Cons BTFO!!!
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
Comments (36)
sorted by:
He just made one of the best arguments in favor of firearm ownership and concealed carry. I doubt he has the awareness to realize it though.
I don't know who that guy is but yes, he totally did xD
Not that i fully agree with his analysis that the police NEVER do anything. Plus there are deterrence factors. But still...
I can't wait for the Police to be disbanded so that me and my buddies can roll up outside this dude's house and decide whether we want to live in it or extort him for 'protection money'.
He knows plenty of people who weren't robbed because of the police, especially a rich, stupid mf like him. He's just too retarded to understand what deterrence is.
Yeah, police can't protect you from every little thing, especially when shit is done with as they arrive on the scene but when a crackhead is trying to break down your door at 2 in the morning screaming he's going to fucking kill you? I think having the police around is a pretty good backup to owning a firearm.
Ghetto life. The police show up three days later with the paperwork for your insurance. That's all they're going to do.
Yeah, never mind the cops. How about we just shoot your black criminal asses and feed the corpse to our dogs and cats? Much easier, and won't involve those nasty, racist coppers.
And there's 150k people that agree with that retarded logic. Even ignoring the firearm ownership and the deterrent angle, what are police supposed to do if you're mugged? By the time they arrive it's over. You want them to apologise to you and hand you their phone and wallet as compensation? The notes they take are time/place and a description. Then they either drive around looking for such a person or go fill in their paperwork. Maybe they'll find someone, maybe they'll need a few more reports or witnesses before they do.
Or if they're anything like the UK they won't even consider it a crime if you don't lose a certain amount of money, and just ignore your call. Or if they're black. Cause y'know, black people don't commit crime in the UK. Diversity is our strength.
Police are a deterrent. Their presence prevents crime. They also go after criminals, even if it's just after the fact. Take away the fear of getting caught and there's no reason for criminals to not commit crimes.
Of course that only works if police have the resources to actually investigate. Which, in liberal-run areas, they more and more don't. Thus leading to the situation the twat above complains about. Hint: the solution isn't even less enforcement.
Yep, people need to remember that it's cops who enforce the gun laws. The ATF only has enough agents for two or three Waco's at a time. The cops are the people who will go door to door when the orders come down to disarm the peaceful people.
Anarcho-tyranny doesn't work unless there are cops to prevent you from defending yourself against the mob.
Yes, police should only be upholding laws that you like. We don't want no stinkin' rule of law, we want anarchy.
unjust laws shouldn't be enforced.
How do you determine what law is 'unjust'? Should they call you, or should it be up to each individual police officer?
In America we are already functioning with a kind of anarchy/lawlessness due to selective enforcement of existing law at all levels; from individual officers up to the 'President', from municipal resolutions up to our very Constitution. The ATF is virtually entirely built on laws in direct contradiction to our Constitution. So if an individual officer is given an order (direct or standing) in contradiction to the Constitution, they should decide (individually, if necessary, but hopefully as a force) to ignore/reject that order (unless you believe that "I was just following orders" is a valid legal defense.)
Now, all that has only touched on written law, but virtually everyone is going to agree that there are certain principles which supersede written laws. In a well functioning society, everyone broadly agrees on what these principles are and they either form the basis for the written laws, or the written laws aren't needed because people follow the same core principles. But in a poorly functioning society (virtually every modern western nation) written laws exist as an attempt to enforce some homogeneity, based on (at best) 'compromise' core principles, or (more often) the core principles of the group holding the most power, or (even worse) don't exist at all/aren't enforced and everything is up to the whims of the group with the most power.
So to actually answer your question, at a functional level, society determines which laws are 'unjust', based on its core principles. In America those core principles were codified in our Constitution and other founding documents, along with commentaries from the authors and signatories of those founding documents. Unfortunately, those core principles are no longer held in common by either the government or the people, and thus are regular ignored to implement and enforce unjust laws.
(I could give an argument for inherent/natural/divine law, but from a practical perspective these either exist as the core principles on which a society is founded, or are enforced without any input from society, so I didn't feel it was worth covering when there are so many others which have already covered these concepts in more detail.)
EDIT: Also, as a further post-scriptum, the founders also gave the solution to society disagreeing on core principles, but as yet there doesn't appear to be a willingness to go down that path.
But the arbiter of what is in accordance with the Constitution is not the individual officer. That would be anarchy (and I agree that you already have that in practice, because the last year has not made your country look good), and it's also even more undemocratic than the current system.
If we're on valid legal defenses: "I believed that law is unjust" most certainly is not a valid legal defense.
You got this absolutely right. All western countries have devolved into a form of oligarchy where there is a small group of people with a certain ideology that wields power without any regard for the rest of us.
I don't disagree with your diagnosis, only with your solution.
The right of revolution exists not when there laws that you consider unjust (that will be true in every country, anywhere), but when peaceful means of changing that are closed off to you. Imagine if 40% of a country believes that some laws are 'unjust' and a violent attempt to overthrow the popular government is therefore justified. That's madness, right?
Since we apparently agree on the core of this, I'll just address the couple points on which we disagree.
Each person is individually responsible for their own actions. If one believes they have been given an order in violation of some higher law/principle, they must choose which law they violate, and will face consequences in either case.
But "I believed the law was unconstitutional." is (provided you can get at least one judge/judiciary to agree with you.) I'll try and find the court ruling for this, but there is legal precedent for ignoring unconstitutional laws.
First, this completely misses/ignores what I said in in the post-scriptum. Second, there are non-violent means of dissolving political ties (though history shows that violent means are far more likely.) Third, it ignores the reality of the situation in America today.
If there are fundamental disagreements on core principles within a society (whether that be between the people and the law, or the people amongst themselves) it is necessary and (in my opinion) inevitable that a new government be formed (whether that 'new' government is an alteration of the existing one, or the formation of an entirely separate one alongside or to replace the existing one, will depend on the nature of the disagreement.)
Originally America was founded as a confederation, with an almost non-existent central government. Even after the adoption of the Constitution (and the Bill of Rights), the US was a collection of separate, independent, sovereign States who were free to govern affairs within their own borders as they chose. Were we still organized this way I doubt that formation of a new government would be necessary, as the separate States would be able to accommodate the majority of views held by the citizens of the Union.
Today, America is ruled by a strong central government that regularly enforces its will on the states. There exist irreconcilable differences in core beliefs between multiple significant groups within her borders. Something like 25-50 percent of the population believes the most recent election/government to be fraudulent, and has no reason to believe this fraud will be overturned, or prevented in the future.
America needs a new government (and probably more than one, unless some portion of the population no longer lives here) as the existing one is failing her people. The only other option is giving America a new people, and that option without question justifies violent revolution.
Slavery is an unjust law. Taking property from law abiding citizens is an unjust law. Demanding people talk and think a certain way or be punished is an unjust law. Treating grown adults like children who need to be controlled by a nanny state is an unjust law. It's not rocket science. Morality is not relative.
I agree that morality is not relative, but by what standard should that be determined?
Not particularly. When you propose that police officers start disregarding some of the laws, the least you can do is specify by what standard they should do that. Or do you expect to be on call 24/7 for them to ask you if they should enforce this or that law?
Don't you worry, I'm European.
No doubt it does, but it is not 'corruption' to enforce laws that you do not like.
Oh come on, you sound like Antifa.
You did not specify any standard for what makes a law 'unjust'. Or why it should be your conception of what an 'unjust law' is that they should not enforce. Perhaps if your anarchistic worldview prevails, they'll stop enforcing some of the laws that you do like as 'unjust'.
Like those persecuting black bodies for seizing reparations from local stores.
Of course you need to. If you're saying that police officers should ignore some laws, you need to specify by what standard it should be determined that these laws are to be ignored.
By not specifying a standard, that's exactly what you did.
No, just logical consequence of what you advocate.
You're not getting that it's satire, even though I called looting 'reparations'?
That laws that you regard as 'unjust' should be ignored and not enforced.