Jacob Blake Video

[Zona]

Isn't this exactly what was envisioned when they wrote the 2nd amendment?

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

In this situation, the unfortunate people that live in the riot zone are sitting ducks because the local authorities are being irresponsible and allowing the mayhem to continue unabated. They have the right to defend themselves and their property.

[major_merrick]

@Zona  I think the biggest criticism of the militia in Kenosha is the lack of the "well regulated" part.  But that's what happens when things develop in a hurry.  Hopefully people in other places will take note and be proactive, so that when/if this kind of disruption comes to their area they will be organized, disciplined, and avoid unfortunate incidents.  A disciplined, visible defense frequently prevents violence altogether.

[some_username1]

51 minutes ago, Piddy said:

The problem with this ridiculous law is it encourages the use of deadly force, whether justified or not.

We have a case now where a husband and wife were at the movies.  The husband was on the phone with the babysitter.

The guy sitting behind him kept telling him to get off his phone.  The movie hadn't even started yet.

An argument ensued and the husband thru his popcorn at the guy.  The guy pulled out his gun and shot and killed the husband and injured his wife.

I told my wife to not get into an argument with anyone.  Because of this stupid law someone can kill you and they'll only be one story, because you'll be dead.

No, it's a dumbass law that was sold on false pretences.

You always had the right to self defense.  But this law encourages someone to escalate a situation knowing they can kill someone and get away with it.

 

It should be reserved for Police and the Police are then mic’ed up and recording with video (I know this hasn’t happened in certain scenarios, I’m just talking about how I see it implement). If law enforcement see people concealing their hands I believe they have the right to shoot- because it shouldn’t get to that stage in the first place.

I can see from your example how wider use can result in an anarchic society but it all comes back to the same old thing: guns should not be available to the proletariat.

I don’t think I could live in America right now if you paid me. The whole lot just seems rotten to the core and each new day brings another flashpoint. It can only be solved by gun control, fit and proper police and respect for the law. All 3 have no chance of happening.

Edited September 1, 2020 by some_username1

[some_username1]

1 hour ago, major_merrick said:

I can't speak for other areas, but it is working quite well where I live.  The county defense force has kept troublemakers and COVID out, keeping our area safe for those who live here and have legit business.  Of course, I think what makes it a success is that it has been mostly proactive and fairly well trained and has the popular support of the residents of our county.   We were mostly ready before this year's events. 

The militia activity in Kenosha seems to be very reactive and "ad hoc" and that's a lot tougher to control.  There's also the issue of "consent of the governed."  Not sure if those militias have the consent of the folks they claim to serve.  But often, doing something is preferable to doing nothing and letting things burn.  Practically speaking, it is terrible tactics for homeowners to face off on their own property against a mob.  A mob is basically a human wave attack, so the only defense is similar numbers or superior firepower.  Better to have an armed group establish a perimeter farther out to proactively do access control and say "Not this neighborhood...y'all can go to the next one." 

https://www.kusi.com/kenosha-mattress-store-owner-on-business-being-burnt-down-and-friend-attacked/

https://www.kenoshanews.com/news/local/watch-now-car-source-owner-everybody-watched-it-burn-to-ashes/article_23d076ae-2439-5fa7-8288-b8393c1af518.html

https://nypost.com/2020/08/26/kenosha-store-owner-in-tears-as-she-sees-business-burnt-to-ground/

^^^^^  THESE are examples of what happens when people don't have good tactics and a solid defense.  Trying to keep the rioters away with just a couple of people and minimal weapons yields failure.  And people wonder why militias are showing up....

That's kind of how our system is SUPPOSED to work.  Innocent until proven guilty, and must be guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.  And it isn't the judge the prosecutors have to convince, it is a jury.  We don't live in Napoleonic France or the USSR!  I won't go further, since that isn't really the point of this thread.

As a Brit it seems like I’m reading a report from the third world there where militias are welcomed to keep the streets safe. Obviously it’s working for you and if you feel safe that’s good, but it shouldn’t be the case in such a developed nation that the Police can’t offer sufficient protection that you need private armies, that’s the preserve of anarchic South African townships. It’s a dis-spiriting indictment on law and order in the US.

[major_merrick]

@some_username1 Obviously, I completely reject the statement about not allowing guns to the "proletariat."  That sounds like something Lenin would say.  One more reason we had that little separation back in the 1770's. 

But as for my county's defense arrangements, it is a lot like an extension of law enforcement at this point.  The sheriff's office simply doesn't have the personnel or the funding to do the necessary patrols and access control for the times we live in.  Various private groups offered their services, and are under the auspices of the county defense board - which includes the judge, the sheriff, and the coroner as elected officials.  To date, citizens in the defense force have donated hundreds of thousands of hours of their time keeping our county secure.  Many have donated materials and other services to the effort.  In my family, the absence of three members who are out doing their duty is keenly felt.  It is a united community effort with wide approval. 

Philosophically, there's also a bit of difference between police and militia/military.  Police are more for arresting suspects and dealing with procedures.  Internal stuff within a jurisdiction.  Militia/military defend a territory from outside threats and restrict access.  For my county, the defense force operates almost exclusively on the borders.  Kind of like a customs agency or border patrol.  Inside the county, if there's domestic violence or some kind of crime, that's for the sheriff to deal with.  It frees law enforcement to do the job they were hired for.    

The big point I'm making here is that what makes a local militia either good or bad is discipline, order, and planning.  Its why our Constitution encourages militia to be "well regulated."  Ad hoc efforts like we've seen in Kenosha can cause just as many issues as they solve.  A proper militia doesn't sprout overnight like a mushroom.  That's third-world warlord stuff.  But when done appropriately by a community, local militia is NOT a bad concept and is quite traditional in American history. 

[Zona]

1 hour ago, major_merrick said:

@Zona  I think the biggest criticism of the militia in Kenosha is the lack of the "well regulated" part.  But that's what happens when things develop in a hurry.  Hopefully people in other places will take note and be proactive, so that when/if this kind of disruption comes to their area they will be organized, disciplined, and avoid unfortunate incidents.  A disciplined, visible defense frequently prevents violence altogether.

For one thing, what the heck was a 17 year old doing walking around with a gun in a riot zone? My sons are close to that age, totally not ready to possess a gun or make life or death decisions in terms of self protection.

 

[major_merrick]

@Zona I was wondering the same thing.... usually 17-year-olds aren't allowed to carry guns around.  And AFAIK, it isn't exactly a run-down urban zone where teens commonly carry guns illegally (unlike where I grew up.) 

Edited September 1, 2020 by major_merrick

[Piddy]

9 hours ago, some_username1 said:

It should be reserved for Police and the Police are then mic’ed up and recording with video (I know this hasn’t happened in certain scenarios, I’m just talking about how I see it implement). If law enforcement see people concealing their hands I believe they have the right to shoot- because it shouldn’t get to that stage in the first place.

I can see from your example how wider use can result in an anarchic society but it all comes back to the same old thing: guns should not be available to the proletariat.

I don’t think I could live in America right now if you paid me. The whole lot just seems rotten to the core and each new day brings another flashpoint. It can only be solved by gun control, fit and proper police and respect for the law. All 3 have no chance of happening.

Yeah, we have a severe gun fetish in this country.  We accept gun violence as a way of life here.  Must have something to do with our wild wild west history.   We have as many guns as people (over 300 million).  

[d0nnivain]

9 hours ago, major_merrick said:

The big point I'm making here is that what makes a local militia either good or bad is discipline, order, and planning.  Its why our Constitution encourages militia to be "well regulated."  Ad hoc efforts like we've seen in Kenosha can cause just as many issues as they solve.  A proper militia doesn't sprout overnight like a mushroom.  That's third-world warlord stuff.  But when done appropriately by a community, local militia is NOT a bad concept and is quite traditional in American history. 

This I can support.  Discipline & a chain of command.  The chaos we have with the crazy hot heads on BOTH sides is the problem.  

I heard a clip on the news of some "protestor" with a bullhorn calling on people to burn down the White House.  That is not a peaceful protestor.  That is a dangerous thug who needs to be locked up.  Heaven knows I don't support 45 but that means I want him voted out not murdered.  

[some_username1]

25 minutes ago, Piddy said:

Yeah, we have a severe gun fetish in this country.  We accept gun violence as a way of life here.  Must have something to do with our wild wild west history.   We have as many guns as people (over 300 million).  

As many guns as people?! Jeez, s***’s never gonna change while things are like that. Strewth. It seems part of the psyche now that guns are a right, not sure how you put that genie back in the bottle 😕

[Piddy]

1 hour ago, some_username1 said:

As many guns as people?! Jeez, s***’s never gonna change while things are like that. Strewth. It seems part of the psyche now that guns are a right, not sure how you put that genie back in the bottle 😕

Yeah, we have something call the second amendment in our constitution.  Right to bear arms.  There's some conjecture as to interpretation.  It's states in order to have a well regulated militia etc..  Some think is was to allow the citizenry to have arms to fight the British or Indians or Tyranny or prevent a slave revolt.  Who knows?  

But it really isn't need anymore.  We don't need citizen militias anymore.  We have the National Guard etc..  Yeah, that genie ain't going back in the bottle anytime soon.  We can't even get reasonable gun laws passed.  

Yeah, we have a fetish with guns alright.  Some think it's related to penis size and a gun will make it bigger.  🙄

https://thedailybanter.com/2013/01/29/a-gun-wont-make-your-penis-larger/

"There's a brief scene in Stanley Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket in which the new recruits, led by Gunnery Sgt. Hartman, chant in unison, "This is my rifle, this is my gun. This is for fighting, this is for fun." On the words "gun" and "fun" the privates grab their, well, privates, letting the audience know that there's a Marine-Corp-specific semantic distinction between the words "rifle" and "gun."

Edited September 1, 2020 by Piddy

[Tamfana]

They want their private pissed-off militias recognized or accepted as parallel to the police, peace forces.  Ain't gonna happen. We have police.  

White supremacists have committed MANY terrorist acts in this country, including the second worst after 9/11.  I will not recognize them as authority for anything. 

Edited September 1, 2020 by Tamfana

[Veronica73]

20 hours ago, Zona said:

I doubt it, the Dems have pretty much abandoned organized labor, except for those who work in government unions and live off taxpayers. That's why Hillary lost Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. 

Democrats didn’t abandon organized labor in Wisconsin. Remember the huge protests when Scott Walker got rid of collective bargaining for all unions besides the police and fire fighters? Wisconsin is probably the most gerrymandered state in the country. Republicans pretty much run everything besides Dane (where the state capita and flagship university are) and Milwaukee counties.

Edited September 1, 2020 by Veronica73

[Tamfana]

2 minutes ago, Veronica73 said:

Democrats didn’t abandon organized labor in Wisconsin. Remember the huge protests when Scott Walker got rid of collective bargaining for all unions besides the police and fire fighters? Wisconsin is probably the most gerrymandered state in the country. Republicans pretty much run everything besides Dane (where the state capita and flagship university are) and Milwaukee counties.

And "Right to Work," right?  That's been a Republican clarion call for decades. And now Americans work for lower wages on average. 

[Zona]

1 hour ago, Veronica73 said:

Democrats didn’t abandon organized labor in Wisconsin. Remember the huge protests when Scott Walker got rid of collective bargaining for all unions besides the police and fire fighters? Wisconsin is probably the most gerrymandered state in the country. Republicans pretty much run everything besides Dane (where the state capita and flagship university are) and Milwaukee counties.

I will admit that I do find the level of gerrymandering to be shocking in Wisconsin. They weren't the slightest bit subtle about it.

[d0nnivain]

The gerrymandering is not shocking nor is the blatancy.  The Supreme Court foreshadowed this in 2019 when it decided Rucho v Common Cause saying that the federal courts have no business monkeying in state districting decisions.  That 5-4 decision is so political it's disgusting.  

[mark clemson]

14 hours ago, Zona said:

Isn't this exactly what was envisioned when they wrote the 2nd amendment?

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

In this situation, the unfortunate people that live in the riot zone are sitting ducks because the local authorities are being irresponsible and allowing the mayhem to continue unabated. They have the right to defend themselves and their property.

It's interesting, because the converse logic applies as well. I understand your sympathy for the local biz owners  - certainly no one deserves to have their business torched because of something an abusive cop did (or in some possible cases interpretations of those actions). However, one could see the BLM protestors as a sort of impromptu militia forming to defend the lives of fellow citizens - in this case from the actions of abusive police. Of course, to MM's point they are very unregulated and thus the mob and rioting, rather than actual effective defense.

While I am NOT advocating this, one could argue that pinpoint targeting of specific accused cops (ie, killing them specifically) would serve the goals of this militia to eliminate the abusive cops. Obviously this would lead to ripple-effect problems, but it would make more sense, at some level, than simply venting rage by burning down businesses that happen to be there. That this circumvents our justice system is clearly a problem; but in the US one could argue that our justice system is not dealing with this issue effectively. Hence the ongoing problems and "need" for an impromptu militia.

Further note - I would think that in the days of the FF's one drew on the common people to form a militia when numbers were needed to fight a common enemy. However today there are enough people involved in e.g. the National Guard that a (usually) well-regulated militia is essentially ready to go for the state governors. However, gun ownership is in the constitution and many people live outside easy reach of a police force (or in some cases don't actually trust that police force), IMO necessitating the continuance of the option of private gun ownership.

[d0nnivain]

6 hours ago, Tamfana said:

And "Right to Work," right?  That's been a Republican clarion call for decades. And now Americans work for lower wages on average. 

I've never been pro union so I never supported any requirement that it was mandatory for somebody to have to join a union if one exists.  I think people get to have the choice to opt out. Given the union's collective bargaining power, I don't really get why somebody would opt out but I do think a person gets to make that choice.   Right to work laws give people that choice so I support those laws.  

In contrast "at will employment" means that an employer can fire an employee for any reason or no reason but not an illegal reason.  So a manager can say because today is Monday everybody is fired.  The manager can't say everybody who didn't come to work today is fired because that could be discrimination based on disability.  They certainly couldn't say all the men or purple people are fired because that would be discrimination based on gender & / or race / national origin (being purple). 

Union members often have contracts known as collective bargaining agreements that mandate graduated discipline except for the most egregious infractions.  Those covered by the CBA can only be fired in accordance with the terms of the contract.   Ironically,  police & firefighters are the people most likely to be covered by a CBA.   

 

This is the real crux of the historical differences between Democrats & Republicans.  IMO, Democrats advocate in favor of the big government will protect you & provide for you -- requiring union membership & an mandating participation in certain programs.  Republicans were more about choice:  it's OK that the union or the health insurance program exists but you can chose not to join.  At this point I think that has become more of the Libertarian perspective. Starting with the Tea Party, the Republicans have become more about hating you if you are not a rich white Christian who demonizes everybody else.   

All I know for sure is that my political & personal sensibilities lies along the live & let live, small government that provides what individuals can't like roads, commerce between the states & a unified stance in relation to foreign powers.  Love who you want, worship who you want (or don't), contain true criminals but leave me basically alone.   Where do I get that candidate?  

Edited September 1, 2020 by d0nnivain

[Tamfana]

41 minutes ago, d0nnivain said:

This is the real crux of the historical differences between Democrats & Republicans.  IMO, Democrats advocate in favor of the big government will protect you & provide for you -- requiring union membership & an mandating participation in certain programs.  Republicans were more about choice:  it's OK that the union or the health insurance program exists but you can chose not to join. 

I'm fine compromising on the second choice. Unions are more like corporations than government when it comes to politics though.  

Right now, on the eve of an election, the question of whether Congress has any power any more is front and center as the Unitary Executive theory advocates have taken the party over--  an unprecedented consolidation of executive power and the public is being shut out of knowing anything about the govt's actions even as they're interfering before our eyes. 

Do checks and balances exist any more, after 4 years of Trump?  No.  I think we've been coup'ed.  

 

Edited September 1, 2020 by Tamfana

[Zona]

11 hours ago, mark clemson said:

It's interesting, because the converse logic applies as well. I understand your sympathy for the local biz owners  - certainly no one deserves to have their business torched because of something an abusive cop did (or in some possible cases interpretations of those actions). However, one could see the BLM protestors as a sort of impromptu militia forming to defend the lives of fellow citizens - in this case from the actions of abusive police. Of course, to MM's point they are very unregulated and thus the mob and rioting, rather than actual effective defense.

While I am NOT advocating this, one could argue that pinpoint targeting of specific accused cops (ie, killing them specifically) would serve the goals of this militia to eliminate the abusive cops. Obviously this would lead to ripple-effect problems, but it would make more sense, at some level, than simply venting rage by burning down businesses that happen to be there. That this circumvents our justice system is clearly a problem; but in the US one could argue that our justice system is not dealing with this issue effectively. Hence the ongoing problems and "need" for an impromptu militia.

Further note - I would think that in the days of the FF's one drew on the common people to form a militia when numbers were needed to fight a common enemy. However today there are enough people involved in e.g. the National Guard that a (usually) well-regulated militia is essentially ready to go for the state governors. However, gun ownership is in the constitution and many people live outside easy reach of a police force (or in some cases don't actually trust that police force), IMO necessitating the continuance of the option of private gun ownership.

Can't really disagree with much of what you wrote. Of course, any militia formed by private citizens has to respect our laws and the constitution, so creating "death squads" (which have plagued Central and South America) that would summarily execute cops without trial would not fly on that basis. It seems like the militias that are forming are for the most part law abiding and only there to defend people and property, not to take people out that they don't like.

[mark clemson]

Yeah, hopefully that continues. Part of the problem is, I think, that when cops DO things like shoot a guy who isn't pointing a gun at them, it looks to some if not many like they are the death squad. No doubt in some cases that's an incorrect perception. I think many would say that in some cases it's not (George Floyd comes to mind). At any rate, for better or worse, that's the perceived reality that's being responded to these days. Cops don't have it easy, that is for certain.

Consider this statement: "Cops are the death squads of a racist shadow state."

Obviously that's a blanket statement, but as absolutely ridiculous as it probably sounds to you and me, I bet to some it sounds like the de facto reality in some areas. And they have some evidence to support that, in the form of these apparently unjustified killings.

Edited September 2, 2020 by mark clemson

[beatcuff]

On 9/1/2020 at 7:13 AM, Piddy said:

Yeah, we have a severe gun fetish in this country.  We accept gun violence as a way of life here.  Must have something to do with our wild wild west history.   We have as many guns as people (over 300 million).  

or our distrust of the government (from day 1).

not EVERYONE has a gun, but those that do tend to have more than 1 AND those in the cities have less v those in rural areas.  I  lived in a suburb in which a gunshot brought out the police and an article in the paper the next day.  I lived in the country where EVERY weekend day all you heard were chainsaws, tractors and gun fire.

I own several (and have fired numerous others), why? some are more tiring to fire, some have cheaper ammo and some interesting.  Why fire them? some like to fish, some like to play golf, some like to shoot. 

Now get off the soapbox and start listening to your friends.  I am amazed at how many (this year), especially women are interested in their first purchase.  I was at a local range there were 3 couples in which it was very obvious one was teaching the other.  Lastly, stop by a gun shop... good luck finding a quality firearm and you'll need more luck finding ammo. 

Wonder why???

[elaine567]

People are I guess scared of what the virus will do. If times get tough and desperate people are around, then stealing other people's property, or robbing them on the street may become more commonplace...

[introverted1]

On 8/31/2020 at 8:45 PM, Piddy said:

The problem with this ridiculous law is it encourages the use of deadly force, whether justified or not.

We have a case now where a husband and wife were at the movies.  The husband was on the phone with the babysitter.

The guy sitting behind him kept telling him to get off his phone.  The movie hadn't even started yet.

An argument ensued and the husband thru his popcorn at the guy.  The guy pulled out his gun and shot and killed the husband and injured his wife.

I told my wife to not get into an argument with anyone.  Because of this stupid law someone can kill you and they'll only be one story, because you'll be dead.

No, it's a dumbass law that was sold on false pretences.

You always had the right to self defense.  But this law encourages someone to escalate a situation knowing they can kill someone and get away with it.

 

Are you talking about the Tampa case?  The facts align, so I suppose so.

You've left out the fact that prosecutors successfully argued that "popcorn did not constitute a weapon," and the judge denied the "stand your ground" defense.  The case still hasn't gone to trial but the Reeves (the shooter) is facing 2nd degree murder charges.  

 

[Piddy]

12 minutes ago, introverted1 said:

Are you talking about the Tampa case?  The facts align, so I suppose so.

You've left out the fact that prosecutors successfully argued that "popcorn did not constitute a weapon," and the judge denied the "stand your ground" defense.  The case still hasn't gone to trial but the Reeves (the shooter) is facing 2nd degree murder charges.  

 

Yup, that's the case.  I think they keep dragging it out because he's an older man (retired cop) and is on house arrest.  The point is that with this law people feel emboldened to shoot first and ask questions later.