[-]

emperor000@reddit

The irony in posting and concern trolling about it while probably voting for the person who is actively trying to curtail that ability is incredible.

This is also why we should vote for Harris, am I right?

[-]

dirtysock47@reddit

Because Democrats are the ones voting for this shit in the first place. They vote for progressives that give violent criminals a slap on the wrist, then act shocked when violent crime goes up.

[-]

abetterthief@reddit

You're just adding to the stupidity of this by defending it. Thinking like this is unamerican and fascist.

[-]

Correct-Sail-9642@reddit

Explain how what he said is fascist though? Im coming from a neutral perspective so it should be easy for you to articulate exactly how what he said is fascist.

You can leave out how its unamerican, I doubt that has any substance to rationalize.

[-]

abetterthief@reddit

"believe what I believe or suffer the consequences" is a good way to understand why it's fascist

[-]

emperor000@reddit

"believe what I believe or suffer the consequences" is a good way to understand why it's fascist

If that's the definition of fascism then both parties are fascists to some degree, with that degree for the Democrats being vastly more than the Republicans.

The Democrats' general stance right now seems to be illustrated perfectly by "believe what I believe or suffer the consequences".

[-]

emperor000@reddit

What are you asking me to explain...? Examples of what I meant? Nearly every issue from the Democrats. That is their default mode.

Wokeness/cancel culture stuff. Don't think a certain way then you're a racist/fascist/Nazi/misogynist/rapist/psychopath/murderer/whatever and shouldn't be able to express your opinion and/or should be in jail or dead.
Have a problem with illegal immigration? Pretty much the same as above.
The courts make a decision they don't like then the above applies and Democrats threaten to pack the courts and/or impose term limits to get the decisions they want.
Pass legislation they don't like then they are probably one or more of the above and Democrats threaten to pack the courts to overturn that legislation.
Reverse Roe v. Wade and you are trying to create the world of The Handmaid's Tale and submit women to sexual slavery and turn them into birthing factories.
Reverse Roe v. Wade and they will take away your guns. Democrats have outright said this after the Dobbs decision, if you take our abortion then we'll take your guns. Oh, and if you go on vacation with your buddy and he pays for it then we'll investigate you for being bribed into making a decision that you would have made anyway because it aligns with your opinions anyway, if it isn't just the objectively correct opinion.
Support Israel or are maybe just objective, like pointing out that Hamas went overboard last October? You support terrorists and genocide and are a Nazi, but, like, the kind that likes Jews or something.
The courts decide their gun control is unconstitutional then they'll just make more even more and double down.
Gun control in general. Own a gun or the wrong gun? You're a criminal or a murderer and we'll send police after you.
Don't like gun control? You condone children being murdered in schools.
Think schools should be hardened? You want teachers to murder their students - that's what would happen if teachers had guns, you know.
Red flag laws. Hey, let's make laws where if people don't behave how we like then we can just red flag them and ruin their lives.
Don't like something the government did then they'll threaten to use nuclear weapons, F-15s and Hellfire missiles. Biden actually threatened the first two and a Democrat from Texas threatened the second. Plenty of others elsewhere have expressed similar sentiments.
Do something they don't like then they'll peacefully protest by burning down cities and vandalizing and looting buildings and businesses.
Shoot 3 people in self defense who are trying to kill you and you are a murderer and will be maliciously prosecuted.
Say something on reddit they don't like and get blocked, reported and banned.

I could go on. That is just how they operate. For a while now it has been one giant tantrum from not getting what they want. Their general approach is to make somebody pay if they don't get what they want.

You can say a lot of room to criticize Republicans, but they at least don't operate that way. The only/closest example of something like that that I can think of is the January 6th riots and that was because they thought the election had been stolen, not exactly the same as the Democrat's approach to everything of "Yes, what you did was perfectly legal or reasonable, but we don't like it so you are going to pay the price anyway."

More simply, the Democrats are the party that often employs the idea of "wrongthink". The Republicans will certainly disagree with their opponents, but usually not in a "your beliefs don't match mine, so you need to change yours or else" way. Usually the worst they'll do is call you a Communist or a socialist and that's still just disagreement. They don't care that you believe what you believe, they just don't want to implement your beliefs.

[-]

Correct-Sail-9642@reddit

Tbf, while I prefer sentencing to be fair especially since so many people get railroaded by police, I also want to be sure justice is being served and actual threats to the public are put away when they deserve it. In my state we have people burglarizing homes and getting caught on camera then arrested with the items and having the charges dropped down to things like receiving stolen property and being released the next morning with no bail, then sentenced to no more then probation with ankle monitor. Which of course means they are free to continue committing crimes on the streets because nobody enforces probation here anymore. Or child molesters being given 6 month sentences then let to live amongst us to repeat their offenses. Or making it legal for homeless drug addicts to set up camp in people's front yards in the city, as they inject with needles and defecate on their front porch and rob passers by forcing homeowners to take matters into their own hands which often results in arrests if the homeowner not the criminals selling drugs & shitting in their front porch. Or making sanctuary laws that prohibit police from even asking for ID or info during a stop when it is suspected they might be an illegal immigrant. Along with not allowing to hold them in jail more then overnight for ANY crime snd releasing them without bail of any kind, for ANY crime, leading to a literal free for all situation with illegal aliens in our state. While at the same time actively disarming the law abiding public so that they have no means to defend themselves from lawless scumbags that law enforcement has no interests in policing. Those are just one tiny example of the sort of nonsense democrat policies have forced on the public that make you shake your head like wtf is wrong with politicians these days. So I can see where this comment comes from honestly, this attitude isn't hard to develop when exposed the effects of dem policies in some places.

Certainly you would be a bit miffed if this was a common occurrence in your community & your safety was being ignored in favor of allowing crime to run rampant all around. Or perhaps you find it fascist for the government to ignore the safety of law abiding citizens who own property and businesses in favor of letting illegal aliens and drug addled squatters to do as they please, then punish the good people when they push back against the madness. With our politicians branding them heartless & immoral, and a threat to the public themselves simply for carrying a firearm to defend themselves from criminals & aliens they are forced to harbor in their neighborhoods and on their properties. By your logic that seems a bit fascist, and actually happening not just implied

[-]

abetterthief@reddit

So you have no real input on what I said, just that you think packing our over crowded prisons with even more people is the only way to go.

You have to take a step back and understand that fascism isn't they way to fix all our problems. Acting like the only way to fix everything is to all get behind one political party who apparently has a magic wand is NOT how our country was founded.

I'm sorry there is illegal immigration, and crime, and injustice. But putting undue faith in any one person or political party is only going to lean to further injustice, lies, rights being violated or even taken away. If there was an answer to make it all better then it would be the only answer and every country would be doing it.

So to reiterate and get back on topic: Government officials stating they will not serve someone who isn't from their political party is fascist. They should be fired.

They were hired to serve THE PEOPLE.. We can argue what serve means for sure, but the definition SERVE THE PEOPLE cannot be argued

[-]

Correct-Sail-9642@reddit

Well for starters I dont think putting more people in prison is the answer, not every crime deserves that kind of time. But letting criminals who break into your home and rob you blind, then get caught with stolen guns, drugs, and burglary tools for the THIRD+ simply walk free the very next morning without bail then receive no time at all just to sit on ankle monitor which is only enforced if they remove the device and even then no real repercussions. So they continue to burglarize the community over and over knowing they arent going to serve more then a night in jail.

Well that's not a logical way to deal with criminals like that. And not all are a product of their environment, some just really don't give a fuck about laws or society as a whole, and never face real consequences for their crimes. The current practice of catch & release slap on the wrist and off you go is only emboldening criminals at this point. How do I know this? Because I have alot of first hand experience with lowlifes, scumbags, and criminal activity. They will say it themselves, "I aint doin no time". o

And I'm not putting faith in ANY political party, red or blue. So save that bullshit for someone else. But I recognize when democrat policies have resulted in a free for all for criminal behavior knowing they are barely even getting a slap on the wrist. Also knowing liberal prosecutors are more concerned with lessening sentences & rushing cases to save money then they are concerned with delivering justice to the good people criminals harm & take from on a daily basis.

Lastly you are under the impression that police were hired to serve the people. That is not the case unfortunately. They may make such claims or you may believe it even. But they are not hired to serve the people you are thinking. They exist to enforce the law, and those laws while some are intended to protect the good people, most are in place to protect the interests of the government down the lowest levels.

If our police were hired to serve the people then they would be making more arrests, going after the real criminals, and making more of an effort not to fuck up innocent peoples lives daily simply to make their jobs easier or for career points. If police were intended to serve the people they would do more HELPING them then aggressively intimidating them in a majority of encounters.

While this pig is a fool for saying some shit like this, its not going to materialize in reality the way the dept actually polices. Just because some pig says something stupid doesn't mean its gonna happen. Ive seen, heard, and experienced far more fascist actions by law enforcement then this little tidbit that are seen as legal or necessary by the public regardless of party affiliations.

One can point out that there are reasons that would lead to somebody thinking like he does, and attributing it to one parties policies, without supporting the opposing party in any way. You do realize its okay to be critical of something without believing or supporting the opposite right?

[-]

emperor000@reddit

For somebody to exercise freedom of speech, even a law enforcement officer? Yes.

But also, that isn't what I said, at all. My point is that this is an obvious gaslighting/concern trolling attempt, mixed with some "copium" regarding their political party of choice.

Checkout OP's posting history... Do you see any other posts showing any level of concern for the ability to defend ourselves being infringed upon? They seem more concerned with getting their foreskin back. There are a few firearm related posts/comments. But the one showing concern for the right to self defense is one about a Lt. Sheriff running his mouth and now, you know, the massive campaign by an entire political party and its constituents to infringe on that right, which happens to be the same one the Lt. Sheriff was referring to.

[-]

KilljoyTheTrucker@reddit

I mean, it's already not his job to help you.

He didn't really say anything that wasn't already the standard.

[-]

abetterthief@reddit

Seems to me that he's saying he'd help Republicans. Why is this ok?

[-]

Chris_M_23@reddit

2 things can be true at the same time. This sheriff is out of line and should be called out for what he said. Harris is anti gun. The two are not mutually exclusive

[-]

emperor000@reddit

Nobody said they were mutually exclusive. My point is that this is being used to gaslight or, at best, concern troll. This was obviously posted to minimize the threat Harris poses.

[-]

Chris_M_23@reddit

Or, and this might be a hot take here, it was just posted to relay what this sheriff said and reinforce why we have the 2nd amendment. This is a gun sub after all…

Where in this post is Harris mentioned?

[-]

emperor000@reddit

Harris was the Democratic party candidate... She represents what, if she isn't the specific person, that this Lt. Sheriff was talking about.

Look at OPs posting history...

They posted this here to astroturf and gaslight gun owners about "non-Democrats" to focus on people like Republicans as the "true threat" and minimize the threat Democrats represent. And they aren't the only ones ding that in the firearm subreddits. There has been a pretty obvious coordinated propaganda campaign going on in here to correspond to the Harris/Walz campaign's own gaslighting about how they are gun owners, true gun owners, that know the 2nd Amendment better than Republicans and MAGAs and that sometimes to protect something we have to destroy it so that we can still have the right to non-subsistence hunt pheasants with shotguns that cost more than most people would ever be able to afford. But that's not the problem. The problem is some Lt. Sheriff running his mouth on X/Twitter or whatever it was... yeah.

[-]

Chris_M_23@reddit

Simple question: Was what the sheriff said acceptable? No, and it highlights a glaring need for the 2nd amendment. Hence why it was posted here.

The only people making it about Harris/Walz are the comments. They aren’t mentioned once in the article or the title.

[-]

emperor000@reddit

Asking a question like that and then answering it definitively seems right on brand...

Yes, it was acceptable. There's a thing called freedom of speech. There's a thing called the 1st Amendment.

Or maybe we have different opinions on what "acceptable" means. What does it mean for you? If we don't "accept" what this person said then how do we enforce that?

The only people making it about Harris/Walz are the comments. They aren’t mentioned once in the article or the title.

The title literally mentions the "Democratic Party" which are/were represented by Harris/Walz... I'm not sure what you are missing here.

[-]

FIBSAFactor@reddit

I'm very critical of law enforcement in general but this is based.

Democrats want us weak and stripped of our ability to protect ourselves, so why should anyone protect them? Let them call a social worker.

[-]

avowed@reddit

You're what's wrong with this country nowadays. You're disgustingly anti American.

[-]

FIBSAFactor@reddit

Lol buddy that's one of my softer views on gun controllers.

If I had my way anyone harboring views contrary to the second amendment or any part of the Constitution, would be rounded up and thrown out of the country. And I'm not exaggerating I'm completely serious. I really hope that happens one day.

[-]

TheMartialCinephile@reddit

Way to violate the 1st and 4th amendments buddy. Real good look.

[-]

United-Advertising67@reddit

Fuck you, half your party supported putting me in camps.

[-]

dirtysock47@reddit

If your party stopped caring about violent criminals more than victims of those violent criminals, then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Pointing that out doesn't make me anti-American

[-]

Catch84A@reddit

Cops don’t protect people. They kill us. Guns save us. I’m 100% voting for Harris.

[-]

Correct-Sail-9642@reddit

Yeah if you feel guns save us then why on earth would you vote for an anti gun candidate who promises to enact an assault weapons ban and red flag laws on a federal level. Which means your guns are taken without due process involving you the one losing your property and rights. It is abused regularly by pissed off family members and ex lovers. Not to mention banning magazines over 10 rounds. If you feel guns are useful for saving your life why would you want a president who limits how many bullets your gun can hold and making it a felony to possess a semiauto mag fed rifle? That makes no sense buddy. Apparently you feel she is pro 2A somehow or what?

[-]

Chubaichaser@reddit

Not OP, but I see it this way. I'd rather fight a temporary Harris administration in the courts over my second amendment rights than Trump's cops, proud boys, and Brown Shirts in the streets over the rest of my civil rights.

[-]

Correct-Sail-9642@reddit

How are those loser proud boys going to take the rest of your civil rights? They have no authority whatsoever.

They are nobodies, just clowns pretending they have some hand in politics. If it weren't for the media covering their antics hardly anybody would know they "have plans".

What civil rights did you lose during Trumps first term? Do you not realize the police will overstep their authority & fuck you over regardless of who is president? The president doesn't run police depts, he doesn't write their policies or give their orders. And do you realize that democrat administrations regularly expand federal agencies allowing them more and more control over regular citizens? They love letting fed agencies overstep the law to fuck your civil rights. Republicans generally go for LESS federal control, they limit what the fed is capable of.

Not sure how you think some "brown shirts" are going to hit the streets & take your civil rights away by force.

The ones taking our rights away through the feds currently are the ones in office nowadays, and they do it through their overbudgeted overzealous federal agencies bypassing congress, ignoring checks n balances to enforce laws no congress voted on.

Btw the rights you will likely lose during a Harris presidency are not a temporary thing. May never get them back. The damage done may take decades to reverse if at all.

There are no boogeymen brownshirts coming to get you and take away your civil rights. This isn't Hitlers Germany whether you hear that or say it enough times. Its not reality.

Just cuz some nuts who think they have some clout say something doesn't mean it's gonna happen. You must have quite the imagination I'll give you that

[-]

Chubaichaser@reddit

The proud boys have been showing up at multitudes of events as counter-demonstrators for years. Pride events, cultural celebrations, etc with the expressed purpose to cause violence and to squelch the free speech and expression of their fellow citizens. What do you think they were planning to do on January 6th 2021? Just take a quiet tour of the Capitol?

My partner lost her ability to make her own healthcare choices. And before you say it's now in the hands of our state, realize that despite Ohio voting to enshrine healthcare access for women, our gerrymandered rat-fucks in our state legislature have been refusing to implement those protections.

Trump has said that he wants to undo Obergefell v. Hodges - which said I have the right to marry as I see fit. Trump said that the DOJ should enforce civil rights laws only in the courts, eliminating important administrative tools to address discrimination (e.g., resolution agreements and consent decrees). This would also eliminate the use of “disparate impact” in civil rights enforcement, making a lot of discrimination invisible through redeﬁnition - so we are back to before the 1963 Civil rights act - all through executive order. Hard pass on all that.

The federal administration absolutely has leverage over your local police and their policies - their pocketbooks. Federal funding for police is the carrot, and DOJ lawyers are the stick. Keep in mind that state police and city cops are beholden to the governors and mayors - all of whom can be influenced by phone calls, gifts, promises of positions/pardons from the POTUS. Also, the Feds are cops. Remember when Trump remember when Trump ordered the US Park police to clear a peaceful demonstration out of Lafayette Park in DC so he could stand in front of St John's church holding a bible upside down? You don't think he'd do more of that?

Hard agree on the federal agencies and their bullshit - but the RNC gutting the EPA, FDA, or department of Agriculture (which is a part of their plan for 2025, go read it) doesn't benefit Americans in any way - just the shareholders in large corporations. But fuck our clean water, air, and the farmers who grow our food and make us food secure as a nation. I've spent too much time in a combine and pulling tears to have them kill future farm bills and remove our ability to have crop insurance.

So yeah, I'd rather fight the temporary Harris administration over my gun rights in the courts than a Trump administration over everything else.

[-]

Gooble211@reddit

How would voting for Harris help?

[-]

Ineeboopiks@reddit

Don't worry all they every help is their pension.

[-]

hobozombie@reddit

I still maintain the easiest way to have police reform in this country is for settlements/judgments against peace officers to come out of the department's pension fund rather than the local government, i.e. taxpayers. It would give everyone skin in the game to weed out the allegedly small amount of "bad apples" that abuse the public.

[-]

TheHancock@reddit

They should have to have malpractice insurance like doctors. That money should come out of pensions. If a cop gets too many infractions, their insurance rates go up, and suddenly no department will hire them.

[-]

OneArmMany@reddit

I dated an APRN nurse practitioner she paid extra, for more liability insurance than her hospital provided. Because you know things happen, and she did not want to lose everything she has worked for.
On a different note my multi car/ home insurance goes up every six months but my vehicle is worth less, and I have never filed a claim.

[-]

Correct-Sail-9642@reddit

Friend, you need to work with an agent/broker to find you new options for coverage. I know homeowners these days increases dramatically when years ago it often stayed the same for decades once you obtain a plan. And car insurance of course goes up a little bit over time but nothing too out of hand really, just cost of doing business and paying for all the other peoples claims, which is bullshit but the numbers for auto increases arent really something to fight about seeing as groceries more then doubled in 3 years so whats $6-$20 every so often right. But unless you live in an area that insurers are hell bent on fucking everybody into homelessness because they are greedy cunts like say in California rural areas where wildfires have created the most profitable racket other then income tax in this country, then perhaps an agent can find you a new insurer that isnt so regular about their premium increases. I payed $8,300 for homeowners this year alone on a 1,000sqft home when it used to cost me less then $100/mo for even better coverage just 6yrs ago. Now THAT I consider to be complete and utter bullshit and an obvious extreme increase, but I can do nothing other then move to the city or better leave the state. But my dad for example who lives in the city his home ins on TWO homes much larger and more expensive then mine while sitting in a flood zone, haven't gone up a dime in almost 40yrs. His monthly premium on both combined with mortgage adds up to less then I pay for my tiny 2bdrm cheapo. So unless you're in some fucked up situation with no other options like me, then maybe an agent can find you a carrier that doesn't do increases so often. Or if its not considerably a big deal in rate change then probably not worth it. Sry for the novel just saying how helpful brokers can be if you arent happy with your current insurance rates.

[-]

OneArmMany@reddit

You are completely correct I have been with State Farm since 1992, there is no doubt I need an agent working on my behalf.

[-]

Armed_Pork_Sample@reddit

You pass a law tomorrow that says lawsuits come out of Pensions instead of local coffers and police misconduct goes down 90% the next day.

[-]

SlashEssImplied@reddit

You also open up every single pension in the US to be seized by the government. And police will still be exempted.

Make them carry insurance, put them in prison when they break laws.

[-]

1rubyglass@reddit

Yes, but also train them better and pay them more.

[-]

SlashEssImplied@reddit

Couple hundred thousand a year not enough?

[-]

1rubyglass@reddit

The median pay of a police officer in 2024 is about 64,700.

[-]

SlashEssImplied@reddit

Oh simple little bootlicker, look at take home pay and not salaries. And if you want to be honest add in what they steal.

[-]

iroll20s@reddit

Or just make them carry malpractice insurance like doctors. The rates would keep them in check. Nobody will insure you? Desk job at best.

[-]

yoyoloo2@reddit

The problem with that is if you file any lawsuit against a police officer you will have entire weight of an insurance companies legal team coming down on you instead of just dealing with the cities attorney.

Also I don't think insurance companies have the best reputation for doing what is fair and right to correct a situation. They just focus on not making payouts to protect their investment.

[-]

iroll20s@reddit

I think you're looking it at it the wrong way. People who have claims, denied or not will be deemed at risk. Risk means higher premiums or policy cancellation. The point is to get police who are risky out of the game.

Also insurance companies are all about profit. They're likely to settle often. Not because its right, but its cheaper than fighting and risking a huge award.

In any case, the end game isn't fair payouts for police brutality. Its for that not to happen in the first place. Its not perfect, but I think a fairer question would be, do we want insurance companies deciding who can be a cop? Be easy enough for them to influence the police in other areas. Whomever has power to regulate police has a great deal of power too.

[-]

Correct-Sail-9642@reddit

I'm seeing some pretty smart people in this thread. Most folks cant really articulate what the reality could be with certain ideas. They generally stop getting in depth once they reach the "thats a good idea" point in their mind. The big picture is something few really have the ability to consider. Please put your mind to good use on other things that matter for society as well, we need more rational thinkers. Some like to think progressive ideology is what is good for the health of our nation. While it sounds like that is the answer to todays problems, I think it currently lacks much reasonable forethought. That is why we encounter alot of feel good policy that sounds like a positive thing on paper, but the outcome is anything but.

[-]

yoyoloo2@reddit

I understand the logic and the logic is sound, but you always have to consider second and third order effects. What you intend doesn't always happen, look at the cobra effect.

Lets say for example you are walking down the street, an officer just says you match a description of a suspect and demands your ID. You refuse so he punches you in the face, tackles you to the ground and arrests you, all while it turns out you are not the suspect. You get a lawyer and sue the department for false arrest and excessive use of force.

During a deposition of the officer before court it is your lawyer, the officer, and the city attorney in a room.

Once you make officers carry their own insurance all of the sudden it is your lawyer, the officer, the city attorney and five $100 an hour lawyers the insurance company sent.

In America, usually, the loser of a court case has to pay the legal fees for the winner. Many cities have been burned by this where they end up spending $500k in legal fees to avoid paying out $10k, which is why they now quickly try to settle to avoid that. Now when your lawyer talks to you he tells you that "I think if we go to court we have a CHANCE at getting you a $100k settlement, but the jury might award you as little as $5k. Also if we don't win the officers insurance company has already racked up $600k in legal fees you would be on the hook for if we do lose. They are offering you a settlement of $10k. What do you want to do".

That creates a perverse incentive where insurance companies will low ball every victim of a crime committed by an officer and not give them fair restitution for the pain and suffering the officer has caused.

In any case, the end game isn't fair payouts for police brutality

I feel this is a terrible outlook to have. While you are right in that the outcome should be getting bad officers off the streets, the victims of those officers should always be fairly compensated for the pain and suffering that is caused to them. There have been plenty of people that have suffered permanent physical injury due to the abuse received from police and saying to them "here is $10k (which your lawyer takes half) for the permanent nerve damage you suffered, but it's ok because now that officer will never police again so we are better off overall" is not the right way to look at it in my opinion.

Fairly compensating people and getting bad police should be done simultaneously, not one or the other. If we don't do both then we will have a legal system, not a justice system (although I personally feel we only have a legal system at the moment).

[-]

iroll20s@reddit

I understand that perspective, but lets not get perfect be the enemy of good. The expense of the legal system is always a deterrent in the US. You can always add laws about who pays lawyer fees at the same time to make sure it doesn't have a chilling effect on suits. I'm open to suggestions. Officers and departments need some skin in the game to make solid choices.

[-]

TheHancock@reddit

Lol I JUST typed that.

[-]

Armed_Pork_Sample@reddit

Unless the premium is dictated at a department level, that won't create incentive to police up the "few bad apples".

[-]

iroll20s@reddit

I'd imagine that your department and precinct would impact rates just like location does for auto insurance. In any case it would get bad apples out without departmental cooperation. It would also get payouts not to be the public responsibility. There would probably be a lot less challenges to it than going after the collective pensions.

[-]

Uncivil__Rest@reddit

You wouldn't have a single police office in the country.

[-]

Correct-Sail-9642@reddit

What triggers bot mods in this sub to send messages saying "ay life gets better mate. Please dont harm yourself" When no mention of harming oneself is made at all? like I get them often but I have never said anything remotely concerning regarding self harm. Like is this other users reporting my comments in some way or is it a bot picking up keywords that it takes out of context?

[-]

CosmicBoat@reddit

We gotta do something about Police unions and their pensions

[-]

SniperSRSRecon@reddit

unions in general. all they do is act as a bank for the dnc

[-]

avowed@reddit

Higher pay and better benefits for workers is terrible!!! Unions bad!!!! /S

[-]

SniperSRSRecon@reddit

except they dont provide any of that. the workers make enough money and already have good benefits, and then the union bitches and moans for more. its just take take take and never give.

[-]

FuckTheKing1776@reddit

You've obviously never met any union workers LMAO. There is a whole wide world out there just step away from your computer and go outside.

[-]

avowed@reddit

Source? I'd love to see some well sourced documents showing unions don't increase pay or benefits for their members.

[-]

OneArmMany@reddit

Not only do they increase wages and benefits for union workers, but it forces non union companies to follow suit to side step and avoid a unionized shop.

It’s well documented and proven by the American auto industry. Honda pays its workers an almost comparable hourly wage and benefits as the big three.
Unions are the future!

[-]

Blue_58_@reddit

It’s hilarious people here are “we’re being divided” and then in the same breath they say shit like this. Yeah, I wonder who’s trying to divide us.

[-]

Correct-Sail-9642@reddit

Maybe I'm missing something obvious to you by saying you wonder whos trying to divide us....Who are you implying is trying to divide us then?

[-]

SniperSRSRecon@reddit

my point is unions dont do anything to help employees. all they do, at least where i live is campaign for dnc people. they do nothing to help the community.

[-]

Brufar_308@reddit

I was shocked when the teamsters refused to endorse a candidate in his election. No clue when the last time that happened was.

[-]

Armed_Pork_Sample@reddit

Start taking lawsuits out on their pensions, instead of making tax payers front the bill. Clear that shit up real quick.

[-]

orangesheepdog@reddit

Fuck this. We're feeling the worst political tension in America since the Civil War and so many people just want to make it even worse.

[-]

RogueFiveSeven@reddit

Balkanization of America. Racial and cultural tribalism made us extremely fractured.

We were told diversity is our strength but it is instead showing that we are weaker overall due to lack of unity as everyone fights for their own tribal interests.

[-]

xosxos@reddit

I don’t think it’s so much that, as we have always been diverse and we used to celebrate that, like with Schoolhouse Rock’s “Great American Melting Pot” song that my generation and others grew up hearing. I think we have just been the victim of those TRYING to divide us, since it can then be used to generate profit for whatever their business may be. But make no mistake, AMERICANS united, even with opposing political or religious views, is what spurs change in this country for the better.

[-]

RogueFiveSeven@reddit

Diversity in America has been greatly over exaggerated due to modern bias to help newcomers feel welcomed. The reality is America has always been mostly Anglo-Euro culturally and politically until recent. Majority of our population has been from that stock for the majority of its history.

Also, please explain to me how diversity is a benefit. Throughout my life, I never had the thought I needed an Arab Muslim, Indian, or Venezuelan in order to live my life better. I would argue the opposite that diversity brings more opportunities to encourage social division which gives the government reason to limit freedoms.

The idea diversity makes us stronger also gives the impression countries like Japan or South Korea are inferior to us which is far from the truth.

[-]

ChaosRainbow23@reddit

I'm glad Applebee's isn't the only restaurant in my area.

I've got Thai, Indian, Mexican, Jamaican, etc etc etc.

Diversity is a good thing.

Bigoted assholes aren't.

[-]

RogueFiveSeven@reddit

Oh here we go, the food argument. So shallow.

You don’t need people from other countries to have those foods. Here in Arizona, all of our Greek and Chinese places are ran by Mexicans.

Thanks to modern internet, you can make those recipes as authentically as possible by researching online and trying it out yourself. Again, I don’t need someone from Yemen, Greece, Mongolia, or wherever in order to enjoy their food. When was the last time your Italian was made by an actual Italian?

And why are we always belittling someone’s culture to a dumb dish also? People are more than food.

[-]

RedactingTheFun@reddit

Who, specifically, is 'trying to divide us'? This clearly isn't the result of propoganda from a few or a few hundrered people, what you are seeing now is the natural logical conclusion of the "Great American Melting Pot" mentality over generations. You thought things were fine back when you grew up because you didn't notice that you and yours were the only ones with the 'melting pot' mentality. The vast majority of everyone else has always put their collective racial/religious interests first and foremost (yes, you had a friend or two who were Americans first and everything else second, they statistically did not and do not make a difference).

The ununited country we have now is just the result of those competing interests growing louder, larger, monied, and more powerful, because unfortunately, a few generations ago, nobody ever pushed back and it allowed them to grow every step of the way. More 'Schoolhouse Rock' isn't going to fix this, the genie isn't going back the bottle.

[-]

Correct-Sail-9642@reddit

The melting pot refers to people from other parts of the world all living within one border. Having differences in opinions between Americans is not the result of people from other countries living together but rather everybody having such different experiences in life, some sheltered in a bubble, others seeing the big picture and looking at things with a more reasonable and realistic pov, and people of all classes and demographics having equal freedom to raise their voice whether its from that sheltered bubble or from a more experienced understanding of the issues we face, whether ignorant af or completely logical, we all have an oppurtunity to be heard via social media & technology, sometimes amplified by the media industry itself. The melting pot is people of all nationalities or backgrounds being added together to make a unique & interesting stew of sorts, not what happens when the stew forms new opinions and all the ingredients choose sides on the matter. I'm hardly getting my point across I feel, its missing a certain ingredient that would make it palatable, resulting in the reader rejecting it before even tasting it. this is what happens when stew sits too long without heat, it can develop flavors that may please some and repulse otheres.

[-]

RogueFiveSeven@reddit

They don’t care for the truth, only what makes them feel good.

Diversity of cultures isn’t good. Diversity of races means nothing. Unity of culture is paramount to a thriving healthy society.

[-]

OneArmMany@reddit

In order to form a more perfect union.
Maybe that should be the new tattoo, instead of, We The People, with the torn flag background and always an eagle?

[-]

United-Advertising67@reddit

We are supposed to be fractured. States are supposed to be extremely different. The federal government is supposed to be minimal and exclusively limited to representing the states in our dealings with the outside world. We are not supposed to be a unified culture or a centralized government.

[-]

RogueFiveSeven@reddit

False equivalence fallacy. There is a massive difference between deliberate political structure ensuring checks and balances that help defend against an overbearing authoritarian federal government and social and ideological division that fosters distrust, animosity, and voluntary segregation among the people.

Throughout history, successful empires and nations understood the importance of assimilation and cohesion. The naive hippie kumbaya idea that everyone everywhere can get along and share a nation together is a fleeting fantasy. America needs a unified culture and identity in order to be successful. This isn’t to say you can’t have other people here. Just like how a body is able to resist small changes to its pH or homeostasis, we can also take in extremely different behaviors and identities without much hassle but too much will cause that homeostasis to shift out of balance into harmful extremes.

[-]

Correct-Sail-9642@reddit

I dont think the issue we have is from "taking in" different behaviors, but rather our own society willingly creating and growing them into movements they feel will benefit us all. When in reality they lack the foresight to understand the actual repercussions as a result of their "feel good" policies they dream up, only possible because they live in a damn bubble without having experienced what others have in their lives. They might feel the same way about those who oppose their ideology, sometimes its just as true. I feel so many people jump on ideologies too easily without really considering the reality for either end of the spectrum. Some seam like there could be no other right opinion, that how could it possibly be a bad thing. Or that their ideas outweigh the negatives, that they hold the moral high ground. We are hardly dealing with an alien or foreign pathogen, but perhaps more like an auto immune disease.

[-]

avowed@reddit

I don't think diversity is causing this, unchecked capitalism/chronyism and the Internet has caused it imo. People going to their echo chambers and shutting themselves off from the world has broken this country up far more than diversity.

[-]

RogueFiveSeven@reddit

No. It’s called human nature. Humans are tribal. Companies just learned to profit off of our innate psychology. Socialism/communism would do the same thing. Drama and division drives engagement which benefits them.

The fact remains, Americans aren’t united. We are told to love what divides us, not what unites us.

[-]

RickShepherd@reddit

Joke is on you friend. I assume no cop will help me irrespective of public statement.

[-]

ashy_larrys_elbow@reddit

I expect them to be an active hindrance and grave threat to my ability to help myself most of the time.

[-]

supersede@reddit

That’s it. We don’t outsource our security around here.

That’s for knaves.

[-]

dadbodsupreme@reddit

Damnit, I'm bringing back knave.

[-]

MachineryZer0@reddit

This. And it extends to any government entity, in my book.

[-]

Chris_M_23@reddit

Only thing that shocks me is that he said the quiet part out loud

[-]

United-Advertising67@reddit

“The problem is that I know which of you supports the Democratic Party, and I will not help you survive the end of days.”

Sooooo we are not currently at end of days and he's not doing his job any differently today than he did yesterday. Complete nothingburger reddit election season ragebait, got it.

[-]

GotMak@reddit

I'd like to know why a public servant, in his official capacity, is spewing out fundamentalist fantasies.

I no more want a fundie Christian in this kind of a role than I'd want a fundie of any other faith.

[-]

swampdecrial@reddit

I don't love this. I get what he's saying, but you gotta help people as a public servant. I hate the thought of someone getting ignored because of a sign in their yard or maybe a shirt they are wearing. It's just a bad look.

[-]

GotMak@reddit

It's more than a bad look - it's dereliction of duty.

[-]

r_obbie624@reddit

As a normal everyday citizen, I completely get where he’s coming from as his profession has been completely demonized by the left but…saying such things as an elected official on a personal or public social media probably isn’t the best idea.

[-]

GotMak@reddit

You're so right!

After all, abusing qualified immunity to do whatever they want should in no way be construed as brutality or abuse of power.

Not to mention the completely proper and not at all mob-like thin blue line that protects the "few bad apples" and resists any reform at every turn.

/s

If cops don't want to be hated and distrusted they should try acting in a way that engenders trust. They can start by ACTIVELY kicking out the scum among them instead of protecting them.

[-]

JackFuckCockBag@reddit

Cops help people somewhere? All they have ever done for me is cause problems where none existed before they showed up.

[-]

Correct-Sail-9642@reddit

I can say I agree, but thats just my experience. I know for a fact they have helped many people, it happens every day actually, without a doubt. BUT, in my case every time I have ever encountered or called the police when I really fucking needed help, they have time and time again done nothing but worsen the situation. Sometimes really going out of their way to not only make it worse, but intentionally fucking me over in serious and life changing ways for no reason other then to harm me or make their job easier, for career points, to further their agenda, to protect some interest of their own often criminal in nature, or simply for their own entertainment. Home invasion while I was sleeping, held hostage while they ransack my home and sexually assault some random boy they had in my garage and promise they will be back for the rest of what they couldn't fit in my families car they stole? And I recognize two of the suspects and happen to know where they live a mile away and confirmed through my connections that they are in fact at their house with our car and all of our possessions and guns getting ready to return? Why of course as any good detectives would do lets completely ignore anything the victim says and actually accuse the victim of inviting in the suspects and willingly sell all his families belongings to the suspects in exchange for money to buy drugs. Then right that up as what happened in the police report so that insurance wont cover anything. Hey might as well tell this poor scared kids parents that he sold all their shit so he could buy meth then refuse to even do a drive by at the suspects home a mile away where they were chillin doing drugs and enjoying all the nice shit they stole to sell. Yeah that happened to me at 17, and the shittiest part of it was that my parents fucking believed the cops too. I mean thats what the report said so why believe your son was held at gunpoint for 4hrs fearing for his life and would never sell out his own families property and heirlooms to buy drugs. Like my moms engagement ring and my great grandfathers war trophies and my dads car, all of our things. Yeah lets take these pos cops word for it and never look our son in the eye again or ever let it go, lets just let this tear our family apart and believe forever that our son is a scumbag drug addict that nobody can trust. Thats just one example of what happens when Ive called the police and was counting on them to do their job, but not even the worst tbh. Would be nice if I had ONE fucking example of an interaction with law enforcement that helped or was positive in any way, but I dont. they went out of their way to fuck me every fucking time and for no good fucking reason, like I had ever done anything to deserve it. I hadn't. I know thats not everyones experience, but its mine and thats the only one that matters from my pov

[-]

JackFuckCockBag@reddit

Holy shit dude, that's fucked. I hope things have gotten better for you.

[-]

RogueFiveSeven@reddit

I mean Democrats hate police officers and firearms overall so I can understand his sentiment.

[-]

Smokey_tha_bear9000@reddit

Weird. I’m a democrat and I love guns. Not everything is binary.

[-]

United-Advertising67@reddit

r/temporarygunowners

[-]

Smokey_tha_bear9000@reddit

Wow did you come up with that one on your own?

[-]

RogueFiveSeven@reddit

Well the vast majority of you hate guns and your president select has ensured over and over she will work to ban the vast majority of firearms available, de facto nullifying the second amendment’s intended purpose.

With how much Democrats love grassroots movements, I’m curious as to why not more of you band together to help stop extremist leftists from going against the constitution when they say they are pro constitution.

I would love for Democrats and Republicans to be on the range together but it’s very clear the only ones really pro gun are the Republicans currently with obvious exceptions to the rule.

[-]

Entropius@reddit

Democratic gun owner here.

I don't hate firearms.
Should FEMA stop helping red states after hurricanes when Republican politicians vote against funding FEMA?

[-]

RogueFiveSeven@reddit

How can I trust this statement when the vast majority of Democrats overwhelmingly hate the second amendment and want to ban everything short of stuff made specifically for hunting (and even then they still hate it)?
You cannot just say Republicans voted against FEMA support without detailing WHY they did. There were concerns the money that is taken from us via involuntary taxation is being used to help illegal migrants who shouldn’t even be in the country. Thats why they were against more funding because the details of the proposal did not add provisions to ensure a citizen’s tax money goes to citizens.

I hear from Democrats often how they say Republicans don’t understand nuances in politics but too often do I see them committing the same arrogance and ignorance they accuse Republicans of.

[-]

Entropius@reddit

How can I trust this statement […]

Are you implying I’m a liar about being a Democrat?Or are you implying I’m a liar about being a firearm owner? Or both?

when the vast majority of Democrats […]

I’m not obligated to confirm your biases. Liberal gun owners exist. It’s up to you to figure out how to cope with the fact that you can’t generalize as conveniently as you’d like.

BTW, IMO a more useful and constructive reaction would have been to embrace liberal gun owners as being a way to hopefully persuade our representatives to pump the brakes on proposed gun legislation. But instead of building a bridge with a potential ally, you chose to burn the bridge by questioning my honesty.

All so you could justify a cop not wanting to do their job?

I wanted to believe all Americans would disapprove of cops abandoning their responsibility based on the political party of the victim. How disappointing it is that we can’t all agree on that.

You cannot just say Republicans voted against FEMA support without detailing WHY they did. There were concerns the money that is taken from us via involuntary taxation is being used to help illegal migrants who shouldn’t even be in the country. […]

I can if the their purported reason isn’t justified by the facts. As best as I can tell, SSP was separate from the DRF. It’s like how if someone is “concerned” that vaccines cause autism, or the moon landing being faked, I don’t have to coddle unproven rumors, conspiracy theories, or falsehoods in general. Even if the politicians’ belief was sincere then it seems to just demonstrate the politician was incompetent at doing their homework about how the funding works. It’s their job to know what’s true and what’s not. If they can’t do that, that’s their own fault. I’m not going to make excuses for them that they don’t deserve.

Replying to the rumor that funding for FEMA disaster response had been "diverted to support international efforts or border related issues," the government agency said on its specially dedicated fact check page: "This is false. No money is being diverted from disaster response needs. FEMA's disaster response efforts and individual assistance is funded through the Disaster Relief Fund, which is a dedicated fund for disaster efforts. Disaster Relief Fund money has not been diverted to other, non-disaster related efforts." […] A Department for Homeland Security spokesperson told Newsweek: "These claims are completely false. […] "The Shelter and Services Program (SSP) is a completely separate, appropriated grant program that was authorized and funded by Congress and is not associated in any way with FEMA's disaster-related authorities or funding streams."

I hear from Democrats often how they say Republicans don’t understand nuances in politics […]

Please quote where I said such a thing.

I get to define my positions on issues, not you.

If you want to know someone’s position to attack it, it works better if you actually confirm what their position is beforehand rather than assuming. Maybe try asking first before attacking? Think of it as the rhetorical version of the firearm safety rule “Always Be Sure of Your Target […]”.

Anyway, given my aforementioned points I think I can reasonably argue the FEMA analogy is a fair one despite the objection.

But even if it weren’t, I can always opt for a simpler more direct analogy:

Are you comfortable with letting Democratic leaning cops ignore Republican victims of crimes?

[-]

United-Advertising67@reddit

r/temporarygunowners

[-]

Envictus_@reddit

I will protect even those I hate, so long as it is right.

The decline of the service mindset needs to be opposed just as much as anti-gun regulation. Chivalry is an often abused concept, but the ideal of strength in service of others has to be at the core of our mentality. We won’t win the legal battle if we lose the culture war.

[-]

Correct-Sail-9642@reddit

Yeah its a stupid way for him to be that way, but its not going to materialize in reality. For starters because he wasnt going to protect anybody in the first place, and second they have no way of knowing what party you voted for and integrating that into calls for service. the ideal of strength in service to others was never actually a part of policing, so wishing for that to have any effect on enforcement is simply a pipe dream. Yeah some cops help people because they feel this way, but its never been a real goal of police organizations as a whole, maybe in image, but not in reality

[-]

Armed_Pork_Sample@reddit

Remember, Warren v. District of Columbia; the police have absolutely zero duty to protect you.

[-]

TheMartialCinephile@reddit

Then what the hell is the point of police existing? Isn’t the whole damn point that they’re supposed to protect us? I just do not understand that.

[-]

2017hayden@reddit

The police exist to enforce the rule of the government whether that policy be official or unofficial.

[-]

SlashEssImplied@reddit

Isn’t the whole damn point that they’re supposed to protect us?

No. They are supposed to find people they can apply the exception in the 13th Amendment to.

[-]

TheMartialCinephile@reddit

Jeez. That’s fucked up.

[-]

SlashEssImplied@reddit

It's our heritage.

[-]

Launch_Zealot@reddit

You know how HR departments are really there to protect the company’s interests? Same idea.

[-]

Hostile_City@reddit

To protect the interests of the government and investigate crimes after they have already occurred.

[-]

TheHancock@reddit

Bingo. The more you look into it the crazier it all gets.

[-]

PIHWLOOC@reddit

They’re here to protect assets, not us.

[-]

Somterink@reddit

To keep the masses in fear while doing whatever the oligarchy wants.

[-]

joelfarris@reddit

Oh, come on, that can't possibly be the rea

Wait a sec.

[-]

jlm0013@reddit

No. It's to enforce the law. Not provide security.

[-]

SohndesRheins@reddit

Police exist to maintain public order. Police are exempt from a duty to protect because the state has a vested interest in preventing itself from being sued when the inevitable situation happens where cops can't protect someone. It is completely impossible for police to protect everyone at all times, but if police had a duty to protect then the state could and would be sued at every opportunity. I doubt you'll find a single country on Earth where you can sue the government when cops fail to keep you safe.

[-]

Lina_Inverse@reddit

A lot of people will cynically tell you it's to protect big corporations. Being honest, and without going full "defund the police", that's a large part of it intentionally or unintentionally.

The value of the police is as a deterrent. The idea being to impress upon potential criminals that they cannot escape justice should they commit a crime.

Theyre a flawed organization when it comes to that mission, but so is any institution made up of flawed men.

That's why I will tell people not to let them get away with calling our system of crime and punishment a justice system, but rather a legal system. Justice is the dressing they try to serve you over the shit salad of the practical reality of how the system actually works.

All that said, its continued existence, sadly, beats any alternative that's been tried.

[-]

Stein1071@reddit

I keep this saved...

Warren v. District of Columbia

DeShaney v. Winnebago County

Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales

Lozito v. New York City

[-]

70dd@reddit

I don’t know anything about this sheriff, but I can understand how the cops feel when they’re asked to protect people who have been advocating and voting for defunding the police.

[-]

Sodak01@reddit

Only the fringes advocate for that lunacy. That’s like saying all republicans support the Nazis, completely unfair generalization.

[-]

JBCTech7@reddit

if you're here on this forum, why would you support the US left?

[-]

Sodak01@reddit

I'm not a single issue voter. I love my guns and don't support an "assault rifle ban". Also you guys have been saying the dems will snatch our guns for years but 8 yrs of Obama and 4 yrs of Biden with zero restrictions added to firearms. Trump was actually the only one who banned something firearms related which was bump stocks, later overturned by the US supreme court.

[-]

JBCTech7@reddit

lol you want a supercut of them saying "We will take your guns"?

[-]

SlashEssImplied@reddit

but thinking the whole just skipping the entire primary election process is a-ok. Like how do you reconcile that?

That's their right. Is it ok to let people have their rights even if you don't like it?

[-]

JBCTech7@reddit

ffs i can't with people like you.

no...its not their 'right' to circumvent the election process.

So many americans rolling over and meekly allowing their whole nation to be dismantled piece by piece and have been so conditioned and so tribalized that they CHEER it as it happens. Its completely pathetic.

[-]

SlashEssImplied@reddit

ffs i can't with people like you.

Did you know Obamacare has mental healthcare too?

There is no law that says the dems need a primary to pick a candidate. Your tears are in vain. Learn about your country.

[-]

Sodak01@reddit

Wait shouldn't you be happy to have people on the other side supporting the same things you do when it comes to firearms? Do you agree with absolutely every single opinion the republicans have? If you do I really would encourage you to form your own opinions.

Let me ask you, did you know that Trump called for red flag laws and that he did in fact ban bump stocks?

[-]

JBCTech7@reddit

i'm not a republican and no i agree with very little that establishment partisans believe in.

i know that there is really no choice in this election, though.

[-]

Sodak01@reddit

When you break the law that what happens. You can call it weaponization. The way you speak its pretty obvious you're a closet republican. Can you answer my last question from my last message?

[-]

JBCTech7@reddit

a 'closet republican'?

Why now would you think I would care enough what you specifically would think about my political leaning to lie about it?

I'm a center right libertarian. Also known as a 90s democrat.

To answer your question - i don't give a shit what orangeman did or didn't do. I know that the cabal that runs the harris/biden admin want me disarmed. Even if orangeman was a turd sandwich, I'd vote against the harris/biden/obama admin.

[-]

SlashEssImplied@reddit

I'm a center right libertarian.

I'm shocked.

[-]

JBCTech7@reddit

then you're on the wrong sub d i p s h i t

[-]

SlashEssImplied@reddit

d i p s h i t

You're using cowards type :) I won.

[-]

Sodak01@reddit

I remember believing conspiracies when I was a kid too.

[-]

JBCTech7@reddit

mmhmm, that's what i thought.

[-]

SlashEssImplied@reddit

i'm not a republican

All your talking points are JBCTech7, including being a victim of everything.

You have a guy who has been relentlessly attacked by a weaponized justice system, which alone would make me want to vote for him

Totally not a republican thing to say.

[-]

thegrumpymechanic@reddit

later overturned by the US supreme court.

By judges appointed by him.. do we actually think hillarys' justices would have met the same conclusion??

[-]

70dd@reddit

In the wake of the 2020 protests against police brutality, several U.S. cities reallocated portions of their police budgets to fund social services and community programs. Notable examples include:

•   Minneapolis, Minnesota: The city council moved $1.1 million from the police department to the health department to fund “violence interrupters” who mediate conflicts.  
•   New York City, New York: Initially proposed a $1 billion cut from the NYPD’s $6 billion budget, redirecting funds to education and social services. However, the final approved cut was $317 million.  
•   Austin, Texas: Reduced its police budget by approximately one-third in fiscal year 2021. By fiscal year 2022, the city’s budget included a record $442 million for the police, with further increases in subsequent years.  
•   Portland, Oregon: Cut $15 million from its police budget in 2020. However, facing rising crime rates, the city later restored and increased police funding.  
•   Baltimore, Maryland: The city council voted to reallocate $22 million from the police department’s fiscal budget for 2021, which is typically over $500 million, redirecting the funds to social services.

The list is by no means complete, but I hope you get the gist of it.

[-]

Sodak01@reddit

I get what you’re saying but not one of these examples defunded the police. Not one blue city in the country defunded the police. I think a strong argument can be made that funding community programs could reduce crime by creating hope and opportunity in rough areas. As a liberal I find the notion of defunding the police silly. Also crime has gone down nationwide per our FBI crime statistics so hey maybe it’s working.

[-]

Airbjorn@reddit

“Not one blue city in the country defunded the police”?? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/07/us-cities-defund-police-transferring-money-community

[-]

Armed_Pork_Sample@reddit

Yes, God forbid we slash national defense scale police budgets for social services.

[-]

70dd@reddit

In 2020, San Francisco Supervisor Hillary Ronen advocated for defunding the police, expressing a desire to reduce the number of officers. However, in March 2023, she requested increased police presence in her district, the Mission District, citing concerns over public safety. WLOS

[-]

hidude398@reddit

We don’t need them. The one time in my life I called 911, after someone tried to pull me out of my car, “So what do you want us to do about it?”

I carry now. We really don’t need paper pushers who show up after they’re needed to take statements from anyone who survives.

[-]

Envictus_@reddit

I will protect even those I hate, so long as it is right.

[-]

Self-MadeRmry@reddit

As much as I disagree with someone or a political party, I would have never said this and I do not agree with it. Recently I was in a situation where half the neighborhood called the police on a dangerous individual who was assaulting people inside the community. It took OVER 2 hours for police to arrive, because “shift change.” That shift change could have caused people’s lives. Never rely on police to help.

[-]

TrashiTheIncontinent@reddit

Lozito v. NYC
Castle Rock v. Gonzales
MSD Students v. Broward
Warren v. DC

THE POLICE HAVE NO LEGAL OBLIGATION TO PROTECT YOU.

I don't know why so many gun owners lick the boot. The police ARE the people who will be sent to "come and take it"

[-]

Particular_Cost369@reddit

The W.A cops don't do shit anyhow , years ago I realized I was my own defender.

[-]

thenovicemechanic@reddit

Alright, I have to ask. A majority here hate law enforcement, which is understandable considering the times; particularly in regards to firearm ownership. My question is many here preach(rightfully so) self-defense and self-reliance in dangerous situations taking the "when seconds matter, police are minutes away" statement true to heart; so why are we clutching pearls over what a dumbass lieutenant of a sheriff's office, who probably hasn't worked the road in years, says over social media?

Y'all are out here looking outward like you are in r/politics complaining about idiot cops when you should be looking inward it how much you bank account is gonna hurt when prices for ammo surge in the next few months and panic buying leads to shortages again.

[-]

United-Advertising67@reddit

My question is many here preach(rightfully so) self-defense and self-reliance in dangerous situations taking the "when seconds matter, police are minutes away" statement true to heart; so why are we clutching pearls over what a dumbass lieutenant of a sheriff's office, who probably hasn't worked the road in years, says over social media?

Because the US election is two days away and you must consoom ragebait and gaslighting.

[-]

thenovicemechanic@reddit

At least there's someone with some sense

[-]

Armed_Pork_Sample@reddit

Because it's a striking reminder that ACAB who don't believe that "others" are entitled to their service. It's bad enough you got the courts saying cops don't have to give an ass scratch to help you, now you've got them saying the quiet part out loud.

[-]

thenovicemechanic@reddit

A part that you seemingly already knew, but yet here you are generalizing like everyone else. Nothing quiet here, law enforcement enforces the law; and it has been ruled by the Supreme Court that law enforcement doesn't have a legal obligation to protect. Nothing ulterior, just stupidity on social; likes what going on right now.

[-]

Armed_Pork_Sample@reddit

So because the SCOTUS said so it's okay for cops to proudly announce that they'll offer no protection or services to those they consider inferior? This is why people say ACAB, the entire system is fucking rotten and you're nothing more than a goon for corporate and government interests.

[-]

Blue_58_@reddit

The point is that that is stupid. It should be cops job to protect and serve the public. If it isn’t, then the way the system was designed is stupid and we should vote to rectify it. It’s really saying something that your response to a broken system is basically “so what?”.

[-]

toxic_adventure@reddit

I will not help you in end of days. Say the whole sentence for context.

[-]

United-Advertising67@reddit

I'm so fucking tired of these DNC media cheapfakes. Takes literally five seconds of looking up context to debunk every single time. It's at the point that I expect them to start splicing together individual words out of ten years worth of Trump speeches to make him say he hates puppies or something.

[-]

Probate_Judge@reddit

Allegedly on a sleeping med, presumably Ambien which is known to make people say crazy shit.

That aside:

In principle, we often have this moral quandary over rights, and I think this accidentally approaches an idea that I've had floating around:

The reciprocity concept presented with examples first:

If you advocate for, say, the end to freedom of speech, your freedom of speech should not be protected.

If you advocate for the ending of self-defense, you should not be protected by the concept.

People often 'otherize' in their hypotheticals. For example: "No one should have guns" puts the onus on everyone else because that person often doesn't utilize that right. They're turning "I don't want them available for me" and extend that desire onto others.

If we made it more pertinent to the individual, more tangible, I think we might see a reduction in calls to end rights.

I'm not saying we implement this as-is, it is far far too crude for that, just describing a possible approach to the philosophy. If we could instill that into the culture itself, it may curtail a lot of the demands of micromanaging others.

/shrug

Not that we could do that, as-is we're already failing at teaching basic concepts in civics in a way that sticks with people.

[-]

Chris_M_23@reddit

If he is on Ambien and prone to saying/doing completely out of line crap like this and having no recollection of such after the fact, he shouldn’t be in a position of authority.

[-]

Probate_Judge@reddit

Absolutely.

[-]

Hellhound5996@reddit

Adding the religious overtones doesn't make him look better, it just makes Christians look worse.

[-]

Smokey_tha_bear9000@reddit

Christians in government are half the problem

[-]

toxic_adventure@reddit

It adds context. People get use to reading half truths. Also I have need for ya. Shtf end days scenario I'm not helping anyone either.

[-]

MedievalFightClub@reddit

I feel like I can no longer be surprised by the nonsense I see in the world. The very existence of r/nottheonion is a commentary on how ridiculous things have become.

[-]

United-Advertising67@reddit

You mean that incredibly shitty DNC run propaganda sub? Let's take a look at the current top posts:

-Man bad

-Men bad

-police bad

-Canadian conservative bad

-police bad

-corporation bad

-don't need guns for self defense

-SCOTUS bad

-Florida bad

-Police bad for bulling homeless

-War bad

-Canadian conservatives bad for killing environment

-Conservative poll watcher bad

[-]

groshreez@reddit

Which party is the "Democratic" party?

Whenever someone says "Democratic Party," it shows how intelligent they are.

[-]

RaptorCelll@reddit

Remember, the police do not give a fuck about you and are under no obligation to defend you. The sole purpose of their existence is to enforce laws, if enforcing the law just so happens to mean they protect you too it was a happy accident.

and you know, it feels obligatory to point out that people are already at each other's throats. Shitheads like this are tearing this damn country apart. Washington was right.

[-]

10gaugetantrum@reddit

Remember, law enforcement officers are not your friends. They are so corrupt they will invade your home for a warrant to collect a squirrel. But they are just obeying orders. The Nazis were also just obeying orders.

[-]

OneArmMany@reddit

Well?

[-]

infinity874@reddit

I like that guy

[-]

RemoteCompetitive688@reddit

If someone asks for ketchup 100 times and you give them ketchup I hardly see the problem

If someone says "I'm allergic to ketchup please don't give it to" then don't

[-]

HemHaw@reddit

What

[-]

JaunJaun@reddit

I think he was trying to imply that the dems don’t like the police so they shouldn’t need help?

But with that phrasing, dudes probably a child.

[-]

SlashEssImplied@reddit

But dems love the police, it's the only profession whose job it is to take guns. Though I think Bush was the last president who sent them out to do it. Trump said he would but didn't actually do it.

[-]

JaunJaun@reddit

Yeah I wasn’t saying what he said was true, I was only attempting to translate because his own comment was worded horribly.

[-]

RemoteCompetitive688@reddit

Why would law enforcement not respect what the defend the police crowd have asked for?

[-]

TheMartialCinephile@reddit

That’s really interesting, but would you rather have infinite bacon but no games, or infinite games but no games?

[-]

IamMrT@reddit

Good. Fuck ‘em.

[-]

PuzzleheadedAd6401@reddit

When I worked for the police dept, I would help anyone regardless of political belief. I didnt have time to ask or the need to ask.

[-]

Pyrokitsune@reddit

Sheriffs are elected individuals. If the county doesn't agree with his statements they can vote him out. Frankly, since SCotUS says law enforcement has no duty to protect then it really doesn't matter. They can decide who and what to protect under that ruling and there's almost nothing that can be done. Thankfully at least this is a sheriff and there is a direct way for voters to replace them unlike most other law enforcement.

[-]

🫢