Gun rights or copsucking? Your choice.
If you consider yourself a gun rights enthusiast, but you support cops and the military, you aren't Ready to Rumble, you are Ready to Crumble. Ready to willingly cave in to whatever "law" your heroes decide to enforce against you.
Don't fool yourself-- if they have to choose between the paycheck/pension/social status, and respecting your rights, you will be tossed aside like anonymous skid-marked underwear hanging on their doorknob.
You are throwing your support behind your enemies-- the very people who will be treading on you while prying the guns out of your cold, dead hands. Assuming you didn't hand over all your guns immediately when your heroes demanded you do so.
There are few creatures as pathetic as a cop-supporting gun-rights enthusiast. What other molesters do they throw their support behind?
.
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com.
Donations and subscriptions are always appreciated!
Police have the right to possess weapons to maintain public security
And to regulate the use of weapons by citizens for hunting purposes
Where'd they get that from?
Police can't have any rights not held by everyone. Rights don't work like that.
good info,
I will go back to your blog to see more interesting info.
Re-steemed
Think about the position they are hired for.
They are paid not fantastic wages, and EVERYONE hates them. There are only 3 types of people who would apply to a job like that.
A) A person who is power hungry/enjoys the idea of being in control. These people tend to be the corrupt ones.
B) Those with a genuine dedication to justice or want to help their communities. These people tend to be the ones who are scapegoated for things by the type A.
C) Those who need money badly and have limited options/experience/training. These people are also easily corrupted as they already are desperate for cash.
and that is why smart people are not allowed to become cops.
Great post..real scenario of bitter truth..thumbs up man for the post..
Gun right should be given to a person who is of that caliber .... Because as we have seen in many cases they use this right to do malpractice
One early evening I was leaving a friend's house after playing some music together. As I left, I was accosted by a neighbor who was clearly intoxicated, waving and pointing a large revolver of some sort. He was actually holding a liquor bottle in his other hand, practically a caricature.
He was angry about something related to our jam session, maybe the noise, but it was impossible to say as he wasn't very coherent. I raised my hands away from my body , palms open, and spoke softly in case he thought me a threat, and said, "Hey brother, relax, what's up?" He ranted a little more about having a CC permit, seeming to calm down a little, so I added "you know this might be considered offensive display of a weapon..." to which he replied "and YOU know I could just blow your fucking head off" to which I responded, "Good point, see you later," got in my truck and drove off.
That guy should not be allowed to own a weapon. But what to do about it? If I call the cops, they're not going to protect me from the guy, and they might not even believe my word over his. What would have prevented this dangerous incident? What would prevent it from happening again to someone? I have no idea.
@dullhawk
the cops would certainly have investigated and finding him drunk and belligerent with a gun would possibly have arrested him for any number of things. eventually he might stop doing that, or the next guy he threatens might just blow his head off. Or he will kill some hapless hippy or woman. Or he will run a family off the road while drunk and go to jail for that.
Alcohol is the worst drug.
The potential externalities at play here stem from the abuse of alcohol, not firearm ownership. Cars and heavy machinery can kill scores of people and are much more easily obtained than firearms. The spectre of widespread firearm ownership deters criminality at large. Statistics at the DOJ show clear downward trends due to increases in CCW and longer sentences for armed felons.
The vast majority of police officers support a citizens right to carry.
The vast majority of cops claim to... but when it comes down to it, they don't. They believe "laws" can trump that right, or that you need a license, or that some places should be off-limits. That's not believing in the right, that's granting a limited privilege.
they can believe in the right to carry and gun rights and still have to enforce racist permitting laws and such, cops don't make the laws.
If I take a "job" that requires me to rape little children, is it the fault of the job, or of me? A good person wouldn't lower himself to do such a job.
Cops don't make the "laws", but they willingly accept a "job" that requires them to molest people in the name of the "law". Good people wouldn't accept such a job.
They are not as bad as TSA agents. None of them sign up with the intention of molesting anyone, they want to help people, they just are not that smart.
Of course, TSA goons are just another type of cop. Still just scum.
TSA agents know damned well they are not helping anyone when they sign up. They are just there to grab cocks and steal shit.
The conversation has shifted yet again. The 2nd Amendment has never been about hunting or sport. It is literally a backstop for when the 1st Amendment fails. Seeing as how the '4th estate' has essentially become a mouthpiece for a singular type of thought (Statism), the 2nd Amendment matters now more than ever before. A handful of executives bottleneck the factual information you think you're receiving. People argue left or right, but don't even understand that the argument isn't about direction of government, but how much government is actually needed.
And, what those calling for the end of the Second Amendment don't understand is that the Second Amendment didn't create the right to own and to carry weapons, it simply made it a serious crime to violate that right. The right predates the first government and will still exist long after the last government is lost from memory in the mists of deep time.
I still remember that ridiculous line from Bowling for Columbine: "A Tec-9 30 bullet weapon is not used to kill deer..."
All I was thinking was: "Your point being what?"
True libertarianism needs to shift the conversation back to what people actually believe, no filler, no subterfuge. Get the ideologues out in the open and confront them directly. They want the 2md Amendment gone. Period. My counter to that is: What force in this country, if not the world, has the logistical, administrative, and kinetic means to do so? Screaming privileged children who heard some gunshots in an adjacent room are not going door to door to browbeat people into disarming. My fellow veterans will never disarm and my friends who are still active duty will never help an agency perform that function.