“Different level of potential to kill” is what “more effective” means in the context of weapons.
Your point being what? Since when are bricks considered lethal weapons the way firearms can be? That photo from The Atlantic doesn’t show some loony getting ready to launch a brick from that bridge!
You would be wrong in your reading.
My point being that if you support taking on the protestors with a violent response, you must support, in hindsight, the response to the Kent state protestors who actually USED deadly force against US agents.
Try “conservative white male thief who denies the federal government’s very existence, much less its power to enforce federal laws and federal court orders.” You are correct: I don’t have much empathy for criminals who continue to thumb their noses at the rest of society.
Ranchers operate legitimate businesses within the framework of society. Bundy doesn’t.
Please. Now you’re posting as if you’re wearing a tin foil hat. While there certainly have been cases in this country of people being brutalized by police, I hardly think that it is an everyday occurrence for the vast majority of the population nor that it is something that is ordered from on high at the federal level. When the 2nd Amendment was written it was to help protect the citizens from incursions by British military. Only weirdos in the last few decades have taken it to mean anything about being abused by members of THIS government.
Great. With your support, the government should use force on Occupy Wall Street the next time they decide to illegally occupy a park (a public good)?
Sure. There is also a history of the police abusing this power to suppress people’s civil rights.
And good ole Cowboy Bundy, who climbed up onto the cross, instead of simply keeping his ranch up to code from the beginning.
Now I can accuse YOU of misreading things. First of all, nobody in their right mind (myself included) supports protesters becoming violent in any way, shape, or form. Furthermore, I have NEVER posted anything about supporting an assault on the gun-totin’ rednecks in Nevada. As far as I can tell neither has anybody else within this thread. All we’ve been saying is that those people escalated things when they brought their firearms to the confrontation. More importantly they are supporting a LAWBREAKER and they have little, if any, justification for doing so. If you think you can sit in front of whatever computer screen you’ve situated yourself in front of and tell people like me that I “support the response to the Kent State protestors” then I can certainly accuse YOU (and rightfully so, I might add) of supporting the gun-totin’ rednecks in Nevada who are unjustifiably coming to the “aid” of a LAWBREAKER and escalating matters with federal agents at the same time.
Yeah, except the feds didn’t use any force in this case (or had you not heard?). They BACKED DOWN (at least for now). Talk about making this into something that it isn’t!
If a federal court orders a park cleared, and the protestors don’t move, yes, I would support **reasonable ** and proportionate force.
However, I don’t remember OWS supporters denying the existence of the federal government, nor do I remember OWS supporters aiming rifles at park police or others enforcing court orders. Do you?
But it’s not an everyday thing. And it is RARELY something that is ordered at the federal level in this country. Stating otherwise is simply stating falsehoods.
I have NO idea what you’re getting at with this. Somehow I’m not surprised.
And once again, that’s what the courts are for.
Some Occupy protesters actually assaulted police, a step beyond threatening them.
I agree, the alternative is worse than our imperfect system.
Ask a law enforcement officer if she would rather handle a person taking a swing at them or a person drawing a bead on them, o.k.?
Her emotions do not determine what crime has been committed, what I meant was that threatening someone with a gun or brick is a different crime than assaulting someone with a gun or brick.
On the other hand, then, the possibility of mutually assured destruction can just mean attempts at destruction occur anyway?
The interesting part as it applies to Heinlein’s maxim would seem to be that, in that case, one side was not well-armed. I suppose the Occupy protestors would’ve been more polite had they been carrying more effective weapons… though that seems the wrong way round, really.
I already stated that was the correct decision in this case.
Reasonable and proportionate response to a guy taking a swing at a cop is, to me, quite a bit different than reasonable and proportionate response to a whole armed crowd, at least some of whom are aiming firearms directly at the government agents.
Zucotti Park, you will recall, was cleared by NYPD; although a number of protesters were arrested, nobody was even badly injured, much less killed. Compare and contrast with what you believe would have happened had BLM not backed down in Nevada.