The “well regulated militia” at it again

QP! said:
No.

Law enforcement needs to be armed so blatant threatening criminals like Babbitt can be shot.

We support that mob of insurrectionists not allowed to be armed, though.

Can you see the distinction?
Click to expand...

so your belief is that government exists to kill citizens????
 
SmarterthanYou said:
so your belief is that government exists to kill citizens????
Click to expand...

D'uh.

Of course law enforcement, especially protective agencies like the SS and those attached to protection of people in government do exist to kill citizens, like Ashley Babbitt who refuse to follow orders and pose a grave threat to those they protect.
 
QP! said:
D'uh.

Of course law enforcement, especially protective agencies like the SS and those attached to protection of people in government do exist to kill citizens, like Ashley Babbitt who refuse to follow orders and pose a grave threat to those they protect.
Click to expand...

and this is why you idiot leftists are considered mentally ill. In EVERY policy manual across the nation, rules and regulations regarding weapons carried by law enforcement are for DEFENSIVE PURPOSES only........

go get educated and then come back to us.
 
leaningright said:
Only in who YOU think are the “good guys” and who YOU think are the “bad guys.” You probably would like for LEO’s here (almost 100% conservatives) to be disarmed.
Click to expand...

Majority of shooters were “good guys” right up until the second they pulled the trigger
 
SmarterthanYou said:
and this is why you idiot leftists are considered mentally ill. In EVERY policy manual across the nation, rules and regulations regarding weapons carried by law enforcement are for DEFENSIVE PURPOSES only........

go get educated and then come back to us.
Click to expand...

Yes like the Issurection attacks. Cops and security were on total defense and people like Ashley needed to get shot!
 
SmarterthanYou said:
wrong


wrong. reason does not take away desire. the concept you can't seem to grasp is that individual rights are not up for debate to majority rule, nor judicial fiat. reasonable people can rationalize that to make things work better, some things need to be regulated, but these things are not people, only inanimate objects
Click to expand...

No, if everyone was exercising their “freedom” it would be complete anarchy, anyone can drive on any side of the road they want when they want, even off road and thru lawns and fields

You contradicted yourself, “reason does not take away desire,” but, “reasonable people can rationalize” and “things need to be regulated,” and the opportunity cost is losing individual freedom
 
SmarterthanYou said:
yet the ONLY way you seem to believe it can be done is restricting and denying the rights of citizens because they MIGHT become the next shooter, yet tens of MILLIONS of people don't shoot others on a daily basis.


those 'hundreds' of guns were in the hands of who??????????? let me know if you need help answering that question
Click to expand...

The police, did you think the elementary teachers were going to break down the door
 
QP! said:
Yes like the Issurection attacks. Cops and security were on total defense and people like Ashley needed to get shot!
Click to expand...

yet just a few posts ago you stated that government needs guns to KILL people, as in offensively. do you even know what you're talking about any more?
 
archives said:
No, if everyone was exercising their “freedom” it would be complete anarchy, anyone can drive on any side of the road they want when they want, even off road and thru lawns and fields

You contradicted yourself, “reason does not take away desire,” but, “reasonable people can rationalize” and “things need to be regulated,” and the opportunity cost is losing individual freedom
Click to expand...

tell us truthfully, you've NEVER read the Constitution, or that of your state, have you? one does NOT restrict rights because they are abused by a few.........one does NOT restrict the ability of people to defend themselves because others have violated the rights of those people.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
yet just a few posts ago you stated that government needs guns to KILL people, as in offensively. do you even know what you're talking about any more?
Click to expand...

Ya but the problem you have is i said no such thing and you cannot quote me saying or even suggesting any such thing. And that is because you are stupid and cannot comprehend what you read.
 
QP! said:
Ya but the problem you have is i said no such thing and you cannot quote me saying or even suggesting any such thing. And that is because you are stupid and cannot comprehend what you read.
Click to expand...

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...-militia%94-at-it-again&p=5866751#post5866751

QP! said:
D'uh.

Of course law enforcement, especially protective agencies like the SS and those attached to protection of people in government do exist to kill citizens, like Ashley Babbitt who refuse to follow orders and pose a grave threat to those they protect.
Click to expand...

you were saying???????
 
SmarterthanYou said:
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...-militia%94-at-it-again&p=5866751#post5866751



you were saying???????
Click to expand...

Ok here is lesson one in reading for STUPID PEOPLE.

This part that follows in the SAME SENTENCE, "......who refuse to follow orders and pose a grave threat to those they protect..."

Speaks specifically to the officers acting defensively.

So THAT is what i was saying.

(I suggest you get someone with a Grade reading comprehension to read it to you if you are still struggling)
 
SmarterthanYou said:
tell us truthfully, you've NEVER read the Constitution, or that of your state, have you? one does NOT restrict rights because they are abused by a few.........one does NOT restrict the ability of people to defend themselves because others have violated the rights of those people.
Click to expand...

Really, so anyone can scream fire in a crowded theater, assemble and have a parade anywhere they want anytime they want, the press can print anything they desire without consequences, etc, facf is all rights are regulated, no right is absolute, never has been even dating back to the era of the Founding Fathers

You may have read the Constitution, but you don’t understand it
 
SmarterthanYou said:
the cognitive dissonance is strong within you. If the Police/government fail to protect you, what are you then left with in the face of violence directed at you?
Click to expand...

Why would the police fail to protect me or you, and better yet, how many times have you been in a situation where you needed the police
 
QP! said:
Ok here is lesson one in reading for STUPID PEOPLE.

This part that follows in the SAME SENTENCE, "......who refuse to follow orders and pose a grave threat to those they protect..."

Speaks specifically to the officers acting defensively.

So THAT is what i was saying.

(I suggest you get someone with a Grade reading comprehension to read it to you if you are still struggling)
Click to expand...

I suggest you learn what the word 'semantics' means........because that's what you're employing to get around your blood thirsty desires to see government kill right wingers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top