Your 2nd Amendment Cop Buddy Will Take Your Guns

[tacticalgunner]

Happening on occasion happens. Understandable. But he makes a habit of it. We all lose our cool and say stupid crap. I do not claim to be immune to that. But when people realize they went over the top, most retract some.

Dman has every right to have a low opinion of law enforcement. I assume from some of his posts, he has been burned. But he consistently makes inflammatory, broad sweeping, and often exceptionally rude generalizations. It ads nothing to the reasoned debate but trollish comments. That's why he is on my ignore list.

Agree,he has every right to believe what he does, good thing about that 1st amend. Right by the way, what's a troll

 

[rur862]

Post Deleted.

 

[tacticalgunner]

So how do you punish those people who breaks the law? You give a free pass to one, you have to do the all, plus how does that officer know the financial situation, my vp of my company drives an 96 ford Taurus, he makes well over 250k a year. So how would differentiate the people?

 

[MountainBear]

Well, I think many of us on this forum, and even some current/former members of law enforcment would say that sometimes police don't always exercise their judgement appropriately in the writing of traffic tickets. Speeding, although I certainly don't advocate it, is in most cases not dangerous at all, and the sometimes arbitrary way in which police officers choose to handle it can irritate alot of people. Some police officers are not always understanding of the tremendous financial burdens inflicted by these tickets to lower & middle class working families for what amounts to a victimless crime. I don't think that's such a radical opinion to have.

That's reasonable, but it's still your choice. You know the speed limit. Like it or not, it is the law. If you choose to break it, it's your responsibility to take care of the consequences. Laws cannot afford to be class specific. We often talk about a slippery slope when it comes to our 2nd Amendment rights. This is the same thing. If we stop enforcing traffic violations because people cannot afford to pay for the ticket, where does that stop? If someone chooses to drive drunk and doesn't get in an accident, no one gets hurt, should it be okay? If they get caught and no one was hurt, should they get away with it just because they cannot afford the ticket and court costs? What about that one time you speed and you do get in a wreck? Where does that end?

 

[tacticalgunner]

That's reasonable, but it's still your choice. You know the speed limit. Like it or not, it is the law. If you choose to break it, it's your responsibility to take care of the consequences. Laws cannot afford to be class specific. We often talk about a slippery slope when it comes to our 2nd Amendment rights. This is the same thing. If we stop enforcing traffic violations because people cannot afford to pay for the ticket, where does that stop? If someone chooses to drive drunk and doesn't get in an accident, no one gets hurt, should it be okay? If they get caught and no one was hurt, should they get away with it just because they cannot afford the ticket and court costs? What about that one time you speed and you do get in a wreck? Where does that end?

We said the same thing, great minds my friend

 

[MountainBear]

A troll, by an internet definition, is "someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."

 

[rur862]

Post Deleted.

 

[rur862]

Post Deleted.

 

[Spitpatch]

Yes. A current modern police officer (perhaps your friend) may well represent himself to you as a defender of the 2nd Ammendment in private exchange, and just as suddenly hold you accountable for a violation of existing law.

That is his job. He is justified. Existing law not only justifies him, it is part of his obligation to his profession. If he chooses this avenue, you must grant consideration to this obligation.

Now, we may examine something ENTIRELEY SEPERATE: a significant thing called MORALS: In human history, very quite often, MORALS conflict with existing law. The very finest of law enforcement officers keep this distinction forefront in their daily actions, even to the detriment of their careers in the modern law enforcement workplace. Unfortunately, such an officer may quickly realize the practical folly of his choice of morals against existing law: he will be marginalized in his profession: he may not see promotion as compared to those who "toe the line" toward law in preference to morals. The system is geared to the law.

As a person close to the law enforcement profession (my father was a police officer, then a U.S. Marshall, and I operate in the realm), I can advise that in ANY aspect of your personal life there are VERY FEW Officers than can be implicitly trusted to your heart. And, I will add very quickly, VERY FEW common citizens that can be trusted to your heart. You guage as you go. I do count a meager amount of Police Officers close to my heart that would not sell me down the river for what they might see in private civilian interaction (despite their "sworn duty to report"). They know the difference between morals and duty, as did my father.

Here is a barometer that has served me well (from my father, a law enforcement officer), I hold this as my mantra: "Hold up your hand! Five fingers! If you have more "friends" than that, you are telling yourself a cowcrap story!"

Take it to the bank. It's paid off for me countless times.

 

[Suge206]

so you want to be fined for traffic infractions by a private, for-profit company? you'd prefer the fines go to a for profit company instead of helping fund police activity?



interesting....

 

[dmancornell]

Dman has every right to have a low opinion of law enforcement. I assume from some of his posts, he has been burned. But he consistently makes inflammatory, broad sweeping, and often exceptionally rude generalizations. It ads nothing to the reasoned debate but trollish comments. That's why he is on my ignore list.

Nope, never arrested. Sounds like you're just another bigot who assumes anyone who criticizes the modern policing is a lawbreaker of some sort. Also as if breaking the law has anything to do with good and bad these days. LOL.

That's reasonable, but it's still your choice. You know the speed limit. Like it or not, it is the law. If you choose to break it, it's your responsibility to take care of the consequences. Laws cannot afford to be class specific. We often talk about a slippery slope when it comes to our 2nd Amendment rights. This is the same thing. If we stop enforcing traffic violations because people cannot afford to pay for the ticket, where does that stop? If someone chooses to drive drunk and doesn't get in an accident, no one gets hurt, should it be okay? If they get caught and no one was hurt, should they get away with it just because they cannot afford the ticket and court costs? What about that one time you speed and you do get in a wreck? Where does that end?

Nobody is disputing the fact that people who are caught speeding are going to lose their money. Just like victims of any other sort of thievery. The issue at hand is why the cops are gullible enough to believe that traffic laws actually are about safety, and immoral enough to follow through with their orders to steal and harass motorists.

If traffic laws were really about safety, why are there speed traps on straight, empty highways? Why are speed limits lowered even as vehicle technology improves? Why do the cops mess with speed camera timings? Why are there quotas? Why do cops profile for traffic stops? Why are cops allowed to let people off with warnings based on their own biases, as opposed to a purely factual assessment of driver safety based on known facts?

I for one can afford the occasional ticket, but that is entirely irrelevant to the fact that the traffic cops are nothing more than thuggish tax collectors.

 

[dmancornell]

No, critics will always be there, most of them are the ones who can't do the job. Others are the ones who have no respect for any authority. They are and forever be the victims. Never taking any responsibility for there actions. Oh I was doing 45 in a 35, why are you ticketing me? It's like saying its the guns fault.

Responsibility for what? Violating an arbitrary limit set by some greedy government bureaucrat with the intent to steal from motorists, and doing no harm whatsoever?

Figures that the difference between real crimes and fake make-belief crimes is not taught in police "academy". Probably because you are paid to be a jack-booted thug, not to actually think about the moral implications of your theft and violence.

 

[dmancornell]

Dman is an excellent candidate for the ignore button. Funny thing, when I did law enforcement years ago (for a very short time), I never considered myself "too stupid to do anything useful".

LOLOLOLOL, stupid is as stupid does.

He can't seem to discuss law enforcement issues in an adult manner like others (Wichaka comes to mind), so he resorts to calling them names. For a structural engineer, that seems awfully dumb...

Nah, it's just that we see the problem from different angles. You've accepted the state's claim of legal authority and monopoly on violence, so your definition of "law enforcement issues" is how to best inflict violence on the untermenschen to promote public safety or whatever euphemism people use these days to excuse their authoritarianism. I'm still focusing on whether the laws that the cops enforce are even legitimate to begin with. You don't consider that a "law enforcement issue" because you don't question the state's authority.

By the way, I think there are some cops out there who do assess the consequences, morality and aftermath of their career choice to serve the state. They either quit, or become hardcore authoritarians to justify their actions. Kudos to the refuseniks. See, there is such a thing as good cops.

 

[dmancornell]

Really? What do you do for a living?

Just a normal job that doesn't feed at the taxpayer trough.

More importantly, something that doesn't involve stealing from motorists, performing home invasions because the occupants use socially maligned pharmaceuticals, or harassing people because of personal and/or trained bigotries taught in police "academy".

 

[Suge206]

auto accidents kill a few people a year. the laws are not arbitrary

 

[dmancornell]

auto accidents kill a few people a year. the laws are not arbitrary

I already posed the question in post #31 asking how the absurd road laws in this country contribute to road safety, feel free to answer it at your leisure.

inb4 the government says so.

 

[RoneKiln]

Back in the 60's, a researcher named Milgram did some experiments on obedience to authority that became quite famous. Most have probably heard of the experiments where people thought they were shocking someone in a learning experiment. It's now been replicated thousands of times all over the world in a lot of variations.

His findings were that most towns in the US could provide enough men willing to follow orders to recreate the entire nazi death camp system. I've yet to see any research to suggest that has changed in the last 50 years. If it ever came to confiscation, a lot of LEO's and military troops that are extremely pro 2A would follow orders while screaming on the inside. Their moral torment won't really change anything as they continue following orders. That is nothing against LEO's or our military. That is simply human nature. It's how we're wired.

While I know they exist, I have never met an anti 2A LEO or Vet. Most I've met are awesome people I respect. I still don't doubt most would follow orders. They suffer the same frailties of the human condition everyone else suffers from.

 

[Suge206]

I already posed the question in post #31 asking how the absurd road laws in this country contribute to road safety, feel free to answer it at your leisure.

inb4 the government says so.

while I have zero desire to argue with you I do feel compelled to call you out when you are being g intentionally dumb. when people slow down they crash less. I don't have to work that math for you. your childish, cracker-jack, libertarianism reeks of a simple idealounge puking out high school rationale, btw.

 

[tamayo]

I agree with the statement that a lot of LEO's and military (active and vets) will follow orders but when the stuff hits the fan, they like most of us, they will be more concerned with making sure their immediate family are taken care versus showing up for duty. At that time, I believe, banks will be closed, grocery stores will be empty and the basic nature of human nature will take over.

 

[speeddemon94]

while I have zero desire to argue with you I do feel compelled to call you out when you are being g intentionally dumb. when people slow down they crash less. I don't have to work that math for you. your childish, cracker-jack, libertarianism reeks of a simple idealounge puking out high school rationale, btw.

I think that's probably true, but when I go slow I am more likely to crash. I am not the norm...I grew up in and around road racing, couple that with the fast pace of combat, and if I'm just puttering down the road my mind thinks about other things. I still do not speed. I set the cruise control and just roll down the road...But, not everyone went to a racing school, so I digress.

Drivers need to be trained better. Every idiot driving down the road, fixing their makeup, or using their heads as a seat cushion, needs to be pulled over and dealt with. It goes back to the firearms discussion. If you do the wrong thing with a gun/car, you will reap the "rewards" of your actions.

I am not a fan of all of our laws, and I think we should have more freedoms, hell, the interstate system was designed for 85mph travel, but you, and your car had be able to handle that. Traffic at those speeds, and cornering would be a much different animal. The reason, in my mind, that people are safer if they slow down, is that it enables them to do everything else in the car...I cant drive and use a phone...that craze skipped me. Used to have CB radios, and then moved to a nextel phone, but never dialing or texting, I get in a car and drive.