- Joined
- Sep 28, 2005
- Messages
- 23,463
- Reaction score
- 7,252
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
The memorial is open air.
It's only inside in the barest sense.
Regardless... its law until overturned.
The memorial is open air.
It's only inside in the barest sense.
which European country are you referring to exactly?
So in other words its not a right seeing how you need permission from the government to have a firearm.you can also own a gun in Europe, but yes, it is more strickt, you need a licence.
owning a gun with no licence is the freedom to risk being shot down on the street by some maniac who owns a gun without a licence.
I support gun ownership by the way, but this is not a measurment of freedom.
I agree that it really isn't police brutality but the police should of just said.
"This is dumb, a waste of our time and unconstitutional, we won't enforce it."
That takes balls though.
and any cop with balls enough would be fired, which is why we need protesters to test the first amendment. So, what the heck were they protesting, anyway? A ban against dancing? And RT, means "Russia Today"? What's up with that? Are they trying to prove that we're just as oppressed as the Russians or something?
RT presenter choked by police — RT
police brutality and arrests took place in Washington DC as police brutally cracked down on a crowd of people for dancing by a Washinton DC memorial...
a new victory for American style democracy and free speech and expression..
I don't think a job is worth keeping if you have to enforce victimless crimes.
Sometimes, just sometimes, personal integrity matters more.
The mentality of this law enforcement is all you need to put a Jew in an oven. The rule of law is more important than common sense. It's idiots like these that make a Holocaust possible. There was no crime committed. The constitution or law is irrelevant when judging a person's action in terms of crime. One must only ask, what harm can be proven? Where there is no harm, there can be no crime. These idiot cops are sorry excuse for a human being.
One only has to look up hate speech laws to see which European countries I am talking about.
Police.. not government..So in other words its not a right seeing how you need permission from the government to have a firearm.
More maniacs will have a gun in a country where you need no licence to own a gun than a country where you need a licence.A maniac is not going to use a licensed gun.So whether or not a law abiding citizen can get a firearm without permission from the government is irrelevant.
A heavily armed populace keeps a tyrannical government at bay,ensures that you can defend yourself if your country is ever invaded,gives you the means to hunt and allows you to adequately defend your home. So you claim that firearm owner is not a measurement of freedom is simply false.
Enforcing the law means just that. You would prefer police that only enforce the laws they like?
I'd prefer them not always take orders and instead think.
Some laws are completely arbitrary and unjust, I'd prefer them to not enforce those.
I'd prefer them not always take orders and instead think.
Some laws are completely arbitrary and unjust, I'd prefer them to not enforce those.
Godwin's law is fallacious. It' attacks the very principle of comparison, which is neccessary in which to bring weight to any subject in discussion. Comparisons are always neccessary. Do you always follow orders of fallacious reasoning?
Let me see, you compared Jews being thrown in ovens to a few police officers arresting a group of people who broke the law and you accuse me of fallacious reasoning? Thanks, I needed a laugh.
Smoking causes cancer. Dancing causes what harm? ...
I don't think a job is worth keeping if you have to enforce victimless crimes.
Sometimes, just sometimes, personal integrity matters more.
I find your reasoning humorous. You can’t find anything real to argue on the issue so you make Nazi comparisons. It is the sign of a weak mind and a weak argument (with a lot of drama queen thrown in too).The implication is that they follow orders and the specific orders are to use force against people who are in no way harming others. Do you find this humerous?
Right. Arresting protesters who break the law is the same as the holocaust and the cops are no different than the monsters who threw Jews into ovens. What a great argument. Should we hang these Nazi cops at The Hague?Two principles are identical in both situations.
I'd prefer them not always take orders and instead think.
Some laws are completely arbitrary and unjust, I'd prefer them to not enforce those.
Is smoking allowed inside these Washington Monuments? If not, would you be ok with it if police refused to enforce the no smoking law if 100 people lit up and puffed away in protest of the law?
What if 100 people pulled out crack pipes and started smoking crack in the monuments?
What if they are thinking?
What if they are thinking that...
"The best way to get rid of an unjust law is to enforce it."
I notice that comment got ignored the first time I mentioned it in this thread.
No. Law Enforcement Officers are authorized to make arrests for violations of the law that are above an infraction. (There are infractions, misdemeanors, and felonies, in that order). Any Law Enforcement Officer that is attempting to effect an arrest may use the force that is reasonable and prudent in the circumstance of resistance they are facing. Nowhere does it say that the crime have to be one which is harming others in order for officers to use force. Use of force is not a PUNISHMENT, it is a tool used to make an arrest in a situation where one is resisting that arrest.The implication is that they follow orders and the specific orders are to use force against people who are in no way harming others. Do you find this humerous?
The best way to get rid of an unjust law, is to not enforce it.
It gives it no weight or power, the unjust law becomes flaccid.