No indictment in Eric Garner chokehold death

[Terralthra]

As for in other places, it's because the idea that having guns in the hands of peaceful protestors helps keep the cops in check is something that a lot of the American left has a hard time wrapping their head around. Guns are evil after all!

Just to remind everyone, I think that minorities exercising their right to keep and bear arms is a good way for them to keep other rights - and that getting minorities involved with arms is a good way for everyone to keep their rights.

I hear that worked out really well for the Black Panthers.

The Black Panthers were crippled by revolutionary political fracturing and by the corrupt, self-serving nature of their leadership. This is not an inherent trait of "armed organizations seeking to protect minorities."

The FBI's COINTELPRO deliberately exacerbating inter-party and intraparty animosity, as well as discrediting and incriminating members (and leaders) who were deemed by JEH "the greatest threat to the US."

[cmdrjones]

You're a sociopath. Got it.

Or maybe you want police officers to crack down more on black people because you're a racist. It would certainly fit with some of the other stuff I've seen you post.

Now that's a massive assumption! If black people open carry (which is thier right BTW) and cops start something or try to violate their rights, then they HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO RESIST UNLAWFUL ARREST.
To me, "don't start none, won't be none" IS the standard. I am not pro-cop, anti-cop, pro-black or anti-black. I am pro-constitution. Y'know why? Because it is the most inherently pro-freedom document ever created. It was meant for a moral people and if we can't allow somebody to evercise their freedoms due to feelbad or whatever then shootings are what WILL take place. This is like complaining that evaporation causes rain.

In short: don't make laws you aren't willing to kill people over....

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/12/the- ... mment-form


PS the comments on that blog are unmoderated, so if any of you get the vapors from anything you might see, don't complain to me about it.

[cmdrjones]

I don't think we need large numbers of angry protesters with guns confronting police with guns. That sounds like a recipe for a blood bath, which might discredit the protesters and be used to justify a crackdown. If that happened, our options would be to return to a more oppressive version of the status quo or fight a civil war. And anyone who wants that can go fuck themselves.

It's not a matter of WANTING it, genius. Right now the debate is over inevitability vs imminenence.
BTW, how many citizens do the militarized police get to kill before it's ok to confront them?

[LaCroix]

cops start something or try to violate their rights, then they HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO RESIST UNLAWFUL ARREST

Good idea - it's not as this would cause an overreaction by the cops that will result in another "justifiable" beating/choking/shooting, because the person resisted arrest...

Nah, just kidding. Such a thing could never happened in the USA.

[cmdrjones]

cops start something or try to violate their rights, then they HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO RESIST UNLAWFUL ARREST

Good idea - it's not as this would cause an overreaction by the cops that will result in another "justifiable" beating/choking/shooting, because the person resisted arrest...

Nah, just kidding. Such a thing could never happened in the USA.

again, so what?

The people outnumber the cops 1000s to 1. Best the cops not start a war they can't win

PS: to the Roman Republic: If i was a sociopath, I wouldn't say anything you all wouldn't like. I'd be the coolest Mofo in the galaxy, a real fellow traveller, SJW and down for the struggle.... right?

[LaCroix]

cops start something or try to violate their rights, then they HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO RESIST UNLAWFUL ARREST

Good idea - it's not as this would cause an overreaction by the cops that will result in another "justifiable" beating/choking/shooting, because the person resisted arrest...
Nah, just kidding. Such a thing could never happened in the USA.

again, so what?
The people outnumber the cops 1000s to 1. Best the cops not start a war they can't win

Ok... *sigh*

Watch out guys, we have (another) tough guy here...

[cmdrjones]

Ok... *sigh*

Watch out guys, we have (another) tough guy here...

Hmm... so stating facts is now "tough guy" posturing? Again with the assumptions, did i say "I" was going to do anything?

[Flagg]

It's not really my place to say because as a white devil I am not a part of the African American community and can only witness their grief but share in their sheer outrage. But why don't they have protesters who are legally allowed to open carry walk in front of the mass of protesters with AR-15 slung over their shoulder?

You talking about protesters in New York?

No I'm talking about protestors everywhere and anywhere it's legal. If some fatass with his fly open can walk around Target with a semi automatic rifle slung over his shoulder while buying tampons for his mom, then black protestors should be perfectly able to open carry during protests. If that results in more dead black people, then it kind of proves the point, don't you think?

[cmdrjones]

It's not really my place to say because as a white devil I am not a part of the African American community and can only witness their grief but share in their sheer outrage. But why don't they have protesters who are legally allowed to open carry walk in front of the mass of protesters with AR-15 slung over their shoulder?

You talking about protesters in New York?

No I'm talking about protestors everywhere and anywhere it's legal. If some fatass with his fly open can walk around Target with a semi automatic rifle slung over his shoulder while buying tampons for his mom, then black protestors should be perfectly able to open carry during protests. If that results in more dead black people, then it kind of proves the point, don't you think?

^ This. but I'll go ya one better. Whether it's legal or not, they should carry weapons anyway. If they are peaceably assembled and petitioning the government for a redress of grievances, then why not?
The government is bound to protect our rights to self defense. They have no authority to pass laws to restrict that which is a right granted by God and/or natural law.

[Kamakazie Sith]

You're a sociopath. Got it.

Or maybe you want police officers to crack down more on black people because you're a racist. It would certainly fit with some of the other stuff I've seen you post.

Now that's a massive assumption! If black people open carry (which is thier right BTW) and cops start something or try to violate their rights, then they HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO RESIST UNLAWFUL ARREST.

Actually this depends on what state you live in. Currently there are only 14 states that allow you to resist an unlawful arrest. The remaining allow you to resist unlawful force.

[Elheru Aran]

The government is bound to protect our rights to self defense.

Within reason. For example, you do not have a right to self defense if you are committing a crime, IIRC. You can protect yourself if someone uses excessive force-- for example, say you're trying to rob someone's house, they wake up and decide they're going to chop you into kibble with a very big sword even after you put your hands up. In the ensuing melee, you manage to get the upper hand and injure the other guy, but you still get nicked by the police. You may be able to prove self-preservation and not have to deal with charges of assault and battery, but you will definitely go up the creek for the robbery because you're still guilty of that.

Likewise, if you are attending a protest, and it turns into a riot which you are a part of, trying to defend yourself against the police trying to arrest you is resisting arrest, which is a crime if the police have a legitimate reason to arrest you.

They have no authority to pass laws to restrict that which is a right granted by God and/or natural law.

Bzzt! Fail.

Rights are a human construction in order to create a better society. The question of whether or not there are 'rights' that exist outside humanity is a difficult one to answer. The fact of the matter is as far as the United States are concerned, the rights of its citizens and (most of) the people within its boundaries are listed in the Constitution and amended or expanded within the various laws of the nation, states, and municipalities therein. As far as those go... yeah, they kind of do have that authority, as long as the judicial system agrees that the laws do not abrogate the rights enshrined in the Constitution.

You have a right to bear arms, according to the Second Amendment. You cannot, however, bear arms in certain places, by law. That's just one example.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Y'know why? Because it is the most inherently pro-freedom document ever created. It was meant for a moral people

Wait ... so you're saying a document that explicitly says black people are worth 3/5 of a white person is the most inherently pro-freedom document ever created? Hell, I'll give you the Bill of Rights free of charge but you're talking about a document that has had to repeatedly be rewritten once people realized it needed to be changed (see: the 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments). Are you actually even remotely familiar with what is in the Constitution and what the history of the document (and democracy as a broader philosophical concept) actually is? Or are you too busy lying about your military experience again?

In short: don't make laws you aren't willing to kill people over....

Are you willing to kill people over the date on which the President and Vice President assume power after an election? Because that's in your precious Constitution as well. Are you saying we should repeal that amendment if people aren't willing to fight over its continued existence?

PS the comments on that blog are unmoderated, so if any of you get the vapors from anything you might see, don't complain to me about it.

Why exactly did you even link to that in the first place? It doesn't justify anything you said.

[bilateralrope]

They have no authority to pass laws to restrict that which is a right granted by God and/or natural law.

What exactly is "natural law" and why should it be considered a good thing ?

[Batman]

And which 'right granted by God' actually mentions firearms? Not that I'm sure I like the basic idea anyway given the stuff God pulled in the OT.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Based off my understanding "natural law" means the stronger, intelligent, and faster thing gets to eat the weaker, less intelligent, and slower thing. Doesn't seem like a law we would want in a civilized society or at least a society striving to be civilized.

[Thanas]

To me, "don't start none, won't be none" IS the standard. I am not pro-cop, anti-cop, pro-black or anti-black. I am pro-constitution. Y'know why? Because it is the most inherently pro-freedom document ever created.

LOL. Thanks for the the laugh, I needed that. I can name off hand at least twenty actual documents that are more pro-freedom than the US constitution.

[Vendetta]

What exactly is "natural law" and why should it be considered a good thing ?

"Natural law" is Libertarian for "unsupported moral axiom insisted to be universal truth rather than social construct". It generally refers to things that Libertarians really like but don't want to admit are emergent products of human society (property rights are frequently cited as "natural" rights).

[Simon_Jester]

Which is a particularly absurd joke, seeing as how Locke (who originated the idea of 'natural law') believed that we could only deduce what the natural laws were through reason.

At the time this was a revolutionary concept: that we would use logic to figure out the ideal form of laws, rather than simply following some tradition or precedent. Unfortunately, successors unfit to sand Locke's ink seem to have decided to listen, not to logic, but to the voices in their head.

[Eleas]

LOL. Thanks for the the laugh, I needed that. I can name off hand at least twenty actual documents that are more pro-freedom than the US constitution.

This forum needs a goddamn upvote button.

[The Romulan Republic]

I don't think we need large numbers of angry protesters with guns confronting police with guns. That sounds like a recipe for a blood bath, which might discredit the protesters and be used to justify a crackdown. If that happened, our options would be to return to a more oppressive version of the status quo or fight a civil war. And anyone who wants that can go fuck themselves.

It's not a matter of WANTING it, genius. Right now the debate is over inevitability vs imminenence.
BTW, how many citizens do the militarized police get to kill before it's ok to confront them?

If you don't want a civil war, why endorse a course of action that might cause it?

And people are confronting the police. What do you think the protests are? Do you think resistance doesn't count if it doesn't involve guns?

As for the question of weather you're a racist, I don't know if you are but it wouldn't surprise me. Racism and Right wing idiocy such as yours' often march hand in hand.

[Phillip Hone]

They have no authority to pass laws to restrict that which is a right granted by God and/or natural law.

What exactly is "natural law" and why should it be considered a good thing ?

"Natural law" is a set of arbitrary moral axioms that human beings are entitled to by virtue of being human beings. That mostly just means that no government can under any circumstances rightfully take them away, since they are not privileges that the government allows, but rather entitlements that the government must acknowledge and not infringe upon.

Many governments, including the United States, have allowed slavery. According to the "natural law" manner of thinking, even if the regular process of government leads to slavery being legal, such laws would lack legitimacy because they violate the "natural rights" of the people enslaved. As a result, the enslaved could justifiably break the law or even use force in defense of their rights.

It's a way to reconcile respect for the rule of law with the notion that revolts against government are sometimes justified.

Now, all that is just theory. In reality, some asshole comes along and says "well it's my natural right to own these slaves."

I don't think it's such a bad concept, though. Is it really so different from the notion of "human rights"? Things that we believe all humans deserve, regardless of the current policy of those in power.

[Elheru Aran]

The line between natural law, human rights, and other rights is very vague and largely theoretical. There have been some steps towards enshrining human rights by the UN, but in general it's hampered by the fact of the matter, which is that there is no such thing as inherent rights in the natural world. The closest thing is what is granted us by an unspoken social contract-- don't kill people, don't steal, don't lie, don't be an asshole and so forth-- but the point of fact is that there is nothing preventing people from violating the social contract. Rights and laws are a human social construct and are respected by obedience to the laws which are intended to maintain our rights. If you do not obey the law, you void your rights to some degree. How much of your rights you void and what you lose by that are more complex questions... but that's why we have a legal system, to figure that out for us.

In general there are acknowledged, however, to be a few basic human rights. A right to freedom (no slavery, forced servitude, forced marriages, etc), freedom of religion, a right to provide for yourself, a right to be treated with human dignity and respect, and so forth.

This is the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights: http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

The distinction between 'natural law' and 'human rights' is quite the question and I'm not going to bother discussing that mostly because I don't have the time to really get into it. Suffice it to say that the difference largely lays in implementation of these rights, one way or another.

[Simon_Jester]

So far as I know, the original concept of natural law never relied on the idea that nature would enforce such laws.

They were "natural" in the sense that as a code of law they made sense, they arose naturally and logically from the human condition and the nature of the world. Not in the sense that nature would take care of enforcing them.

[cmdrjones]

You're a sociopath. Got it.

Or maybe you want police officers to crack down more on black people because you're a racist. It would certainly fit with some of the other stuff I've seen you post.

Now that's a massive assumption! If black people open carry (which is thier right BTW) and cops start something or try to violate their rights, then they HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO RESIST UNLAWFUL ARREST.

Actually this depends on what state you live in. Currently there are only 14 states that allow you to resist an unlawful arrest. The remaining allow you to resist unlawful force.

IMHO, that wanders into "laws that should not be obeyed territory"

[Batman]

Yeah, right, what? How the hell can it 'not' be allowed to resist an unlawful arrest? Unless the definition of 'unlawful' has been redifined while I wasn't looking 'unlawful' means 'has no legal basis'. Basically, from a legal standpoint, the officers trying this are kidnapping you. Which was a crime last time I checked.