Police officers from two Chicago suburbs are being sued after one of them allegedly Tasered a man having a diabetic seizure because the diabetic involuntarily hit the officer while being taken to an ambulance. [More]My prediction: It will be held they were following protocol. I'm only surprised he's not facing charges for resisting arrest and assaulting an "Only One"...
[Via William T]
My comment to the post:
ReplyDelete"These two are members of the "only ones" who should be allowed to carry a firearm in Illinois?
W W Woodward [W-III]"
I hold that he did not follow protocol, because he did not kill the man. Hell, he didn't even shoot him in the back while he was handcuffed. You know, that he didn't follow Chicago protocol.
ReplyDeleteIs it Claire Wolfe time yet. I can speak only for me, but were that man myself or a loved one of mine, it would be way too late to ask that question. Those cops would already have been punished.
ReplyDeleteHowever, what is really needed is for all of us to punish them. Not just when it becomes personal. Alas, the mass of us are not ready to be free of such abuse, therefore it is incumbent on each of us to wait until it is personal. Too bad, that.
"Alas, the mass of us are not ready to be free of such abuse, therefore it is incumbent on each of us to wait until it is personal. Too bad, that."
ReplyDeleteYou will remain trapped in this hell forever, so long as you believe in the legitimacy of majority rule. But, if you reject majority rule, you open the door to technological improvements that drive political shifts. Sam Colt invented a tool to enable a small person to defend themselves from a large person. What would happen if a tool was invented to enable one person to defend themselves from five or ten people? Would you be more free? In the last 100 years, the capability of human transport has grown from riding horses to the moon rocket, but over the same time the personal defense weapon, the handgun, is nearly unchanged. Who benefitted from preventing a "horse riding" level of individual defensive capability from evolving into a "moon rocket" level? Is this the true success of gun control?
Imagine a bank of missile launchers the size of a VHS tape, loaded with the new commercial 12 gauge rounds containing tasers, which trail barbed stinger wires like jellyfish to evade armor. With a laser for sighting. Held in two hands, one on each end, which would make parrying with it instinctive. Some clever human interface design so your fingers don't find the triggers if you point it at yourself. Carries in a purse, school backpack, or coat pocket; prints like a book. Wrap it in a real paper book jacket for camouflage. Velcro it to your car's headliner, up where it can't be seen. Less-lethal, so good people are more willing to use it early enough to win. Tangle all your assailants in the tasers, then split. Make them cheap enough to be disposable/one use, or semi-disposable; you can reload it, but the storage life and reliability is better from the factory. Loaded and dust sealed at the factory, bores are sealed by thin plastic, so no fingerprints or fibers or DNA from the user is left on the projectiles. After use, burn the launcher in a campfire to destroy fingerprints and microscopic particle evidence. Carbon fiber bore tubes to lower weight and make them burnable. Unreloadable cannon barrels to avoid making a breech mechanism? Reloadable by taking the 12 gauge out of the hull and muzzle-loading the parts into the cannon tube? Screw-on breech plug? Are black powder or pyrodex cannons regulated as tightly as guns?
I put this idea in the public domain. I hope some capitalists in Montana or Tennessee start making this product, and selling them cheap enough that people will buy five or ten and salt them around their environment. Perhaps commenters could suggest improvements or product names; wouldn't that be a lot more fun than arguing how to write "shall not be infringed" more clearly? Now, there's a product name idea. Print it right on the side in big letters: "Shall Not Be Infringed, Bitch".
What happens if Claymores cost $20 and are available by the case as widely as illegal drugs? Do lots of people prepare defenses for surprise home invasions? Do things mellow out as career home invaders think twice? I assume that no one here will respond that Claymores should be restricted to Only Ones.
ReplyDeleteThe frog is now in a pressure cooker, and all those new state laws exempting small arms from regulation are just barely enough of a narrowly crafted pressure release to prevent the containment from failing. They have no resemblance to actual freedom, which would include selling RPGs with truck roof mounts at Wal-Mart.
ReplyDelete