Actually, what happens when the subjects are known to be armed is quite the opposite. Overwhelming force may be lined up outside if the encounter turns violent, but the violent no-knock raid is generally not used against an armed household.
The particular prosecutor in Aaron Swartz's case (Carmen Ortiz) is a real problem child. She's the one who tried to steal Rus Caswell's motel here in Massachusetts under drug laws even though he was completely innocent of any crime. There are a few sordid items from her career.
I wish I could +1 your post, you have hit the nail upon the head.
Personally, I think we should repeal the prohibition on felons owning firearms, at least for non-violent felons. Those laws serve largely to keep legal guns out of the hands of black Americans. I don't think I can identify a group more in need of an individual right to legally own and carry firearms. It is utterly unconscionable that we allow such a blatantly racist system of laws to continue in this supposedly "free" country.
The original purpose of the invention is not always the best (or final) use of that invention. For example, when Edison discovered and patented the invention we now know as the vacuum tube, he had no clue of the import of his discovery.
Guns are perfected by the world's militaries. They subsequently become implements of liberty when they enter the hands of the common populace. Their original purpose is not their final purpose -- the most effective equalizer humans have ever discovered.
I would never want to own a gun that cannot be fired by others. There are too many stories of self-defense (particularly home defense) using someone else's gun. If my girlfriend/wife/child/friend needs to defend themselves with my gun, I want that gun to work as perfectly for them as it would for me.
A gun is a tool for liberty. All other arguments are secondary to that. Yes, it is a killing machine. It is best used to keep in line the worst killing machines in human history: governments.
Post some sources for that so I can point out how wrong you are. That is complete bullshit.
For one, every last one of those studies fails to discriminate between legally-owned guns and illegally-owned guns. I can guaran-fucking-tee you that illegally-owned guns are not stored in expensive safes, nor are the family members nearby trained in firearm safety. OF COURSE having illegally owned firearms increases the likelihood of someone in your immediate family being a victim of gun violence.
Legally-owned guns are a different story altogether.
Part of being the "land of the free" is that we are trusted with the tools to keep ourselves free. In other words, we get to keep and carry tools of deadly force.
Sounds like someone has been reading too much butt-hurt on Twitter today. Your post is full of angst, fallacies, and falsehoods. I wish you the best, but your world view needs some repair.
Definitely not. Pinning and disarming is something only for people who have trained to do that. If Zimmerman attacked first, it would have been Trayvon's right to employ lethal force in self defense. However, Trayvon's right to lethal force ends when Zimmerman breaks off the attack.
Trayvon's right to self defense does not include sitting on top of Zimmerman and banging Zimmerman's head against the pavement.
If Zimmerman pulled a gun first, then it would have been suicidal for Travon to subsequently attack with fists. That is not a plausible scenario.
1) Travon was found with two injuries: a gunshot wound to the chest, and broken skin on his knuckles. 2) Zimmerman had a broken nose 3) Zimmerman had lacerations on the back of his head.
Occam's Razor.
I'll grant you that it is possible that Zimmerman initiated a confrontation. If that happened, Travon certainly continued well beyond any allowance for self defence, between (2) and (3).
Deregulation is not deregulation when it plays into the hands of the corrupt. Actual deregulating involves keeping your hands the fuck OFF of whatever it is you are supposedly deregulating.
Example: banking. Banking was supposed "deregulated," but all that really happened is the regulations INCREASED while allowing certain corrupt people to do things that would otherwise be considered criminal. No deregulation there.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd argue it has been imperialistic well before that. Talk to the native American tribes (or rather, what's left of them).
Actually, what happens when the subjects are known to be armed is quite the opposite. Overwhelming force may be lined up outside if the encounter turns violent, but the violent no-knock raid is generally not used against an armed household.
The particular prosecutor in Aaron Swartz's case (Carmen Ortiz) is a real problem child. She's the one who tried to steal Rus Caswell's motel here in Massachusetts under drug laws even though he was completely innocent of any crime. There are a few sordid items from her career.
I wish I could +1 your post, you have hit the nail upon the head.
Personally, I think we should repeal the prohibition on felons owning firearms, at least for non-violent felons. Those laws serve largely to keep legal guns out of the hands of black Americans. I don't think I can identify a group more in need of an individual right to legally own and carry firearms. It is utterly unconscionable that we allow such a blatantly racist system of laws to continue in this supposedly "free" country.
The original purpose of the invention is not always the best (or final) use of that invention. For example, when Edison discovered and patented the invention we now know as the vacuum tube, he had no clue of the import of his discovery.
Guns are perfected by the world's militaries. They subsequently become implements of liberty when they enter the hands of the common populace. Their original purpose is not their final purpose -- the most effective equalizer humans have ever discovered.
I would never want to own a gun that cannot be fired by others. There are too many stories of self-defense (particularly home defense) using someone else's gun. If my girlfriend/wife/child/friend needs to defend themselves with my gun, I want that gun to work as perfectly for them as it would for me.
A gun is a tool for liberty. All other arguments are secondary to that. Yes, it is a killing machine. It is best used to keep in line the worst killing machines in human history: governments.
Post some sources for that so I can point out how wrong you are. That is complete bullshit.
For one, every last one of those studies fails to discriminate between legally-owned guns and illegally-owned guns. I can guaran-fucking-tee you that illegally-owned guns are not stored in expensive safes, nor are the family members nearby trained in firearm safety. OF COURSE having illegally owned firearms increases the likelihood of someone in your immediate family being a victim of gun violence.
Legally-owned guns are a different story altogether.
Thanks, but I'd rather train them to use a gun properly, so they can successfully defend themselves if attacked.
Part of being the "land of the free" is that we are trusted with the tools to keep ourselves free. In other words, we get to keep and carry tools of deadly force.
Liberty is like that.
Also, wow, your uid is less than 200 older than mine. Pretty cool!
Sounds like someone has been reading too much butt-hurt on Twitter today. Your post is full of angst, fallacies, and falsehoods. I wish you the best, but your world view needs some repair.
Definitely not. Pinning and disarming is something only for people who have trained to do that. If Zimmerman attacked first, it would have been Trayvon's right to employ lethal force in self defense. However, Trayvon's right to lethal force ends when Zimmerman breaks off the attack.
Trayvon's right to self defense does not include sitting on top of Zimmerman and banging Zimmerman's head against the pavement.
If Zimmerman pulled a gun first, then it would have been suicidal for Travon to subsequently attack with fists. That is not a plausible scenario.
Both certainly had the right to self defense.
The culpability lies with who initiated the confrontation.
1) Travon was found with two injuries: a gunshot wound to the chest, and broken skin on his knuckles.
2) Zimmerman had a broken nose
3) Zimmerman had lacerations on the back of his head.
Occam's Razor.
I'll grant you that it is possible that Zimmerman initiated a confrontation. If that happened, Travon certainly continued well beyond any allowance for self defence, between (2) and (3).
And what, the broken nose and cuts on his head came from banging his own head on the pavement in remorse before police showed up?
Because it happens so rarely that it is cause for a great rush of news when it happens?
I am sure all that empathy must have reduced the death toll at Sandy Hook.
Or died on the Titanic, which marked the end of any serious resistance to the Fed
True, but the franchise allows this sort of behavior in their franchisee establishments.
I'm just waiting for the next pin to drop: DEA gets access to help assist the war on drugs.
Yes, but they call me back. :) I don't call people unless it's important. :)
This is definitely call-everybody-I-know newsworthy! Holy cow! Gonna mark this day and celebrate it next year! I can't believe this is happening!
Deregulation is not deregulation when it plays into the hands of the corrupt. Actual deregulating involves keeping your hands the fuck OFF of whatever it is you are supposedly deregulating.
Example: banking. Banking was supposed "deregulated," but all that really happened is the regulations INCREASED while allowing certain corrupt people to do things that would otherwise be considered criminal. No deregulation there.
Your argument is a strawman. Find a better one.
"The dirty secret of libertarianism has always been that it's about protecting the rights of the rich over the rights of the poor."
How much do they pay you to shill like this?