patrick.net

Dan, your argument that guns in the hands of the general public can't do anything against state dictatorships is wrong. Just by existing, the guns grant a certain amount of caution in both legislation and enforcement. If the state becomes too unpopular, people might choose to revolt.
Now this isn't an easy choice. To decide to use armed resistance against one's nation is tantamount to treason, so it's not a choice made lightly or for purely political reasons. For the average guy to say "fuck it, I've had enough, where's my shotgun?" Takes a lot of commitment. He has to make the judgement that his place in society is not worth the oppression he's facing from the government. That his life isn't worth living under these conditions.
Dan has asked why nobody used arms against the government to free Bradley Manning. Seriously? It's a life and death decision to escalate things this far. You could end up as just the next Timothy mcveigh if your revolution fails: branded domestic terrorist and jailed for life if you're not executed.
The "militia" argument is valid, but only at the extremes of government excess.

It is amazing that such inhumane behaviour for men and women has been accepted as normal . Just sad .

So, what percentage of police/civilian encounters does this abuse take place?
If we are talking thousandths of a percent (0.001%, which I suspect ), then it becomes apparent this is just the price we pay for the police structures we have setup.
There will always be bad apples in any given workforce.
When that number climbs to an unacceptable level, the 300,000,000 guns on the street will speak.

if video taping police activity is against the 2nd amendment, where are the lawsuits?

Quigley says

Dan, your argument that guns in the hands of the general public can't do anything against state dictatorships is wrong. Just by existing, the guns grant a certain amount of caution in both legislation and enforcement. If the state becomes too unpopular, people might choose to revolt.

So far, all gun proliferation has accomplished is to give the police an excuse to treat any citizen contact as if they are confronting a potential murderer. In other words, it has had the opposite effect than what Quigley claims above.

In countries where the police is not allowed to assume that every person could be armed, the police is MUCH more civilized and just in their behavior. In case you were not aware of this fact, observe just about any northern european country.

Is it really plausible that gun proliferation could prevent a totalitarian state? I don't think so, but what it could easily do is to create a totalitarian state by local thug-rule and feudal fascism, either in the form of a police state, or as false reaction to the police state.

I like that phrase: gun proliferation.

Dan8267 says

Cops Strip Search Mom in front of her children, Forcibly Pull Tampon Out of Her

Did slowly retract and a recording played saying...
"Reach for the sky..."
or was it
"To infinity and BEYOND!"

Quigley says

Just by existing, the guns grant a certain amount of caution in both legislation and enforcement.

I have yet to see any of this "caution" exercised by law enforcement. The only difference I've seen in people wielding guns and people not wielding them is that the people who have guns are shot and killed by the police even when the possession of the gun is perfectly legal.

http://news.yahoo.com/video/deputies-shoot-kill-man-knocking-163819466.html

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=95475&page=1

If I could see just one instance of a person invoking the Stand Your Ground law after killing a cop in self-defense and the state saying that the citizen was lawful to do so, I'd buy your argument. There certainly are plenty of situations every single day where it should be lawful for a citizen to use deadly force against a police officer committing a crime.

What about that poor little boy who was tased repeatedly? Why didn't anyone with a gun stop those cops? And what would happen to anyone who tried?

SoftShell says

So, what percentage of police/civilian encounters does this abuse take place?

If we are talking thousandths of a percent (0.001%, which I suspect )

Whereas you expect this abuse is rare, I expect that it is the norm.

But even if it were rare, our current legal structure does not allow for the prosecution of criminals with police badges. This is why we need a civilian court that does not answer to the government and can arrest, imprison, and execute state criminals including police.

justme says

So far, all gun proliferation has accomplished is to give the police an excuse to treat any citizen contact as if they are confronting a potential murderer. In other words, it has had the opposite effect than what Quigley claims above.

So very true. Unfortunate, but true.

CaptainShuddup says

Dan8267 says

Cops Strip Search Mom in front of her children, Forcibly Pull Tampon Out of Her

Did slowly retract and a recording played saying...

"Reach for the sky..."

or was it

"To infinity and BEYOND!"

Every time I think you've reached a new low in human decency, you pull out a shovel.

Oh! So it was...
"Hi I'm Chunky wanna play?"

So the key to continuing this rant is to find out....."rare or commonplace"....

Dan8267 says

SoftShell says

So, what percentage of police/civilian encounters does this abuse take place?

If we are talking thousandths of a percent (0.001%, which I suspect )

Whereas you expect this abuse is rare, I expect that it is the norm.

But even if it were rare, our current legal structure does not allow for the prosecution of criminals with police badges. This is why we need a civilian court that does not answer to the government and can arrest, imprison, and execute state criminals including police.

SoftShell says

So the key to continuing this rant is to find out....."rare or commonplace"....

Pretty hard to do when coverups are common place.

I bet if you were in AZ and shot these cops in retaliation you'd be acquitted.

In CA however, your only right is right to abide what criminals and the unions want you to.