The police could walk in like Andy Griffith and get the criminal to surrender. There is respect for authority in this clip which is missing in today's society.
Saturday, August 16, 2014
Battling Memes
Or a flawed argument is a flawed argument:
And while were on this topic: I saw a bumpersticker that said:
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." which was attributed to Thomas Jefferson, who happened to be a slave owner. The amount of flags that popped into my head that this was a bogus quote was enormous: for example, Jefferson wanting democracy.
It is indeed fake:
www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/democracy-will-cease-to-exist-quotation
Just in case you wonder why I use the term "reality challenged right".
That is also to differentiate between people who claim to be conservative and people who ARE conservative
And while were on this topic: I saw a bumpersticker that said:
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." which was attributed to Thomas Jefferson, who happened to be a slave owner. The amount of flags that popped into my head that this was a bogus quote was enormous: for example, Jefferson wanting democracy.
It is indeed fake:
www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/democracy-will-cease-to-exist-quotation
Just in case you wonder why I use the term "reality challenged right".
That is also to differentiate between people who claim to be conservative and people who ARE conservative
Friday, August 15, 2014
Militarised Police
I keep seeing talk about militarised police forces in the US and that police forces are acquiring military equipment. This post has been stewing around for a while, but the events in Fergusson, MO and people's reactions to them make me want to post this.
There is a big problem in Law Enforcement in that there are three distinctively different types of police institution emerged with various levels of militarism.
The French, under Napoleon, instituted the Gendarmerie, a state military police model. It evolved from the “Marechaussee,” which had had a dual military and civil function since the 16th century. The model was exported across Europe by Napoleon. The Modern French Gendarmerie is an internal military force with police powers under the Ministry of the Interior. In fact, many smaller areas are patrolled by the Gendarmerie the way that State Police forces or Sheriffs patrol less populated areas in the US.
This is in contrast with Britain as the British developed two models. The first, set up to answer similar challenges to the Gendarmerie in France, was the Royal Irish Constabulary model. It was close to the state military model, but distinctively styled as part of the civil power of the state and subordinated to the Magistracy. The Irish model was subsequently exported to Britain’s colonies and became the basis of forces such as the Indian Police Service.
The Second was the Metropolitan Police, which was consciously created as a local force with a uniform that was deliberately different from the military and a mission that focused on prevention of crime rather than the repression of disorder. This state civilian model became the basis for all UK forces on the mainland and the principal influence on the development of East Coast US policing in the 1840s.
That means the US model is based more on prevention than keeping the rabble under control. On the other hand, many nations actually have police forces which are military forces. While some people in the US and other nations with a British heritage might see a militarised police force as a threat, it is pretty normal in other countries.
I've been toying with blogging something about militarised police since this is a tangential aspect of the Second Amendment issue in a couple of ways (civilian control of the military, the nature of the military, and the arms race due to the misinterpretation of the amendment).
The abuses of the historical French Gendarmes were well known prior to the French Revolution and were something that led to the Civilian police forces in the Anglo-American societies. That was one of the many aspects of the fear of standing armies and the desire that ANY type of military force is kept under civilian control (i.e., "well-regulated"). Tyrants can use a military force to oppress the people.
The term gendarme comes from the French phrase Gens d'armes or men at arms. To some extent, Gendarmes existed in English societies where men at arms were called to enforce laws, or oppress people. To some extent, the British colonial police police forces were gendarmeries.
It might come as a surprise that the French Gendarmerie Nationale has a special forces unit, Groupe d'Intervention de la Gendarmerie Nationale (GIGN). GIGN is trained to perform counter-terrorist and hostage rescue missions in France or anywhere else in the world. GIGN has a very good reputation in Spec-Ops and has actually trained the US Delta Force and the German GSG9 in its techniques!
In other words, GIGN ain't your typical SWAT team.
You might want to read more on Gendarmeries if the topic of militarised police piques your interest since there are a lot of dynamics that are alien to someone from the US in operation here. For example, the Gendarmerie is somewhat in competition with the Police Nationale (the "non-militarised" flics). In short, this is a brief summary of a very complex topic.
In the US, this boils down to what is the nature of the military and should the police be a militarised force, which is an alien concept in Anglo-American societies. That's why people get upset about the thought of police with military equipment, even though many nations actually have dedicated militarised police and are not dictatorships.
The footnote to this is that Italy's Carabinieri were instrumental in toppling Mussolini!
Think about that when you think about this topic. The real issue isn't so much the nature of the police force as much as that is stays within the law.
As I said in a forum:
"So, which side is going to put down their arms first in the US: the police or the civilians?"
See also:
 |
| M'sieur, ze speed limit ees 80KmPH! |
There is a big problem in Law Enforcement in that there are three distinctively different types of police institution emerged with various levels of militarism.
The French, under Napoleon, instituted the Gendarmerie, a state military police model. It evolved from the “Marechaussee,” which had had a dual military and civil function since the 16th century. The model was exported across Europe by Napoleon. The Modern French Gendarmerie is an internal military force with police powers under the Ministry of the Interior. In fact, many smaller areas are patrolled by the Gendarmerie the way that State Police forces or Sheriffs patrol less populated areas in the US.
This is in contrast with Britain as the British developed two models. The first, set up to answer similar challenges to the Gendarmerie in France, was the Royal Irish Constabulary model. It was close to the state military model, but distinctively styled as part of the civil power of the state and subordinated to the Magistracy. The Irish model was subsequently exported to Britain’s colonies and became the basis of forces such as the Indian Police Service.
The Second was the Metropolitan Police, which was consciously created as a local force with a uniform that was deliberately different from the military and a mission that focused on prevention of crime rather than the repression of disorder. This state civilian model became the basis for all UK forces on the mainland and the principal influence on the development of East Coast US policing in the 1840s.
That means the US model is based more on prevention than keeping the rabble under control. On the other hand, many nations actually have police forces which are military forces. While some people in the US and other nations with a British heritage might see a militarised police force as a threat, it is pretty normal in other countries.
I've been toying with blogging something about militarised police since this is a tangential aspect of the Second Amendment issue in a couple of ways (civilian control of the military, the nature of the military, and the arms race due to the misinterpretation of the amendment).
The abuses of the historical French Gendarmes were well known prior to the French Revolution and were something that led to the Civilian police forces in the Anglo-American societies. That was one of the many aspects of the fear of standing armies and the desire that ANY type of military force is kept under civilian control (i.e., "well-regulated"). Tyrants can use a military force to oppress the people.
The term gendarme comes from the French phrase Gens d'armes or men at arms. To some extent, Gendarmes existed in English societies where men at arms were called to enforce laws, or oppress people. To some extent, the British colonial police police forces were gendarmeries.
It might come as a surprise that the French Gendarmerie Nationale has a special forces unit, Groupe d'Intervention de la Gendarmerie Nationale (GIGN). GIGN is trained to perform counter-terrorist and hostage rescue missions in France or anywhere else in the world. GIGN has a very good reputation in Spec-Ops and has actually trained the US Delta Force and the German GSG9 in its techniques!
In other words, GIGN ain't your typical SWAT team.
 | ||
| Don't bitch too much about "militarised police" |
You might want to read more on Gendarmeries if the topic of militarised police piques your interest since there are a lot of dynamics that are alien to someone from the US in operation here. For example, the Gendarmerie is somewhat in competition with the Police Nationale (the "non-militarised" flics). In short, this is a brief summary of a very complex topic.
In the US, this boils down to what is the nature of the military and should the police be a militarised force, which is an alien concept in Anglo-American societies. That's why people get upset about the thought of police with military equipment, even though many nations actually have dedicated militarised police and are not dictatorships.
The footnote to this is that Italy's Carabinieri were instrumental in toppling Mussolini!
Think about that when you think about this topic. The real issue isn't so much the nature of the police force as much as that is stays within the law.
As I said in a forum:
"So, which side is going to put down their arms first in the US: the police or the civilians?"
See also:
- National Gendamerie
- Gendarmerie
- Law Enforcement in France
- The actual Gendarmerie Nationale website
- Official Gendarmerie National Facebook
- EUROGENDFOR
- War Gear Flows to Police Departments - NYTimes.com
- www.klis.com/allsaints/pnotes.htm
- www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195396607/obo-9780195396607-0145.xml#obo-9780195396607-0145-bibItem-0001
Thursday, August 14, 2014
Open Carry v. Open Carry
Open Carry Texas is hoping to have a demonstration in Houston's predominently black Fifth Ward. The hope is that an armed society is a polite society will somehow prevail.
"We have a bad history with white men who would come into the 5th ward with guns in the name of a lynch mob," said activist Quanell X
It seems that some opponents of the march not only are exercising their right to self-defence, but are also openly carrying. The open carry movement seems to be achieving its objective of getting people to exercise their "rights".
When will more people wise up that the phrase "an armed society is a polite society' comes from a crappy sci-fi novel and has no basis in reality?
Anyway, watch as perceived "rights" clash with each other and the rule of law!
Is this really the world these people want to create? Do you want to live in a society which is like Somalia?
BTW, if the video embed code doesn't work, watch the video here:
www.khou.com/story/news/local/2014/08/13/open-carry-demonstration-meeting/14037147/
"We have a bad history with white men who would come into the 5th ward with guns in the name of a lynch mob," said activist Quanell X
It seems that some opponents of the march not only are exercising their right to self-defence, but are also openly carrying. The open carry movement seems to be achieving its objective of getting people to exercise their "rights".
When will more people wise up that the phrase "an armed society is a polite society' comes from a crappy sci-fi novel and has no basis in reality?
Anyway, watch as perceived "rights" clash with each other and the rule of law!
Is this really the world these people want to create? Do you want to live in a society which is like Somalia?
BTW, if the video embed code doesn't work, watch the video here:
www.khou.com/story/news/local/2014/08/13/open-carry-demonstration-meeting/14037147/
Ah, the irony....
After imagining a world where elevators opening are the big news of the day, along comes a reality check of what an armed society is actually like with a story of someone being shot outside an
Police say this shooting may have resulted from an argument.
Excuse me, we shouldn't say "shooting", even if that is what happened, since that somehow implicates guns as being a problem. This is despite the fact that there probably would have only been a scuffle had there not been a gun present.
A person was "Second Amendmented" outside an anti-violence concert.
Police say this shooting may have resulted from an argument.
Excuse me, we shouldn't say "shooting", even if that is what happened, since that somehow implicates guns as being a problem. This is despite the fact that there probably would have only been a scuffle had there not been a gun present.
A person was "Second Amendmented" outside an anti-violence concert.
The Most Corrupt States in America
Yahoo
But in some states, public officials who extend their hands aren't looking to shake; they're looking for a fast Jackson.
Friedrich Hayek on Conservativism
Of course, the US right loved him because he said all sorts of nasty things about collectivism, but neglected he was originally a socialist!
On the other hand, he didn't like conservatism very much either.
On the other hand, he didn't like conservatism very much either.
Imagine...
 |
| This is a real headline. |
- They are not afraid.
- They know they live in a world where people live by the rules or are punished by society's justice system: not by vigilantes taking the law into their own hands.
- Where people have hobbies that are not detrimental to society.
- Where this is the type of headline people see on a daily basis.
Would you like to live in a world without fear?
Or do you like displaying that you are afraid by having to carry a weapon for "protection" when there is nothing you need protecting from?
Or that your fear is so irrational that you keep an object which is more likely to cause you harm rather than really offer protection?
I like living in a world where elevators opening is the exciting news.
Try it--it's fun!
Wednesday, August 13, 2014
Gun Rights are not a License to Kill
This guest post is contributed by Rebecca Gray, who writes for background checks. She welcomes your comments at her email id: GrayRebecca14@gmail.com.
Gun rights issues come and go from the public
spotlight, as violent episodes illuminate gun culture in America. Unfortunately, as quickly as gun violence is
recognized as a crucial social topic, concerns seem to fade into the
background, during incident-free periods.
A school shooting or other gun-related atrocity starts the dialog and
fervent discussions between pundits, lawmakers and police officials, only for
it to slip from public focus before anything is actually done about it.
At issue is the intensely divided sphere of public
influence, which decries gun crime and doggedly protects gun rights at the same
time. There is no question a problem is
at hand, yet legislators and staunch gun rights advocates continue to defend
the status quo. Until we open our minds
to serious reform, the proliferation of guns across U.S. society will continue
to serve as a license to kill for criminals and accidental shooters defining
the national gun culture.
State
and Federal Influences
The proliferation of legal concealed-carry
accommodations includes a vast majority of states as permit providers, with
each jurisdiction maintaining its own set of laws. Depending on the
requirements imposed, some states hardly restrict access to concealed carry
permits, issuing most as a matter of course.
A few states do maintain stringent standards, which limits access for
certain members of society, even requiring gun owners to define their need for
concealed weapons.
Despite the call for federal gun control and shifts
in national attitudes about gun violence, states play crucial roles in
legislating and enforcing gun rights.
And while it is important to protect Constitutional freedoms, states
need to fill the gap between Constitutional provisions and real-life outcomes
seen on the streets. Combined with stand
your ground laws on the books in some states, reckless concealed carry
practices hold the potential for escalating violence. As a result, states that aren't active enough
preventing guns from getting into the wrong hands actually contribute to the
problem of gun violence more than they help solve it.
The National Rifle Association remains firmly
committed to reciprocity
and universal federal gun laws regulating gun rights across state
lines. Though currently on the books in
all 50 states, concealed carry laws vary according to jurisdiction, so
travelers carrying firearms must do due diligence to ensure they are acting in
accordance with state statutes. NRA
proposals, on the other hand, would standardize laws across states, even going
as far as creating federal laws to codify the national standard.
Gun rights advocates justify the proposed change by
arguing the universality of crime, which can occur at any time and place. According to the NRA, gun owners should not
be forced to sacrifice safety and security just to travel across state borders. Unfortunately, standardizing gun laws would
be a step backward for public safety, because such a proposal would naturally
pander to the lowest possible standard. As a result, the federal conceal carry
law would account for the lowest common denominator, compromising the strict
licensure policies adopted by other states committed to curbing gun violence.
Uh Huh
---NRA Board Member Ted Nugent.Well, I don't care if you're just 13
You look too good to be true
I just know that you're probably clean...
Jailbait you look fine, fine, fine...
It's quite alright, I asked your mama
Wait a minute, officer
Don't put those handcuffs on me
Put them on her, and I'll share her with you
Hmmm.
We all know about NRA Board Member Ted Nugent's predilection for underage girls.
It seems another NRA fave has the same problem:
"Sons of Guns" cast member Will Hayden was arrested in Louisiana on suspicion of child molestation over the weekend.
East Baton Rouge Sheriff's deputies arrested Hayden on accusations of child molestation and a "crime against nature." The gunsmith and shop owner, 44, who stars on the Discovery Channel reality series, was booked Saturday, TMZ reports. He was later released after posting $150,000 bond.
It should be noted this isn't Hayden's first brush with the laws of civilization. He lost his his FFL for the monumental failure of being able to account for his firearm inventory.
Well,,,alrighty, then. Why is it many of the NRA;s most public figures--and leadership--seem to be scumbags of the highest order?
Tuesday, August 12, 2014
Soverign Citizen shoots first responders
In gun friendly Texas, A sovereign citizen decided to go hunting public servants:
So, actual serving Oathbreakers (you are breaking your oath if you support anyone who is engaging in insurgent activity against the US per Article III, Section iii of the document you swore an oath to uphold), do you think that anyone who is so anti-government will see you as anything other than a representative of the despised government?
When you claim to uphold the oath, think of what the Constitution ACTUALLY SAYS about rebellion and that refusing to enforce the laws made in accordance with Article VI of that document, whether you agree with them or not, really turn you into.
And it is anything but a patriot.
more on this incident here.
See also:
Dallas Fire-Rescue initially responded to a dumpster fire at Frankford and North 40th Place. The man fired at the fire engine when they arrived. Firefighters sought cover, said Dallas Lt. Jose Garcia.Additionally, responding SWAT members had to clear the area of "suspect devices".
Dallas police were dispatched to the same location for a missing persons call.
Garcia said the officer did not hear the initial gunshots and were met with gunfire as they walked up to the location. They retreated and secured the perimeter. SWAT was called and the man surrendered.
So, actual serving Oathbreakers (you are breaking your oath if you support anyone who is engaging in insurgent activity against the US per Article III, Section iii of the document you swore an oath to uphold), do you think that anyone who is so anti-government will see you as anything other than a representative of the despised government?
When you claim to uphold the oath, think of what the Constitution ACTUALLY SAYS about rebellion and that refusing to enforce the laws made in accordance with Article VI of that document, whether you agree with them or not, really turn you into.
And it is anything but a patriot.
more on this incident here.
See also:
R.I.P. Robin Williams
I'm sorry to hear he died, but here he is on US Gun Culture.
"Suicide leaves such a bad aftertaste on the soul."
A hat tip to Lana for this idea.
"Suicide leaves such a bad aftertaste on the soul."
A hat tip to Lana for this idea.
Monday, August 11, 2014
In Missouri - Guns, Pot, Alcohol and Stupidity
Makenzie Halinski
Local news reports
An eastern Missouri woman has been sentenced to seven years in prison for fatally shooting her boyfriend with a gun that she believed wasn’t loaded.
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that 21-year-old Makenzie Halinski of Festus was sentenced Wednesday in the June 2013 death of 20-year-old Cole Campbell. She pleaded guilty in June.
Halinski had been drinking and smoking marijuana. She told police that Campbell had been showing her how to use guns, handed her a gun and told her it was unloaded and the safety was on.
Halinski told authorities that she pointed the gun at Campbell and shot, believing the gun wasn’t loaded. The bullet hit Campbell in the forehead.
The latest GV numbers
Source at the bottom APU.
So, how many lives have REALLY been saved by guns, as opposed to wrecked by them?
It seems that numbers is becoming a theme here.
So, how many lives have REALLY been saved by guns, as opposed to wrecked by them?
It seems that numbers is becoming a theme here.
Sunday, August 10, 2014
What's YOUR number?????
Come on, you don't really believe all that "guns save lives" bullshit--do you? I mean if I pointed a loaded gun at you, you would not take that as a nice gesture.
Despite all your attempts to normalise insane behaviour, deep down, you must sense that you are repeating nonsense.
Or do you?
“Please answer how many people you have known (people you’ve talked to) who have been the victims of gun violence? Suicide, accidental, murder… otherwise. No politics. … No judgment. Just a number.”
That number may surprise you.
About half the people I spoke with said their number was zero and they felt fortunate. Others revealed numbers reaching into three digits. For some, the number changed as they started thinking back, remembering incidents they had long put out of mind.
Now, about your gun not killing anyone? Would you put it to your head and pull the trigger?
Of course, you wouldn't.
Please stop trying to bullshit me. Guns are deadly weapons which can kill or cause serious bodily injury.
Unless we can agree on that point, there isn't any reason to go any further with trying to have a discussion.
Read more here
Despite all your attempts to normalise insane behaviour, deep down, you must sense that you are repeating nonsense.
Or do you?
“Please answer how many people you have known (people you’ve talked to) who have been the victims of gun violence? Suicide, accidental, murder… otherwise. No politics. … No judgment. Just a number.”
That number may surprise you.
About half the people I spoke with said their number was zero and they felt fortunate. Others revealed numbers reaching into three digits. For some, the number changed as they started thinking back, remembering incidents they had long put out of mind.
Now, about your gun not killing anyone? Would you put it to your head and pull the trigger?
Of course, you wouldn't.
Please stop trying to bullshit me. Guns are deadly weapons which can kill or cause serious bodily injury.
Unless we can agree on that point, there isn't any reason to go any further with trying to have a discussion.
Read more here
Lawful Tennessee Gun Owner Arrested for Assault
Gerald Appleberry
Local news reports
According to police, Rufus Hicks had done work for Gerald Appleberry. However, Appleberry was not happy with his work.
Both men were at Tony's Bar when an argument started. The men continued to argue, moving to Glass Street.
Mr. Hicks told police that Appleberry became angry and pulled a gun on him. He said, at this point, he attempted to leave but Appleberry started punching him and hitting him with the gun.
Mr. Hicks said Appleberry then passed the gun to another man while he continued to hit Hicks.
Trying to defend himself, Mr. Hicks said he shoved Appleberry to the ground. When this happened, he said the unknown man struck him in the head with the gun.
Police observed several cuts and lacerations his neck and forearm.
Five days later, Appleberry turned himself in on July 30. He was charged with aggravated assault. Bond was set at $3,000.
Quote of the Day
Speaking out against the gun lobbies has brought online bullies, but more importantly, it has brought on allies. They are the reason I wrote those pieces in the first place. The takeaway is the people I have connected with despite all of the harassment and bullying. Progress is being made.From What Happens When You Oppose Gun Lobbies? : Quiet Mike
Stalk me online, insult me, and smear my name. The harder you try to stop me, the harder I will push forward. The key is to look for reasonable people on both sides of the debate who won’t act like grade schoolers. Ignore all the rest.
If gun lobby supporters can’t act like responsible adults on the Internet, they certainly can’t be trusted to be responsible with firearms. And helping to expose them as such will help to solve America’s gun violence issues. If they wish to illustrate why they need to be opposed, that only helps the rest of us identify them as part of the problem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)