys by now.
Click to expand...

I agree....stupid move by Ras' Arbys, but once they apologized the police should move on. They should try the smokehouse brisket. Its not bad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#10,618
#10,618
jp1 said:
I will explain it again. Your comment to the meme was something along the line of not questioning an officer that has to make a split second decision between a BB and a real gun. My take on the meme was you cannot tell the real gun from the toy gun and you don't have time to find out for sure so one had better act on the threat.

My retort to your comment was you downright disagreed with the officer that had to make a split second decision to stop the guy toting the loaded rifle down the sidewalk of a residential neighborhood. He didnt have time to pull alongside him and ask "excuse me sir....what are your intentions with that loaded weapon that you have been firing?" He had to stop the threat quickly for public safety. Yet the responses on here worried about the damn block wall that he crashed into.
Click to expand...

That was not a split second decision. He had plenty of time to think about his decision because he had to maneuver around the officers in front of him and disobey their calls to stand back. And nobody gave a damn about the brick wall... the concern was for the potential of someone being behind the brick wall that got destroyed.

That video was probably a minute long or slightly less, but I'm sure they had been following this guy for far longer. For you to compare the time needed to make that decision vs having to determine if a gun is real or a toy is ridiculous... and you know damn well it is a silly comparison, also.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#10,619
#10,619
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
I never equated the government to a free market enterprise. I wish to abolish government in its entirety. The government gains compliance by two means and two means only, threats of violence, and actual violence. Also, the government lives off the production of the citizenry by stealing nearly half of their income through taxation.
The question that needs to be asked is, what gives these laws as well as these "lawmakers" their validity? And, can you actually look at government as anything else other than a criminal organization? After all, crime organizations gain compliance by force, just like the government.
Click to expand...

No pay, no spray: Firefighters let home burn - US news - Life | NBC News even though this is a FDP that is nominally part of local government, this is the type of wide spread activity you get in anarchy. And instead of it being the government to come around once a year to collect a check, its now private businesses playing the role of thug/government. And i have no idea why that is better in "you people's" mind. if you want to look at the government like that, as a criminal group, then you have to look at the whole world that way. Pretty much every group/association/whatever works with set laws you have to abide by. even if they aren't laws or rules there is something that you HAVE to comply with. look at this message board, if someone wants to participate in conversation they have to fit in or else face ridicule and bullying, violence and threats of violence. (HG and others make perfect examples). sure HG could not post on VN, but then he has to deal with florida fans and we know how much they suck. So he has to comply. you just seem to take exception with governments even though daily life is filled with similar situations that we get "choices" in. going back to the ipod, sure i have the choice to switch manufactures, but they have the same agreements. you prefer the illusion of choice to dealing with facts. all so you can have it your way while enjoying the benefits of the system you harp on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#10,623
#10,623
LouderVol said:
No pay, no spray: Firefighters let home burn - US news - Life | NBC News even though this is a FDP that is nominally part of local government, this is the type of wide spread activity you get in anarchy. And instead of it being the government to come around once a year to collect a check, its now private businesses playing the role of thug/government. And i have no idea why that is better in "you people's" mind. if you want to look at the government like that, as a criminal group, then you have to look at the whole world that way. Pretty much every group/association/whatever works with set laws you have to abide by. even if they aren't laws or rules there is something that you HAVE to comply with. look at this message board, if someone wants to participate in conversation they have to fit in or else face ridicule and bullying, violence and threats of violence. (HG and others make perfect examples). sure HG could not post on VN, but then he has to deal with florida fans and we know how much they suck. So he has to comply. you just seem to take exception with governments even though daily life is filled with similar situations that we get "choices" in. going back to the ipod, sure i have the choice to switch manufactures, but they have the same agreements. you prefer the illusion of choice to dealing with facts. all so you can have it your way while enjoying the benefits of the system you harp on.
Click to expand...

Why Does Anarchy Make Everyone Fill Their Pants in Fear? By Bill Buppert | ZeroGov
 
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.

VN Store



Back
Top