Megyn Kelly, Shooting Down Bill O'Reilly's Cowardly Stance on the Garland Shooting: "Should We Get Rid of All the Jews, Too?"
"I have long ago decided that I do not wish to be on the list of the Acceptable Ones", @AceofSpadesHQ
Further examination of Codevilla's Ruling Class interpreted through their reaction to the recent ISIS attack on America in Texas,
Further examination of Codevilla's Ruling Class interpreted through their reaction to the recent ISIS attack on America in Texas,
thing to do with them is to crack down; arrest
them, if possible; if not, to wipe them out.
Maybe a better question is, "why/how do some states seem to do pretty well with one plate while others REQUIRE two?!
I Love The Socratic Method...
:)
Best wishes.
Jan
Now I'll always advocate to have the civil law recognize an unborn child as having all the rights you or I have. I know Rand didn't agree with that. I find the case she made unconvincing--especially since she was so sensitive about it. (If anyone wants to have the debate on when in the course of human development a human being gains rights worthy of respect, reply to me here or send me a PM. I recognize I don't run this forum, so I won't create a nuisance.)
But I don't take the civil law into my own hands.
The differences between me and a Muslim--especially one like a certain cleric who actually said on live television to hale Pamela Geller before a court of shari'a law that could sentence her to death--are twofold. First, I don't accept the basic principles of their system. Second, I will defend myself, but will not retaliate with force for a mere annoyance that does not rise to a forceful level.
Next Comment. I suppose you must be a right wing O''Reilley Supporter.
Next Answer. O'Really like Limbaugh are supporters of the Republican Party half of the Government Party. Ij consider them to be the right wing of the left wing. Although not RINOs.
To be right wing you have to believe in the soveriegn source of power in any political system. What used to be called divine right of kings until they joined the left as the new ruling class.
The group I'm referring to are citizens controlling government. O''Really? and Limbaugh are far closer than Kelly but both are still left wingers believing in government control of citizens. Otherwise they wouldn't be supporters of Republicans.
I tend to stray in either direction but always remembering my oath of office keep one foot firmly planted in the real center the sacred ground occupied by the Constitution and to hell with the extremists like Kelly. That took five seconds to figure out and five minutes to comment.
As I recall the left wing are the direct descendents of those who tried to get rid of al the Jews. We; call them Communists and Nazi's and I'm ashamed to say US Government Bureaucrats back the days of World War II..
Secular Devil thy name may be Carville or Kelly but get behind me.preferably down wind.
Jan
Although I don't post much in the Gulch, that is one thing that I truly love about the people who populate these boards. Even on the stuff where we vehemently disagree, I'd hang out with the worst Gulcher before even considering the best of the dependency crowd any day of the week.
We do have another point of commonality: the idea of having a citizenry that is trained as well as armed. (It is easy to look up the stats: I believe Switz is #2 in per capital arms; USA is #1.) I am also in favor of trained citizen militia. (Plano Texas has the highest gun ratio in the US; they also have a murder rate that is lower than Europe's.)
Jan
I live in Los Angeles. It is a crap shoot here as to what you will get in police. I have no doubt that they could get together a bunch of volunteers to break down the front door of my house and hustle me off without a warrant. Not everyone would raise their hand, but enough would, I think.
It is the police I fear, NealS. I can take out a robber and stand a good chance of success - both legally and technically. But if a police officer tried to rape me, I would be a fugitive for the rest of my life, just for fighting back.
Jan
I never had a very positive reaction to Facebook, after I read about its earliest days and how it was used from the beginning. Now, nothing would force me start using it.
Are they afraid of "offending" their Islamist customers?
Just wondering.
On to Yamamoto's comment. Consider the Swiss. I am not inclined to bother with the research, so feel free to shoot holes in this logic with hard numbers if you can find them. I do not claim to be an expert on all things Swiss, but this is my understanding of it, however flawed it might be. Every adult of majority age has a battle rifle in his closet and has undergone the training to use it. I wonder how likely someone is to cause trouble there. How many home break ins do they have per capita? How aggressive are the police when they know everyone is packing or at least has access to a firearm? How likely is Switzerland to be invaded by a foreign power with their natural advantages in terrain AND everyone being armed and ready to do something about it.
I am not a fan of compulsory military service/training, but I do see the merits in what they are doing.
Take it a step further. Since this whole thread is based on the Muslim extremist activity in Garland, Texas (about 45 miles west of here - Fort Worth - for that matter), let's apply the Swiss logic to Israel. Opinions on Israel vary all over the place, but I think it is safe to say that their policy of training every adult of majority age in the IDF has served them well. Unlike the Swiss, the Israelis really are surrounded on all sides by enemies that would see them dead. Which is more useful for their defense? A cop in a Robo2000SuperMegaBattleSuit on every corner or every citizen being armed and willing to come running in times of trouble?
As it applies to us, give me the rabble with a handgun on every hip over the donut munching hall monitor in the MRAPP (sic).
Last point. You could have stopped with "We both agree . . . with respect to criminals..." and been good there. The Yamamoto thing and all the hypotheticals that spring from it is a bridge too far.
I was breaking the law, but on the rest of the trip, another 4 or 5 miles, my wife counted 15 other cars without front plates, and that was just on the cars going the opposite direction. Somewhere I learned that is no excuse for breaking the law, breaking it because a lot of other people break it. Ignorance is also no excuse for the law. Both excuses seem to be used by some people in Ferguson and Baltimore that think they can use excuses to break the law. Robbery, breaking and entering, destruction of property, arson, defiance toward those we hire to protect us, all of them must be acceptable as long as they let you get away with it. They figure they can do whatever they want anymore. Why? Because we no longer enforce our laws. We don’t enforce laws because of a myriad of reasons, none of them really legitimate. Speeding laws aren’t enforced, except in (some) school zones. In fact I’ve heard they set speed limits around 10 miles per hour less than they want the traffic to flow, just to keep it somewhat under control. What’s a cop to do today to do his job? Maybe if we shot more people that didn’t have a front license plate, or maybe if they set up snipers to take out speeders, it would put an end to the problems. What we’re doing frustrates me because it makes me more fearful of even leaving the house. And it’s not the police I fear.
Oh, after he told me what the law was, he said, “Nice car, have a nice day”, and walked away. I learned my lesson, I’ll never drive on Willows Road again if I don’t have to. I sure hope none of my local police are Gulch members that might read this.
But.
If we could postulate a police force of the sort that we (you and I) would be inclined to trust, then providing military grade equipment means that there would be thousands of strongpoints in the USA. Admiral Yamamoto purportedly made the "...rifle behind each blade of grass..." comment when advising the Japanese Emperor not to invade the US during WWII. I quoted him to hint that the purpose of the military equipment is not aimed at criminals.
Strategically, there is a lot to be said in favor of having lots of military equipment scattered around the country. You have a nexus for a first line of defense - police and citizens - that allows the military time to assemble and get to an invasion point whilst non-combatants evacuate. (This is especially the case if the landing point is in a major city.)
So...think along with me here. What other steps would you suggest taking?
Jan, likes the idea of riot gear for casual Fridays! Hmmm...tomorrow is Friday....
It sounds like we agree on most every point. I did not expect that to be the case when I responded to your original comment. I honestly do accept and appreciate the comment you made when you said, "the problem is not ARMING the police. The problem is arming the POLICE." That is absolutely a brilliant soundbite that sums this whole conversation up in 13 very well crafted words.
I agree wholeheartedly about wishing that I could trust the police. Put simply, I do not. As they are absolutely unwilling to clean out the trash within their own ranks and apply the law equally to themselves as they do to us, they are unworthy of my respect or my trust. That includes virtually every cop because they can all pretty much be lumped into one of two categories. Either a cop is a problem case (unnecessary use of force, graft, some other form of corruption) or he/she is aiding and abetting those that are (looking the other way, falsifying police reports, charge stacking, etc.) so that the problem cops in category one can consistently get away with the crimes you and I would do hard time for.
As for the hypothetical argument about arming the cop we can trust, I'm not even interested in the discussion. I think they are well armed enough as it is. Giving them more firepower only makes the average citizen less safe. I'll take a well trained, well armed private citizen over a cop with a Rambo complex any day of the week. At least then when the worst case comes to pass and somebody screws up with a gun, I know the person making the mistake won't get a free pass as damned near every cop that mistakenly beats, tazes or shoots somebody will.
Regarding the "French solution", the whole conversation is a non starter. I am not suggesting that we should disarm the police. I am simply suggesting that they have more than enough firepower as it is now. If an average patrol cop has a handgun, a couple spare magazines, pepper spray, a tazer, a baton, a pair of handcuffs and a couple spare ziptie restraints on his person as his personal armament along with his body armor, I'd say he is better armed that virtually every thug he is likely to deal with 99.99% of the time. Additionally, he/she has their training to fall back on. Beyond that, they have their long guns, AR15 style rifles and shotguns, in their cars that can shoot both lethal and non lethal projectiles. They may even have helmets, shields and other riot gear in the cars for all I know. If they don't, they could carry those things without too much trouble. If you'll forgive me for saying so, I'd say that the average cop is almost as well armed as some of the troops we send into combat. If they need more arms/armament as you suggest, I'd rather just send in the 1st Armored Division and flatten the place if it's really that bad. In the meantime, give me a gun and a couple dozen other well armed (concealed or open, I don't care) citizens beside me when trouble comes along, and I will be just fine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boO4RowR...
Load more comments...