patrick.net

Vicente says

Thanks for coming out.

certainly would include foreign nationalists..
since the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to non- US citizens.

thomaswong.1986 says

Vicente says

Thanks for coming out.

certainly would include foreign nationalists..
since the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to non- US citizens.

Maybe I misunderstand, but are you saying any non-white is a not a US citizen?

Kevin says

I think you misunderstand: The pro-gun crowd isn't in favor of non-white people having guns.

There's some gun control people could get behind

The same fools insist that the police and military be armed to the hilt. They are, after all, here to protect us dontchaknow!

I don't trust any nitwit whose first cry for gon control isn't disarming the peace officers. Nothing I fear more in this world than this out of control police state, and the people that ask for more of it

Vicente says

As a former NRA member, I am appalled by their history now that I read about it.

Back in 1968, they lobbied FOR the Gun Control Act.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/?single_page=true

In 1968 the NRA was funded and populated by people who considered shooting a sport, not gun manufacturers and self defence fanatics.

Khaaaaaannnnn!!!!!

Vicente says

Dan's point stands. The "militia" is very selective, only whites are due any outrage.

So you're saying that Black Panthers are only a figment of our imagination?

Vicente says

Dan's point stands. The "militia" is very selective, only whites are due any outrage.

I'm not sure they even get outraged when whites are victimized by the government. There are plenty of white victims here that got no sympathy, nonetheless action, from the militia people. Christ, what would it take for these militias that allegedly are protecting our liberties to actually act?

Dan8267 says

what would it take for these militias that allegedly are protecting our liberties to actually act?

I suspect it would take an event that unfolds very, very slowly. That would allow them to keep up.

Dan8267 says

Vicente says

Dan's point stands. The "militia" is very selective, only whites are due any outrage.

I'm not sure they even get outraged when whites are victimized by the government. There are plenty of white victims here that got no sympathy, nonetheless action, from the militia people. Christ, what would it take for these militias that allegedly are protecting our liberties to actually act?

Timmy McVeigh largely destroyed the american militia movement. In another 10 years, when conservatives try to re-frame him as a hero, the movement will be renewed.

lostand confused says

Maybe I misunderstand, but are you saying any non-white is a not a US citizen?

since when does the 2nd Amendment or any part of the Constitution apply to
non-US citizens, who are subjects/agents of a foreign government ?

they should not be allowed have arms within the US borders... they have no right to do so.

where do I say white or non-white ?

thomaswong.1986 says

since when does the 2nd Amendment or any part of the Constitution apply to

non-US citizens, who are subjects/agents of a foreign government ?

Izhar Khan, the man falsely imprisoned for 20 months, is a U.S. citizen.

FunTime says

Dan8267 says

what would it take for these militias that allegedly are protecting our liberties to actually act?

I suspect it would take an event that unfolds very, very slowly. That would allow them to keep up.

Good one -"...very, very slowly." ROFLMAO

Dan8267 says

Izhar Khan, the man falsely imprisoned for 20 months, is a U.S. citizen.

dont send money to Pakistan and find it going to some terrorist organization.

Looks like the justice system works sometimes.

thomaswong.1986 says

Dan8267 says

Izhar Khan, the man falsely imprisoned for 20 months, is a U.S. citizen.

dont send money to Pakistan and find it going to some terrorist organization.

You mean "don't be a Muslim", since that's the only thing this guy was guilty of.

Kevin says

You mean "don't be a Muslim",

That's good advice for anyone.

Kevin says

You mean "don't be a Muslim", since that's the only thing this guy was guilty of.

Suggest you read the article, clearly dont be connected in any way to Terrorist networks.

But It is unlikely a Irish Catholic would be involved in such matters.

thomaswong.1986 says

Kevin says

You mean "don't be a Muslim", since that's the only thing this guy was guilty of.

Suggest you read the article, clearly dont be connected in any way to Terrorist networks.

But It is unlikely a Irish Catholic would be involved in such matters.

I seriously can't tell if thus is supposed to be sarcasm,

thomaswong.1986 says

Dan8267 says

Izhar Khan, the man falsely imprisoned for 20 months, is a U.S. citizen.

dont send money to Pakistan and find it going to some terrorist organization.

1. Money is speech according to the Supreme Court and therefore sending money to a political organization, even one hated by our government, is free speech. Perhaps free speech only exists for corporations today.

2. There is no evidence that Izhar Khan sent money to the Taliban. That is why all charges were dropped.

3. This means that a man spent almost two years in prison without trial on mere "suspicion" of doing something that should not even be illegal.

4. By the definition in the USA Patriot Act, every one of our country's founding fathers was a terrorist, especially George Washington. Should we arrest anyone who donates money to a Washington museum? Terrorism is a marketing term, not an objective group. Should we arrest anyone who gives money to a Baptist Church? They certainly are terrorist from my perspective.

5. The government has paid no price, made no compensation, offered no apology for imprisoning a person for almost two years without ever going to trial. If you don't think this is wrong, you are not a real American. This goes against every principle upon which our country was founded.

Kevin says

thomaswong.1986 says

Kevin says

You mean "don't be a Muslim", since that's the only thing this guy was guilty of.

Suggest you read the article, clearly dont be connected in any way to Terrorist networks.

But It is unlikely a Irish Catholic would be involved in such matters.

I seriously can't tell if thus is supposed to be sarcasm,

Never confuse stupidity with sarcasm.

Dan, how do you know all that?

The article wasn't clear or specific on any of those things. Furthermore, the article didn't at all explain the prosecutions actions.

dodgerfanjohn says

Dan, how do you know all that?

The article wasn't clear or specific on any of those things. Furthermore, the article didn't at all explain the prosecutions actions.

There are many articles on the Internet going into various details of the case as well as coverage by news outlets like RT News and NPR.

Do you have any specific questions?

A rifle didn't help that man, don't know if he even had one or simply did not wish to use it. But doesn't this story show you that government can and will use it's force if able to do it's bidding? Not the first time government used police or military force on it's civilians under pretense of it being for common good. Hitler killed a lot of people for common good when he could, and our government will do the same given the opportunity.

I think if we lose our guns the way Diana Nazi Feinstein wants us to. It will be only a matter of time before government starts rounding people up or closing down their businesses who refuse to pay government racket bribes...

IDDQD says

Now, how exactly would being well-armed with assault rifles and high-capacity magazines have helped Izhar Khan?

It would have rallied all the right wing nutters to round up all the muslims and string them up from trees because it would have proved all muslims are terrorists.

FortWayne says

I think if we lose our guns the way Diana Nazi Feinstein wants us to. It will be only a matter of time before government starts rounding people up or closing down their businesses who refuse to pay government racket bribes...

That damn Jewish Nazi wants to take your guns!

Might as well give up and kill yourself now. Please don't kill anybody else while you're at it.

Kevin says

That damn Jewish Nazi wants to take your guns!

Oh come on Kevin, I am not saying she belongs to a Nazi party, she just acts as totalitarian as Nazi's did.

FortWayne says

Oh come on Kevin, I am not saying she belongs to a Nazi party, she just acts as totalitarian as Nazi's did.

Ok Ronnie, be a good boy and take your calm me down meds now. here's your binky, that's a good boy, mommy loves you. Shh, it's alright, mommy will make the Nazi's go away.

No. Not even remotely close.

Where are the labor camps? Where is the suppression of basic human Rights? Where is the systematic discrimination against anyone not belonging to a certain group?

Gin control doesn't make her a Nazi. It makes her dutch.

FortWayne says

Kevin says

That damn Jewish Nazi wants to take your guns!

Oh come on Kevin, I am not saying she belongs to a Nazi party, she just acts as totalitarian as Nazi's did.

Feinstein as totalitarian as Nazi's? You are joking right? Either that or woefully ignorant on the degree of Nazi totalitarianism.

leo707 says

Feinstein as totalitarian as Nazi's? You are joking right? Either that or woefully ignorant on the degree of Nazi totalitarianism.

Her hands are tied now by laws, but she speaks like those limitations to her control over our lives is a problem.

Kevin says

No. Not even remotely close.

Where are the labor camps? Where is the suppression of basic human Rights? Where is the systematic discrimination against anyone not belonging to a certain group?

Gin control doesn't make her a Nazi. It makes her dutch.

Her views of big government abridging rights makes her a totalitarist.

And you are talking about suppressing basic human rights? Our government has plenty of examples. We have Guantanamo, occasional incidents that Dan posts about people being falsely imprisoned without trial, how about Japanese Americans during WW2, or any other civil rights discriminations we do in any place we invade?

Our government is only tied down by the constitution and the public support for the rights. Once rights are taken away, I bet you'll see camps on American soil... kind of how prisoners do customer service calls now for $0.01/hour.

IDDQD says

Moderate Infidel says

IDDQD says

Now, how exactly would being well-armed with assault rifles and high-capacity magazines have helped Izhar Khan?

It would have rallied all the right wing nutters to round up all the muslims and string them up from trees because it would have proved all muslims are terrorists.

Please quote correctly. The question you're answering was Dan's, not mine.

My bad, I meant to quote the original.

FortWayne says

Her views of big government abridging rights makes her a totalitarist.

And you are talking about suppressing basic human rights? Our government has plenty of examples. We have Guantanamo, occasional incidents that Dan posts about people being falsely imprisoned without trial, how about Japanese Americans during WW2, or any other civil rights discriminations we do in any place we invade?

Our government is only tied down by the constitution and the public support for the rights. Once rights are taken away, I bet you'll see camps on American soil... kind of how prisoners do customer service calls now for $0.01/hour.

So Dianne Feinstein is the government now? I didn't realize she had absolute power.

Kevin says

Where is the suppression of basic human Rights?

Her trying to take guns away is an example, 2nd amendment is a basic human right. No totalitarian types ever came in telling people they'll take their rights away, they always did it under the guise of bettering society or often the children. And generally first thing they always do is disarm the civilians.

Nazi's came into power w/ their sets of rules that were very liberal... take guns away, socialize everything, redistribute everything, bring back pensions, abolish income from interest, etc... and look how that turned out.

I give up. You're a moron with no sense of scale or perspective.

Kevin says

I give up. You're a moron with no sense of scale or perspective.

A personal insult, sort of expected and typical, a last refuge of a man who could not refute the argument, unable to accept being wrong.

I'd honestly expect that type of response from 121212, not you Kevin.

FortWayne says

Kevin says

I give up. You're a moron with no sense of scale or perspective.

A personal insult, sort of expected and typical, a last refuge of a man who could not refute the argument, unable to accept being wrong.

I'd honestly expect that type of response from 121212, not you Kevin.

Yeah, not the response I expect from Kevin.

Fort I don't think you are a moron, but I do think that your scale of perspective is a bit off here. You are talking about possibilities of what may happen. I agree that we seem to be heading down the road to a more totalitarian government, but I would certainly not put that on Feinstein or even the Democrats in general. There are some very totalitarian elements of the Republican party these days, but at this point I think it is very premature to call anyone a Nazi.

IDDQD says

Dan8267 says

Now, how exactly would being well-armed with assault rifles and high-capacity magazines have helped Izhar Khan?

Have you heard about Bad Elk v. United States? Google it.

I agree with the conclusion of Bad Elk vs US that a person has the right to use deadly force against police officers engaging in an illegal arrest.

However, just because this court decision is on paper does not mean that it is in practice. The Supreme Court also ruled that any postal mail recipient can ban receiving any mail (read junk mail) from a mailer based on the recipient considering it lewd or obscene, totally at the discretion of the recipient. The Post Office is legally obligated to not deliver mail from that sender to that recepient thereafter. This was decided in Daniel Rowan vs United States Post Office. Nonetheless, try to get junk mailers banned from sending you mail. Local post offices won't follow the law and local courts won't consider cases against mailers who violate the law even repeatedly.

In reality, 99+% of the time a person resisting unlawful arrest will be beaten and/or killed by the police. 99+% of the time, someone shooting a cop making an illegal arrest will be murdered by the police then and there or later at a traffic stop set up for the purpose of killing him.

I would love to see more instances like the case in Bad Elk v. United States where innocent persons kill corrupt cops in self-defense and the state admits that the innocent persons did no wrong. But that's not reality. I'm glad it happened once, but most of the time the innocent person is either murdered or unjustly imprisoned.

Heck, I would support a citizen using force, even deadly force, to defend himself against assault and battery committed during a legal and legitimate arrest. If the police get out of hand and assault a person, they are criminals no different than someone without a badge.

leo707 says

Yeah, not the response I expect from Kevin.

Fort I don't think you are a moron, but I do think that your scale of perspective is a bit off here. You are talking about possibilities of what may happen. I agree that we seem to be heading down the road to a more totalitarian government, but I would certainly not put that on Feinstein or even the Democrats in general. There are some very totalitarian elements of the Republican party these days, but at this point I think it is very premature to call anyone a Nazi.

Anyone who equates even the worst of our currently elected officials with the evils of the Nazi regime isn't an intelligent person.

There's plenty of room to disagree with policies. There's plenty of room to have rational arguments. There's plenty of room to think that somebody is a bad person.

But Nazis? No. Not even close. That's why I say anybody using this line of reasoning is a moron: They don't want to actually debate an issue, they're just lashing out.

The gun control proposals on the table today are extremely mild compared to what we see in the rest of the developed world. If that makes our politicians "Nazis", then I guess the rest of the world is worse than the Nazi regime?

It's such an absurd argument that there's just no point in continuing to engage with people who use it.

I feel the same way every time some fucking idiot on this board compares taxes to slavery or a minor inconvenience to rape. Taking everything to the extreme is such a low form of debate that only an incredibly stupid person would use it as a serious form.

Dan8267 says

Heck, I would support a citizen using force, even deadly force, to defend himself against assault and battery committed during a legal and legitimate arrest. If the police get out of hand and assault a person, they are criminals no different than someone without a badge.

I live in seattle, so excessive force by police officers is something I've seen all too often, but this is really murky territory. Determining what qualifies as "excessive" can be in the eye of the beholder, and the officers definitely are entrusted with a different standard than the suspect (that's something essential to maintain rule of law).

I've heard it argued that the modern US police system is essentially derived from plantation / colony security: It's a model of containment rather than protection. Keep a certain group from harming another group. That's why cops don't really help protect people in bad neighborhoods in many cities, they protect wealthy people FROM the people in bad neighborhoods.

We definitely need a cultural shift to one where the role of a police officer is that primarily of problem solver and mediator.

I think adopting something like the British constable system might help: Have uniformed, minimally armed officers patrolling the streets and responding to situations where danger is minimal. Armed officers only get brought in on an as-needed basis.

Of course, we live so far apart here that this might not be practical. If calling for armed backup requires a 20 minute wait, a lot of things can go badly.

Kevin says

I've heard it argued that the modern US police system is essentially derived from plantation / colony security: It's a model of containment rather than protection.

like Irish cops maybe ... back as early 1840s