OT: Travel Advisory
- Thread starter MadRU
- Start date
Traffic is usually my first concern whenever tragedy occurs.
RIP to both victims.
RIP to both victims.
Blocking traffic is a crime and the protesters should be arrested.
doesn't mean it's not important. I'm supposed to go to Philly later to see the Liberty Bell and some other historic sites. Now I have to worry about protests, streets being shut down, and god only knows what else.
Good luck travelling everyone and remember New Jersey has disarmed you for your own safety.
Both the victim in Baton Rouge and Minnesota were armed, and the Minnesota victim at least was a licensed gun holder.
Why are their Second Amendment rights being glossed over?
Mentally ill person shoots in Newtown, Aurora, Tuscon, Santa Barbara, Orlando, et al...."It was the person, not the gun"
Police offers shot by a former solider..."It starts with the President"
Makes sense.
I don't think you understand what glossed over means. Are you drunk this early?
A country just stacked with guns , rifles and weapons. Massive quantities of more guns and rifles hitting the market every day. Easier access.
What can go wrong ?
What can go wrong ?
I must have missed Wayne LaPierre's big speech condemning the execution of a licensed gun owner for declaring he was a licensed gun owner.
Find me the link so I can watch it first hand.
And when you're done with that, you explain why a BLM protester who was carrying a gun- who used it to protect the officers- was instantly named a suspect instead of being celebrated as the heralded "good guy with a gun?"
Nothing to do with race, I'm sure.
Yes, it is hard for us here in reality, watching everyone from elementary school students to gay bar patrons to police officers get slaughtered by the mentally ill while your side decides whether it wants to blame terrorists or the President or decide they'd rather have dead kindergartners than have people face a background check.
It is hard to wonder why I have to take my shoes off at the airport because one person tried to bomb a plane with his shoe, but 23 toddlers shot people so far this year and your side is so worried about making sure prospective terrorists have rights that they are clearly are unconcerned with when those rights belong to a black man.
Please though, show me evidence of where President Obama caused this guy to shoot cops. After all, your candidate says he was born in Kenya and was behind the Pulse shooting so I'm sure the evidence is easily accessible. Be sure to try to provide a false equivalency to Bernie Sanders and Brexit in your response.
I am interested in hearing your take on what Obama should have done to prevent the Sterling and Castile killings and what you mean by "lack of support last six years of police." I'm no fan of Obama, but this blind finger pointing plays a much bigger role in ramping things "up to where we are today."
My side? My candidate? You've put me in a box before a discussion can even begin. Nevertheless, I'll give it the old college try.
"everyone from elementary school students to gay bar patrons to police officers get slaughtered by the mentally ill"
OK, Newtown, yes, mentally ill. He didn't own any guns and would never have been able to buy one. That's why he took a kitchen knife and murdered his mother to get the keys to her gun cabinet and trigger locks. Maybe we should ban kitchen knives, if he didn't have the access none of this would ever have happened. Probably wasn't too bright on her part to keep guns in the house since her son was a loony, but there you go.
Orlando- Why are you lumping this guy in with the crazies? Too soon to know the whole story. He was a licensed armed guard, and the FBI thought he was OK after multiple investigations, even though Hillary's State Dept told them to lay off his mosque and Imam because it looked "prejudiced against Muslims." Nevertheless, if you are on a watchlist where you can't fly, you should not be able to buy guns. Democrats shot that bill down out of pure political gamesmanship, putting their own party and their own political gain ahead of the people. Again.
Cops murdered in NYC/Dallas and so forth- these are domestic terrorists, pure and simple. When did this country lose its backbone?
"decides whether it wants to blame terrorists or the President or decide they'd rather have dead kindergartners than have people face a background check."
Yeah, you know background checks are the law, right? Look at that douche Neil Steinberg- reporter for the Sun Times in Chicago. Just two weeks ago or so, he wanted to write an article about how easy it was for anyone to buy a gun so he tried to buy one and was rejected because he had a record for domestic violence. The only people who want guns in the hands of criminals and loonies are criminals and loonies.
"It is hard to wonder why I have to take my shoes off at the airport because one person tried to bomb a plane with his shoe"
You have to go through the airport clearance because of 9/11. You remember that, don't you? It has nothing whatsoever to do with Richard Reid the shoe bomber. You demean the greatest loss of life on US soil from a foreign attack with this nonsense. It affected my family, my friends and my colleagues and I find it extremely offensive.
"so worried about making sure prospective terrorists have rights that they are clearly are unconcerned with when those rights belong to a black man."
This is a disturbing comment on many levels. Who is trying to ensure the rights of terrorists? What rights are you referring to? The right to life? The right to own a gun? Not the right to murder, that's not a right. And why black men? Do not white, latino, and asian men have the same inalienable rights? That's what I was taught and still believe. We hold these truths to be self-evident- that all men were created equal.
"Please though, show me evidence of where President Obama caused this guy to shoot cops."
I never said that, I don't believe it. Do I think our President has been a positive influence on race relations in America? No, I don't. That, however, is a different question, and a subject for another discussion. The people that committed these crimes today are the ones responsible.
At the end of the day, this is America, buddy. Diversity applies to opinions too, not just skin tone and sexual preference. As soon as YOUR SIDE realizes that, the sooner we can get on the same page as Americans and find solutions that everyone can live with instead of taking our cues from the asswipes in Washington who only care about maintaining their status and positions and would sell each and every one of us down the river in a heartbeat if it made them look better in an op-ed or gave them a nice soundbite to play on the news back home.
I don't own a gun, I've never owned a gun, and have no need for guns. Yet I will fight for that right for you with all I have, as well as your right to free speech, against self-incrimination, facing double jeopardy, and all the rights American citizens have. Yes, sometimes those rights will cause guilty men to go free or allow evil men to commit savage crimes. It's the painful price of freedom. The alternative is surrendering your rights to a government that promises to give you everything you want.
As Thomas Jefferson once said, a government that's big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have away from you.
Just curious: Is it possible to have an IQ over 100 and purely blame BLM and Obama for the shootings and ignore the nation's gun laws?
What would be very helpful for Obama to do is the following (not sure if he has already and I missed it). Do a prime time address to the nation and say - "during an interaction with a police office, it is the responsibility of every resident in the nation do follow the police officer's instructions and do exactly what they say. No arguments, no complaining, no confrontations. This will prevent misunderstandings that may escalate. After the interaction is over and if you believe your were treated unfairly, there is a process and plenty of opportunity to remedy any injustice safely and with the guidance of lawyers and the appropriate authorities."
That would be some nice leadership, for a change.
A few trigger happy unqualified cops do not represent the entire police force, a deranged misguided mass murderer does not represent tens of thousands of peaceful protesters. We have a serious problem with race relations in our society today that has been festering for decades, solving it requires people on both sides to do some serious and honest self reflection and try to walk a mile in each other's shoes, the continuation of partisan bickering and denial of opposing point of views will not solve anything, it only deepens the divide. People need to come together and clear heads need to prevail here, even the Donald understands this.
Last edited:
I don't see how that would have changed anything in the Castile incident. When the officer asked him for his ID, he informed the officer that he had a concealed carry license and his gun was near his wallet, and that honesty with the police immediately got him killed. If he didn't let the officer know he had a gun, he'd probably still be alive. Sterling was pinned to the ground by two men when they discovered he had a gun in his pocket, and he was then shot. If he was holding the gun that's one thing, but two officers who already had him pinned to the ground with one arm immobilized couldn't remove the gun from his pocket or secure his other arm? Obviously following an officer's instructions will prevent things from escalating, but the police can't go without blame in these instances either.
It isn't good that for many people this has turned into a dichotomy where you are either on the side of black people or on the side of police. Just because I disagree with these particular officers' actions here doesn't make me anti-police, and just because I think these people were wrongfully killed doesn't mean I can't condemn the Dallas shootings.
Um that is exactly what Castile did....and he died as a result. He died because he was black legal gun owner obeying the orders of the police.
So not sure why President Obama would have to talk about a non-existent problem.
I also find it interesting that you are saying there should be "no complaining, no confrontations" yet the Republican candidate for President urges violent assault against dissenters. When shall we hear his address dealing with that and not defending retweeting neo Nazis?
I'm not specifically talking about these incidents, just all of them over the past few years. If people follow instructions and the police don't feel threatened, it would go a long way to prevent future problems.
Let's go back to the beginning where I (among others) criticized someone for saying the President was "directly responsible" for the shooting of the officers and you criticized my "view".
I'm sorry, is it partisan to argue that the President is not responsible for the mentally ill and deranged engaging in these types of behavior? Because again, the argument Republicans have made time and again is that we need to blame the shooter (unless, to be fair, the shooter was Muslim, in which case we have to blame Islam).
Background checks are not the law in all cases, and the House's ever Orwellian "Freedom Caucus" demanded no vote on guns for terrorists to punish Democrats. Ergo, better to punish Democrats than have safety. Who is partisan again?
We were all affected by 9/11, and afterwards we didn't have groups claiming it was their right to bring shampoo on board or whatever else because we decided better to have dirty hair than to have bombs. Yet, 20% of Americans remain opposed to those on the terrorist watchlist buying guns.
The Constitutional rights we have are subject to limits. You cannot shout fire in a crowded theater. You should not be banned from flying for being a terrorist and then allowed to buy a gun.
Philando Castile was a law abiding gun owner whose Constitutional rights were brutally violated. After Sandy Hook, it was "we need more good guys with guns." When the good guy was shot, where is the NRA? Where are the Republicans?
They are with you making up nonsense about Hillary. Oh the irony, you know I don't even like Hillary but do you not see the irony in talking about the Constitution while voting for someone who has promised to "open up libel laws" against "negative" journalists?
See you want to pretend it's partisan, it isn't. It is trying to punish journalists versus not. It is guns for terrorists versus not. It is religious tests versus not. Some of these issues, there's no nuance needed whatsoever. And that is hardly a partisan viewpoint based on polling, nor an unconstitutional one if you re-read it.
Why should he dig that up?
One area where I fault BLM- they don't make the argument that would appeal to guys like you.
BLM needs to be out there pointing out that the cop who killed Eric Gartner, for example,previously caused NYC to pay a massive settlement after he previously broke the code of conduct and assaulted someone. He again broke the anti choke hold rules when he killed Gartner. The only person to be arrested was the guy who filmed it.
Yet we the taxpayer have to pay these settlements and pensions. Would a private sector security guard enjoy such a luxury>
The murder of Castile was big government at its absolute worst.
I fault both BLM and the right for not waking up to that. This is an American issue.
The president's job is to enforce the constitution. There are many things a police officer can tell me to do but I don't have to do because I have constitutionally protected rights. Telling me to forfeit my rights because someone coincidentally doesn't know or recognize my rights and is wearing a specific uniform is not something that should be spoken by someone whose Prime responsibility is to defend my rights. The address you describe is an affront to my rights.
And if it shakes out as cleanly as you described, the officer is in serious legal trouble. It should also open up discussion on changing police tactics and training so you don't get another trigger-happy officer panicking & squeezing at the sight of a legal gun. Going for stricter gun laws in reaction to this episode is as nonsensical as asking for stricter abortion requirements as a result.
The reason that BLM focuses on police is because police have been resistant to corrective behavior and our policies and laws reinforce the status quo of police performance. If a cop does something wrong and it is pointed out many people interpret it as an attack on all police. Do they complain that a criticism of a football coach is a criticism of all coaches or all people who participate in football. No. Because they recognize that the coach is not acting on behalf of all others.
But is that the case when a police officer kills a citizen? Since 2000 NYPD have killed 180 people only 3 indictments and only 1 instance of criminal charges. Are we to believe that police are better than 99 percent successful in acting appropriately and justly in the most stressful situations? Are they not being held accountable for wrong doing? Is the carcereal militarized police force that imprisoned more people than any nation on earth and a devastating number of black men functioning to design?
So I ask those who interpret criticism of individual law enforcement officers as criticism of all, which belief is being threatened by the criticism? That you believe cops to be infallible heroes? That you don't want to see how the sausage of justice is made? That you are satisfied with a status quo that devalues minorities and the poor and don't value an alternative? Something else? Why do you see the criticism of the individual as criticism of the whole?
But is that the case when a police officer kills a citizen? Since 2000 NYPD have killed 180 people only 3 indictments and only 1 instance of criminal charges. Are we to believe that police are better than 99 percent successful in acting appropriately and justly in the most stressful situations? Are they not being held accountable for wrong doing? Is the carcereal militarized police force that imprisoned more people than any nation on earth and a devastating number of black men functioning to design?
So I ask those who interpret criticism of individual law enforcement officers as criticism of all, which belief is being threatened by the criticism? That you believe cops to be infallible heroes? That you don't want to see how the sausage of justice is made? That you are satisfied with a status quo that devalues minorities and the poor and don't value an alternative? Something else? Why do you see the criticism of the individual as criticism of the whole?
There are plenty of ways to defend and reinforce your rights afterwards. While engaging with a police office, you follow instructions and avoid any confusion or escalation that may lead to a deadly outcome.
Gartner and Brown (just to name a few incidents) would have never happened if they just followed police instructions.
Police like to say. Stop recording me. I have the right to record and won't stop. Without the recording it is their word vs mine. A lot of good my rights will do me if I don't take advantage of them. If you want to aquiese to police authority and sacrifice your rights go ahead. Don't expect anyone else to.
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Olympic Sports Rutgers Softball Returns with Youth Movement This Season- Latest: rubaseball78
-