We as a country have to work to control the output, availability, possession and use of firearms by changing laws, amending the constitution which gave these rights hundreds of years ago when they were not't [sic] faced with the problems we are today which are escalating on a daily basis. [More]"The constitution which gave"...? Of course rights come from the state! Why, who doesn't know that?
Besides, we don't want to eliminate guns. We just want to control their availability and possession. Meaning they're available and possessed by "Only Ones"-- like me!
And just so you understand what he really means when he says "control":
If guns were not accessible, people Wouldn't be getting shot.......right!? It's guns that are in the hands of people. It's people that pull the trigger with the intent to cause bodily harm or death. Take guns OUT of the equation and the rest is obvious....We have our share of anti-gun zealots over at Examiner.com. Typically, I don't link to them, because why drive traffic their way and reward them for their dangerous foolishness?
But this guy deserves special pointing out. Why? Per his bio:
Mark has been a police officer and investigator for 30 years. His experience, skills and training have made him well respected in his field.Which probably explains why he considers the Supreme Court decision that police are required to advise suspects of their rights against self-incrimination "infamous." What a hassle. But there are ways around that...
Understand we write out own bio statements. So the assessment "well respected" is his opinion of how he is perceived. (Why do I suddenly hear The Kinks?)
I don't respect you, pally. I find your attitudes ignorant, elitist and despicable. I don't think you're fit to be in the same country with these guys.
7 comments:
Frankly if he cannot abide the constitution's position on liberty, he should not be in his career position since it is dependent upon a oath to said constitutions' (plural use because it is also to his state being an officer I would assume.)
"It's guns that are in the hands of people. It's people that pull the trigger with the intent to cause bodily harm or death. Take guns OUT of the equation and the rest is obvious...."
standard argument from the objectification of humanity.
when you guys were kids, you ever build a little machine with legos, or a train set, or even just sticks and rope? (i only had rope and a forest).
sure, you construct something which happens only to make sense to a kid, however, what you're doing is putting together inputs and outputs and some physical process to get from the inputs you can think of to the outputs you desire. it's a machine. guns are highly exquisite machines, and for our youthful forays into the world of mechanics, we greatly appreciate such sleek and refined devices. same for cars.
enter the statist: he who makes machinery such as this of man himself. he who denies the self-aware, self-authoring nature of the soul. possibly denies the soul itself.
their ulterior motive always seems to be refashioning society as it naturally occurred into some sort of rube goldberg clusterf*ck, designed within the parameters of their narrow view of the world, a lot of these such machines, working in unison. that's besides the point, but, there you have it. usually, that's what we really complain about when we use the word collectivism.
that is what this quote is; from that sort of mentality. right or wrong, it is misapplied. rabbi daniel lapin gave a good speech in which he explains the story of the babel tower, which was the original instructions on How Not To Do That and What Happens If You Do. it's towards the end, on uniqueness, but its a hilarious and insightful speech otherwise. don't miss it.
That "man" makes claims that are easily demonstated to be false. He doesn't understand "rights", history, reason, or unintended consequences. I refuse to give the parasite .9 cents for the "pleasure" of reading his verbal flatulence.
From another of his unflushed opinions.
The idea is for law enforcement to take proactive measures in an effort to deter these uprisings and when they do occur, we have the ability to deal with it in a swift and progressive manner.
"progressive" like Hillary KKKlinton type progressiveism? AKA we WILL CONTROL EVERYTHING YOU DO!
If he's still a cop I hope his last day IS his last day. This guy is a prime example of what I think is the norm in the law enFORCEment community. Oath keepers are the exception.
Actually, from his Miranda piece, he says he's a "former police officer"--which, as we see time and again means he retains certain "Only One" perks, such as the HR 218 nationwide concealed carry for cops, including retirees.
And we can certainly see the attitude he brought to the job, lo those many years...
What a maroon, what an imbessile.
Wonder what this Statist thinks of the Exclusionary Rule?
Post a Comment