Jmorphman said, August 16, 2014, 09:30:32 amThe situation has already gotten way, way better. And it's gotten better because of peaceful protests and the work of hundreds people dedicated to getting information out there. This is no time to be talking about how maybe we should shoot police officers one day in the future if things get worse, because there's a better path, one that actually works.Yes, keep missing the point that I just made in which I wasn't acting like it should be a matter of recourse, but what could easily happen if there's too much of an abuse of power by the police. I know the peaceful protest did it's job and then some, I'm saying that because this HAPPENED, that there will be people far more hostile to cops in general moreso than ever.Titiln said, August 16, 2014, 09:33:31 amoh please explain the point of the second amendment for those not in the knowAs Nucka stated, The 2nd Amendment was made with the intent in that if the government becomes too corrupt, we would have the means to overthrow the current government and start over. I also believe that this comes in mind for other government established things like the police as well.I am not saying that it ever should be an option, but it can easily spiral out of control even with peaceful protests should things like this continue.
Generally speaking, civilians just want to live normal lives and be treated fairly. I doubt most people will feel more tempted to "lash at the police" just because of a spontaneous power trip.If events of this magnitude occurred repetitively (that would be awful btw), hostility towards law enforcement would become more likely.
I think a more reasonable case for the second amendment is to be able to protect yourself personally against corrupt cops. If Mike Brown was actually armed he might have lasted long enough to be torn apart by the corrupt court system and spend his life rotting in a jail cell....Nope. Still a bad point.
If he had been armed... what would have happened ? Would he have pulled his gun, or not ?Option 1/ he pulls it, they shoot each other. Regardless of the result, the big title in medias would have been about Black people and gun violence and how the streets are not safe - not because of the cops, but because of gun violence. And Brown is either still dead or in a jail for killing a cop. Congratulation, you've achieved nothing !Option 2/ he doesn't pull it, the cop shoots him anyway (he shot him when he didn't have a gun, don't think he wouldn't have shot if Brown had a gun), and the cop can now claim that Brown threatened him with his gun. Hey, he claimed the same when Brown was unarmed, why would it change ? The cop's claims would actually be more believable.But yeah, you guys are totally right, put more guns in the streets to end gun violence.The only point there would be in justifying guns is if it was already a known fact that the police was getting crazy, and that the citizens were already aware that their life was in danger, and they needed to defend themselves. That's what your second amendment was for, back when the citizens already knew that the British army was just out killing them.But the thing is, if everyone knows that the police is getting insane and murderous, well, just look at what happened : the police got kicked out by the higher authority. This is all the proof you can need that your argument is actually bogus, because the problem you're claiming you're protecting yourself from, that problem already has a solution. It happened right here, just now.So you're still achieving nothing at all.
DKDC said, August 16, 2014, 07:10:10 pmIf he had been armed... what would have happened ? Would he have pulled his gun, or not ?Option 1/ he pulls it, they shoot each other. Regardless of the result, the big title in medias would have been about Black people and gun violence and how the streets are not safe - not because of the cops, but because of gun violence. And Brown is either still dead or in a jail for killing a cop. Congratulation, you've achieved nothing !Option 2/ he doesn't pull it, the cop shoots him anyway (he shot him when he didn't have a gun, don't think he wouldn't have shot if Brown had a gun), and the cop can now claim that Brown threatened him with his gun. Hey, he claimed the same when Brown was unarmed, why would it change ? The cop's claims would actually be more believable.But yeah, you guys are totally right, put more guns in the streets to end gun violence.The only point there would be in justifying guns is if it was already a known fact that the police was getting crazy, and that the citizens were already aware that their life was in danger, and they needed to defend themselves. That's what your second amendment was for, back when the citizens already knew that the British army was just out killing them.But the thing is, if everyone knows that the police is getting insane and murderous, well, just look at what happened : the police got kicked out by the higher authority. This is all the proof you can need that your argument is actually bogus, because the problem you're claiming you're protecting yourself from, that problem already has a solution. It happened right here, just now.So you're still achieving nothing at all.For the last time, I'm not some NRA nut that wants guns on the street nor saying he should have had a gun or any sort of that nonsense. Please, actually read what I said completely and not put words in my mouth.I am saying, word for word, that something like this(which is NOT the first time this happened) that continues to happen only SPURS that people may see the government as corrupt and only helps their cause, whether or not the government stepped in and dismantled the whole force be damned.People will be arguing why did it happen to BEGIN WITH. Why is there no preventive measures, so on and so forth. The heavy abuse of power will only spur those who already have issues into even bigger issues and could easily lead to bigger problems.I have never advocated people getting guns just to shoot up cops or anything on that level, I'm saying incidents like this can easily CAUSE those situations to spiral and become exactly what I said could happen.
Mgbenz said, August 16, 2014, 08:28:25 pmThe idea of making preventive measures against your own town's police just boggles me.When the forces that are supposed to protect you are doing shit like this, it sadly starts becoming more of a necessary precaution than it ever should be.
Mgbenz said, August 16, 2014, 08:28:25 pmThe idea of making preventive measures against your own town's police just boggles me.you don't live in mexico, do you?
Xhominid said, August 16, 2014, 08:43:52 pmOh, so you're not advocating guns and NRA stuff, but "sadly it becomes a necessity" ? Yeah, it's everyone's fault for missing your point, sure, it's not your fault.It's not a necessity. Even when shit goes so far south like that, it still gets resolved like it just did, without any necessity like the one you say.By the way, my previous post was not targeted at you.
[MFG]maximilianjenus said, August 16, 2014, 08:46:37 pmMgbenz said, August 16, 2014, 08:28:25 pmThe idea of making preventive measures against your own town's police just boggles me.you don't live in mexico, do you?Fortunately yes. I'm aware of Mexico's government.
DKDC said, August 16, 2014, 08:49:23 pmBy the way, my previous post was not targeted at you.Well I surely hope it wasn't directed at me, I was being sarcastic.
While the Second Amendment is often interpreted as being a measure to ensure citizens could overthrow the government if it became too corrupt, an equally valid interpretation exists that states that the amendment is in fact about establishing the equivalent of an army: instead of a centralized army there would be instead loosely connected militias dedicated towards national defense. There was a lot of indecision about what shape the American government would take in the early days, as the Federalists and the anti-Federalists struggled to hash out a workable system of governance. The anti-Federalists were wary of a strong central government and thus disinclined to want a national army; small militias could've been a compromise between the two sides.Of course, even if the first interpretation was taken as true, it doesn't have a lot of use in the modern day. The only way an armed revolt of citizens could overthrow the government today was if almost the entire population rose up; modern military technology is simply too advanced. It's not like the founders envisioned people with hunting rifles facing off with jets, or something.Xhominid said, August 16, 2014, 06:31:47 pmYes, keep missing the point that I just made in which I wasn't acting like it should be a matter of recourse, but what could easily happen if there's too much of an abuse of power by the police. I know the peaceful protest did it's job and then some, I'm saying that because this HAPPENED, that there will be people far more hostile to cops in general moreso than ever.Were you, now? Because you're doing an extraordinarily shitty job at communicating that:Xhominid said, August 16, 2014, 08:14:13 amThe Right to Bear Arms is sadly becoming even more of a necessity if this continues to happen again and again...Xhominid said, August 16, 2014, 08:43:52 pmWhen the forces that are supposed to protect you are doing shit like this, it sadly starts becoming more of a necessary precaution than it ever should be.Of course, it's besides the point, because both your original position and the one you're backtracking to are both completely absurd and disconnected from reality. Incidents like this aren't liable in any way to spur the population towards armed revolt. It's going to take a lot more than incidents like this to lead to that.
Gritsmaster said, August 16, 2014, 09:08:47 pmWell I surely hope it wasn't directed at me, I was being sarcastic.It was a general statement in response to the subject of the discussion at the moment. That's why I was speaking generally without quoting or naming anyone, and using plural. I don't target anyone unless I'm specifically and explicitly targeting someone.
What kills me is the difference between the reaction to Cliven Bundy and this. Racism is just too obvious to you when you're black and it's almost crazy.Unfortunately, we're in a bad place and violence would be the answer, but it would amount to suicide. If only the people in the military would encourage true justice and move against our "system;" a system which pays them less than minimum wage for their man hours. Let's be real: Amadou Diallo didn't change anything, Trayvon didn't change anything, Sean Bell didn't change anything, and Michael's murder won't change anything. Being black is just something else; it's almost like Europeans are just naturally inclined to look at you as something sub-human and that's the way it is.And let's not distort history because peaceful protests did tidbits. Now that most people literally "believe" that all people are "relatively" free, things will remain completely static. It hurts.
MEANWHILE* police have re-militarized and are back with going insane with tear gas. again. despite statements made that their involvement would be removed* the one cop who ALMOST had things under control for a day seems to now be missing from what i'm gathering, where the hell did he go?* looters are back, protesters are joining together and keeping them out; revealed that looters are mostly drunkards* the main cop in question is apparently darren wilsonprobably missed some things since the developments are whizzing by really fast, but that seems to be the gist of what's going on atm
DKDC said, August 16, 2014, 09:26:07 pmWho the fuck is Cliven BuncyHe's a racist piece of shit whose cattle were grazing on protected federal land (protecting an endangered species of tortoise) for two decades and recently, literally gathered an armed militia to try and fight off government agents who wanted to impound his cattle.Naturally, you had conservatives across the country praising the shit out of this brave man's stand for state rights... until he had some interesting words about black people:Quote“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”Suddenly no one wanted to talk about him! What gives?
I was reading just now that the police released a statement that Brown was suspected in a robbery (just for about $50 worth of cigars) that happened 20 minutes before the shooting. The police did specify that the shooting was not connected, since the policeman had no way of knowing about it (meaning that the shooting was still considered unlawful and all), but Brown's family got enraged, saying that the police was trying to shift the blame on the shooting victim. And then the riots resumed.edit - ... so yeah, pretty much the same thing was what Melv's link says.Jmorphman said, August 16, 2014, 09:38:39 pmOkay, that's pretty funny.
