Trump expected to lift ban on military gear to local police forces

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

The odds of some people doing that would certainly increase though with loosened laws and more people carrying. I'm certain you'd have to agree with that wouldn't you?

I would. An armed society is a polite society.

And "shall not be abridged" means just that, too.

a reply to: seasonal

Who needs Posse Comitatus when the police are militarized?

The Light Foot Militia from NY was down in VA recently and was cited by the chief of police as being the reason their response (re. Not totally cracking all the heads) was not as bad as it would've been.

They stayed neutral and on the perimeter, not mingling w the crowd.

How many times have 2nd Amendmebt supporters been chastised w the line "what? Are they really expecting to go toe to toe with the US military then?"

It's becoming clear that an increasingly militarized police force, working w DHS during Occupy for instance, and equipped by the govt, is the tyrannical force the 2nd Amendment is in place for.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

The odds of some people doing that would certainly increase though with loosened laws and more people carrying. I'm certain you'd have to agree with that wouldn't you?

I would. An armed society is a polite society.

And "shall not be abridged" means just that, too.

Do you believe that unarmed societies, like my own and the UK, are not "polite"?

originally posted by: CajunMetal
a reply to: seasonal

Who needs Posse Comitatus when the police are militarized?

It's OK (apparently) because it's against the "lefties".

a reply to: Kryties

So you asked him a question completely unrelated to his post?

Yeah, you're playing stupid, and not very good at it. Stop lying.

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

The odds of some people doing that would certainly increase though with loosened laws and more people carrying. I'm certain you'd have to agree with that wouldn't you?

I would. An armed society is a polite society.

And "shall not be abridged" means just that, too.

Do you believe that unarmed societies, like my own and the UK, are not "polite"?

I dunno...do these societies have large predators numbering in the tens of thousands? Or areas where the police response is, at best, 30 minutes?

I can't believe you guys allowed your rights to be removed with barely a whimper. But you come from a society with a very long history of yielding to tyranny from a crown. That just ain't American.

a reply to: face23785

It actually had everything to do with his post, you are just not interpreting or reading it correctly. There is no point trying to explain it to you though given the attitude you have taken toward me.

I was talking to THAT poster anyway, and THAT poster has responded. Stop trying to cause trouble.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

The odds of some people doing that would certainly increase though with loosened laws and more people carrying. I'm certain you'd have to agree with that wouldn't you?

I would. An armed society is a polite society.

And "shall not be abridged" means just that, too.

Do you believe that unarmed societies, like my own and the UK, are not "polite"?

I dunno...do these societies have large predators numbering in the tens of thousands? Or areas where the police response is, at best, 30 minutes?

I can't believe you guys allowed your rights to be removed with barely a whimper. But you come from a society with a very long history of yielding to tyranny from a crown. That just ain't American.

I enjoy the total lack of mass murders since we found our common sense. I also enjoy the ability to walk anywhere in my country without the fear of being shot by some nutjob. There are NO "no-go" zones in my country.

But since you brought up "tyranny", any chance YOU can answer what the other poster spent several posts deflecting away from:

originally posted by: Kryties

So let me get this right. In one breath you'll uphold the right to bear arms against "tyranny of the state" then in the next breath you allow the "state" to gain a massive advantage on you in terms of weaponry and armour but that's OK because it's against the "lefties"?

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

The odds of some people doing that would certainly increase though with loosened laws and more people carrying. I'm certain you'd have to agree with that wouldn't you?

I would. An armed society is a polite society.

And "shall not be abridged" means just that, too.

Do you believe that unarmed societies, like my own and the UK, are not "polite"?

I dunno...do these societies have large predators numbering in the tens of thousands? Or areas where the police response is, at best, 30 minutes?

I can't believe you guys allowed your rights to be removed with barely a whimper. But you come from a society with a very long history of yielding to tyranny from a crown. That just ain't American.

I enjoy the total lack of mass murders since we found our common sense. I also enjoy the ability to walk anywhere in my country without the fear of being shot by some nutjob. There are NO "no-go" zones in my country.

But since you brought up "tyranny", any chance YOU can answer what the other poster spent several posts deflecting away from:

originally posted by: Kryties

So let me get this right. In one breath you'll uphold the right to bear arms against "tyranny of the state" then in the next breath you allow the "state" to gain a massive advantage on you in terms of weaponry and armour but that's OK because it's against the "lefties"?

Upholding the right to bear arms against tyranny of the state has nothing to do with local agencies setting their own controls and rules governing the use of needed equipment.

The right to have access to this stuff doesn't mean you've militarized your agency.

a reply to: Kryties

Actually you're the one not interpreting it correctly. He said nothing about murder. You made that up, and are knowingly being dishonest.

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: Kryties

Actually you're the one not interpreting it correctly. He said nothing about murder. You made that up, and are knowingly being dishonest.

Shooting someone who doesn't deserve to die (for whatever reason) is "murder", is it not?

originally posted by: Kryties


I enjoy the total lack of mass murders since we found our common sense. I also enjoy the ability to walk anywhere in my country without the fear of being shot by some nutjob. There are NO "no-go" zones in my country.

THis is a stupid debate. What you are essentially saying is you would rather run the risk of dying one way versus the other. As if somehow being shot is worse that being bludgeoned or stabbed. I cannot follow that logic...dead is dead, and I honestly think bludgeon or being hacked to bits is worse than gunshot. But to each their own.

Your country does not have a "total lack" of mass killers. THere was a bombing recently, as well as a slew of vehicle/knife attacks. Again, you can try to quantify the horrors of which way is better to die...but if you have humans, you have killers.

But since you brought up "tyranny", any chance YOU can answer what the other poster spent several posts deflecting away from:



So let me get this right. In one breath you'll uphold the right to bear arms against "tyranny of the state" then in the next breath you allow the "state" to gain a massive advantage on you in terms of weaponry and armour but that's OK because it's against the "lefties"?

I don't think i can. I am not in favor of militarized police. Not one little bit.

originally posted by: kyleplatinum

The right to have access to this stuff doesn't mean you've militarized your agency.

No, but if/when they DO decide to accept the equipment, as many have done, then they ARE militarised.

A militarised police force, advocated for by the very same people who cry loudly about the right to bear arms against that very kind of tyranny - because "leftists".

It's hypocrisy at it's absolute finest.

a reply to: Kryties

Shooting someone in self defense or defense of someone else isn't murder, that's correct. That's what he was talking about. You are trying to make it something else, because you're a dishonest person. If you have to lie to make your point, reconsider your point. Stop lying.

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: kyleplatinum

The right to have access to this stuff doesn't mean you've militarized your agency.

No, but if/when they DO decide to accept the equipment, as many have done, then they ARE militarised.

A militarised police force, advocated for by the very same people who cry loudly about the right to bear arms against that very kind of tyranny - because "leftists".

It's hypocrisy at it's absolute finest.

I wouldn't conflate Neo's opinion into being reflective of anyone but Neo. Yes, there are some who agree with him. Its why us libertarian types just can't seem to find enough common ground with conservatives to ever really vote for their candidates.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

THis is a stupid debate.

You brought it up.

What you are essentially saying is you would rather run the risk of dying one way versus the other. As if somehow being shot is worse that being bludgeoned or stabbed. I cannot follow that logic...dead is dead, and I honestly think bludgeon or being hacked to bits is worse than gunshot. But to each their own.

That's not what I said at all. You are also making the wrong assumption that I "run a risk of dying" on a regular basis. YOUR society may be like this, many others AREN'T.

Your country does not have a "total lack" of mass killers. THere was a bombing recently, as well as a slew of vehicle/knife attacks. Again, you can try to quantify the horrors of which way is better to die...but if you have humans, you have killers.

None of which fit the bill for the definition of "mass murder". This has been talked about extensively.

Yes, we still have murders, but not ANYWHERE near the rate you have over there, by whatever means AND accounting for population differences. These statistics are easy to find.

I don't think i can. I am not in favor of militarized police. Not one little bit.

OK, but you did bring up the subject of "tyranny of the crown" - hence why I thought you may want to have a crack at that question where others have deliberately deflected away from.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: kyleplatinum

The right to have access to this stuff doesn't mean you've militarized your agency.

No, but if/when they DO decide to accept the equipment, as many have done, then they ARE militarised.

A militarised police force, advocated for by the very same people who cry loudly about the right to bear arms against that very kind of tyranny - because "leftists".

It's hypocrisy at it's absolute finest.

I wouldn't conflate Neo's opinion into being reflective of anyone but Neo. Yes, there are some who agree with him. Its why us libertarian types just can't seem to find enough common ground with conservatives to ever really vote for their candidates.

To be honest you're the only one, so far, who has said they don't agree with Neo.

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: Kryties

Shooting someone in self defense or defense of someone else isn't murder, that's correct. That's what he was talking about. You are trying to make it something else, because you're a dishonest person. If you have to lie to make your point, reconsider your point. Stop lying.

Why are you deliberately ignoring the ACTUAL point I was making - that some nutters could just shoot people they disagree with then claim that they "feared for their lives" - which was the premise of that whole post?

Why do you insist on ignoring this?

a reply to: Kryties

Because you were responding to a post about shooting someone in self defense. That's not what he was talking about, you know that, and you have proceeded to turn it into an argument about murder despite it not being about that. What he described was not murder, you dishonestly called it murder, and you've been dishonestly arguing about it since. Stop being dishonest.

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: kyleplatinum

The right to have access to this stuff doesn't mean you've militarized your agency.

No, but if/when they DO decide to accept the equipment, as many have done, then they ARE militarised.

A militarised police force, advocated for by the very same people who cry loudly about the right to bear arms against that very kind of tyranny - because "leftists".

It's hypocrisy at it's absolute finest.

Again, the use of some military equipment does not classify an agency as militarized.

This order is to help in protecting public safety and supporting state and local police.

Some people need to calm down a few notches.