Trump Overturns Ban On Military Equipment For Police
Chichikov wrote:
Any looting that happens within two to four weeks of any incident is simply that, criminal looting. What with modern response strategies and emergency aid there's no need for anyone to steal to survive. If you think otherwise you're likely just an apologist.
Nah apparently the plan is to withhold all that and let the poor fend for themselves so that the militia can have an excuse gun them down.
DarthMetaKnight wrote:
Chichikov wrote:
What with modern response strategies and emergency aid there's no need for anyone to steal to survive.
not when there's a Republican in office
Not only that, but the Republican is purposely causing climate change disasters like Hervey in the first place.
DarthMetaKnight wrote:
Chichikov wrote:
What with modern response strategies and emergency aid there's no need for anyone to steal to survive.
not when there's a Republican in office
Wrong
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... db94a5a118
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
DarthMetaKnight wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Isn't there a lot of looting that takes place in situations like Houston has?
When people are looting, it means their human needs aren't being met.
Quote:
But yeah Darth Trump totally. He's probably playing up things like the hurricane and N Korea the way Palpatine played up the separatist movement.
^^^
this but unironically
Shooting hungry people taking food from deserted stores hardly seems fitting with the American ideal.
It could be the idea is to protect people by keeping bad guys at bay. But in the left's distorted view of things, they're being deployed as Nazi stormtroopers to gun down hungry victims.
Sure, there are bad guys who take advantage of a disaster to steal cool things, but there are clearly others who steal simply to eat during said disaster, and that's a significant difference. The latter should not be lumped with the former.
I was very specific in who I was talking about exclusively. You're the one who did the lumping because you thrive on having something to protest. If there's not an element there for you to do that with, you'll introduce one and then blame it on the other guy ie 'how can you be so hard hearted to say hungry victims should be shot for trying to survive?'.
The only problem is, no distinction is made between the two groups by authorities with guns.
How that is the case based on fact? And what is the alternative?
Simple: don't shoot looters. Seriously, if the police caught some guy burglarizing a store, they don't just shoot him, unless the thief threatens their lives.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
DarthMetaKnight wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Isn't there a lot of looting that takes place in situations like Houston has?
When people are looting, it means their human needs aren't being met.
Quote:
But yeah Darth Trump totally. He's probably playing up things like the hurricane and N Korea the way Palpatine played up the separatist movement.
^^^
this but unironically
Shooting hungry people taking food from deserted stores hardly seems fitting with the American ideal.
It could be the idea is to protect people by keeping bad guys at bay. But in the left's distorted view of things, they're being deployed as Nazi stormtroopers to gun down hungry victims.
Sure, there are bad guys who take advantage of a disaster to steal cool things, but there are clearly others who steal simply to eat during said disaster, and that's a significant difference. The latter should not be lumped with the former.
I was very specific in who I was talking about exclusively. You're the one who did the lumping because you thrive on having something to protest. If there's not an element there for you to do that with, you'll introduce one and then blame it on the other guy ie 'how can you be so hard hearted to say hungry victims should be shot for trying to survive?'.
The only problem is, no distinction is made between the two groups by authorities with guns.
How that is the case based on fact? And what is the alternative?
Simple: don't shoot looters. Seriously, if the police caught some guy burglarizing a store, they don't just shoot him, unless the thief threatens their lives.
Did they receive orders to shoot looters? Have they said anything about shooting looters? Have any looters been shot?
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
DarthMetaKnight wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Isn't there a lot of looting that takes place in situations like Houston has?
When people are looting, it means their human needs aren't being met.
Quote:
But yeah Darth Trump totally. He's probably playing up things like the hurricane and N Korea the way Palpatine played up the separatist movement.
^^^
this but unironically
Shooting hungry people taking food from deserted stores hardly seems fitting with the American ideal.
It could be the idea is to protect people by keeping bad guys at bay. But in the left's distorted view of things, they're being deployed as Nazi stormtroopers to gun down hungry victims.
Sure, there are bad guys who take advantage of a disaster to steal cool things, but there are clearly others who steal simply to eat during said disaster, and that's a significant difference. The latter should not be lumped with the former.
I was very specific in who I was talking about exclusively. You're the one who did the lumping because you thrive on having something to protest. If there's not an element there for you to do that with, you'll introduce one and then blame it on the other guy ie 'how can you be so hard hearted to say hungry victims should be shot for trying to survive?'.
The only problem is, no distinction is made between the two groups by authorities with guns.
How that is the case based on fact? And what is the alternative?
Simple: don't shoot looters. Seriously, if the police caught some guy burglarizing a store, they don't just shoot him, unless the thief threatens their lives.
Did they receive orders to shoot looters? Have they said anything about shooting looters? Have any looters been shot?
Plenty of looters have been shot in past natural disasters. During Katrina, police had murdered citizens, then claimed those victims were looters who had fired on them, which was a lie.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
DarthMetaKnight wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Isn't there a lot of looting that takes place in situations like Houston has?
When people are looting, it means their human needs aren't being met.
Quote:
But yeah Darth Trump totally. He's probably playing up things like the hurricane and N Korea the way Palpatine played up the separatist movement.
^^^
this but unironically
Shooting hungry people taking food from deserted stores hardly seems fitting with the American ideal.
It could be the idea is to protect people by keeping bad guys at bay. But in the left's distorted view of things, they're being deployed as Nazi stormtroopers to gun down hungry victims.
Sure, there are bad guys who take advantage of a disaster to steal cool things, but there are clearly others who steal simply to eat during said disaster, and that's a significant difference. The latter should not be lumped with the former.
I was very specific in who I was talking about exclusively. You're the one who did the lumping because you thrive on having something to protest. If there's not an element there for you to do that with, you'll introduce one and then blame it on the other guy ie 'how can you be so hard hearted to say hungry victims should be shot for trying to survive?'.
The only problem is, no distinction is made between the two groups by authorities with guns.
How that is the case based on fact? And what is the alternative?
Simple: don't shoot looters. Seriously, if the police caught some guy burglarizing a store, they don't just shoot him, unless the thief threatens their lives.
Did they receive orders to shoot looters? Have they said anything about shooting looters? Have any looters been shot?
Plenty of looters have been shot in past natural disasters. During Katrina, police had murdered citizens, then claimed those victims were looters who had fired on them, which was a lie.
So is it being said that police shouldn't shoot anyone without just cause, or that they shouldn't have guns?
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
DarthMetaKnight wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Isn't there a lot of looting that takes place in situations like Houston has?
When people are looting, it means their human needs aren't being met.
Quote:
But yeah Darth Trump totally. He's probably playing up things like the hurricane and N Korea the way Palpatine played up the separatist movement.
^^^
this but unironically
Shooting hungry people taking food from deserted stores hardly seems fitting with the American ideal.
It could be the idea is to protect people by keeping bad guys at bay. But in the left's distorted view of things, they're being deployed as Nazi stormtroopers to gun down hungry victims.
Sure, there are bad guys who take advantage of a disaster to steal cool things, but there are clearly others who steal simply to eat during said disaster, and that's a significant difference. The latter should not be lumped with the former.
I was very specific in who I was talking about exclusively. You're the one who did the lumping because you thrive on having something to protest. If there's not an element there for you to do that with, you'll introduce one and then blame it on the other guy ie 'how can you be so hard hearted to say hungry victims should be shot for trying to survive?'.
The only problem is, no distinction is made between the two groups by authorities with guns.
How that is the case based on fact? And what is the alternative?
Simple: don't shoot looters. Seriously, if the police caught some guy burglarizing a store, they don't just shoot him, unless the thief threatens their lives.
Did they receive orders to shoot looters? Have they said anything about shooting looters? Have any looters been shot?
Plenty of looters have been shot in past natural disasters. During Katrina, police had murdered citizens, then claimed those victims were looters who had fired on them, which was a lie.
So is it being said that police shouldn't shoot anyone without just cause, or that they shouldn't have guns?
When did I say cops shouldn't have guns? It's obviously the former.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
So is it being said that police shouldn't shoot anyone without just cause, or that they shouldn't have guns?
When did I say cops shouldn't have guns? It's obviously the former.
So this discussion is just about the obvious that everyone would agree with?
Aristophanes wrote:
EzraS wrote:
So is it being said that police shouldn't shoot anyone without just cause, or that they shouldn't have guns?
Weakest strawman I've seen this week.
That's because it wasn't a strawman. We had a person here who fancied himself to be a master of philosophy and rhetoric, who kept misapplying logical fallacies. This is like deja vu. But of course as you already admitted, you're just trying to strike a nerve. It will be interesting to see how doggedly you pursue it.
EzraS wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
EzraS wrote:
So is it being said that police shouldn't shoot anyone without just cause, or that they shouldn't have guns?
Weakest strawman I've seen this week.
That's because it wasn't a strawman. We had a person here who fancied himself to be a master of philosophy and rhetoric, who kept misapplying logical fallacies. This is like deja vu. But of course as you already admitted, you're just trying to strike a nerve. It will be interesting to see how doggedly you pursue it.
You keep attributing things to me I've never even come close to saying, and to be honest, never even come close to thinking. It sounds like your esteem for my abilities are much higher than I regard them, thank you.
Aristophanes wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
EzraS wrote:
So is it being said that police shouldn't shoot anyone without just cause, or that they shouldn't have guns?
Weakest strawman I've seen this week.
That's because it wasn't a strawman. We had a person here who fancied himself to be a master of philosophy and rhetoric, who kept misapplying logical fallacies. This is like deja vu. But of course as you already admitted, you're just trying to strike a nerve. It will be interesting to see how doggedly you pursue it.
You keep attributing things to me I've never even come close to saying, and to be honest, never even come close to thinking. It sounds like your esteem for my abilities are much higher than I regard them, thank you.
lulz
AnonymousAnonymous wrote:
No surprise. The rightwing has been working to turn this country into a fascist police state since at least the 1970s. Militarizing the police and watering down the Constitution. Except for the Second Amendment, which is the only right that needs to be protected.
0regonGuy wrote:
AnonymousAnonymous wrote:
No surprise. The rightwing has been working to turn this country into a fascist police state since at least the 1970s. Militarizing the police and watering down the Constitution. Except for the Second Amendment, which is the only right that needs to be protected.
But why would they want the citizens to have guns?
EzraS wrote:
0regonGuy wrote:
AnonymousAnonymous wrote:
No surprise. The rightwing has been working to turn this country into a fascist police state since at least the 1970s. Militarizing the police and watering down the Constitution. Except for the Second Amendment, which is the only right that needs to be protected.
But why would they want the citizens to have guns?
Saves the cops the hassle of shooting the bad guys.
_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson
