View Single Post
Old June 1, 2009, 11:31 AM   #57
bigger hammer
Member
 
Join Date: June 1, 1999
Posts: 75
Earlier OuTcAsT wrote,
Quote:
Respectfully Sir, You once again attempt to credit me with statements that I have not made, I do not intend to be baited into a genital waving contest over a topic that has been all but declared "verboten" and not under discussion here. Again, please point to any mention of "militarization" by me, in this thread or kindly refrain from dragging me into the folds of your wadded panties.
And I responded
Quote:
This is the same discussion wearing a different hat. It's obviously not necessary that you use the phrase "militarization of the police" for it to be the topic of discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OuTcAsT
No it is not
I think it is. It's basically an anti–police argument. Here are some such comments; IN THE ORIGINAL POST Dust Monkey wrote "This just might be the first of many such cities just saying no." [to the militarization of police]. Despite the disclaimer SteelJM1 wrote, "Not bashing on the street cops, but they have a hard enough qualifying with their pistols…" In what seems to be a common misconception about the facts you wrote, "But, I cannot see the need to issue M-16s to street cops. FA fire should not be that "necessary" for peace officers." The facts are clear, these M-16's have been modified to fire only semi–auto.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OuTcAsT
you have for the second time characterized statements I have made, and attempted to place your own generalizations on them, and both times you were wrong.
I'll disagree and I think I've proved my point. THE VERY FIRST POST in this thread AGAIN mentioned the "militarization of the police."

Quote:
Originally Posted by OuTcAsT
At the risk of a repremand from the moderators I will tell you to either keep my posts in context, take a reading comprehension class, put me on your ignore list, or STFU.
When you get to be a moderator here you can tell me what to do. Until then I'll express my opinion as I see fit. Don't like it? Then feel free to follow the advice you just handed out. In fact I invite you to put me on ignore! Notice that, unlike you, my comments are just suggestions not empty orders from someone with neither the position nor the power to enforce them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OuTcAsT
And just so we do not have any further mis- characterizations on the subject, I have no problem with patrol officers having the same semi-auto firearms available to them that are available to me.
I'll disagree again. I think that police should have any weapons that are reasonable that will help them in the fight against crime. In this case your ranting is pointless. These donated M-16's have been converted to fire semi–auto only. Or in your world are they still FA M–16's?

Quote:
Originally Posted by OuTcAsT
Why ?

Simple, because I do not want a paramilitary force (as described by Wagonman) to be routinely roaming the streets with better weaponry than is available to the public.
Having M-16's converted to semi–auto (which makes them virtually identical to the AR-15 that is still legal to possess almost everywhere) hardly makes the police into a "paramilitary force." Neither does them having other equipment such as APC's.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OuTcAsT
At some point this "paramilitary organization" may decide that they want to ignore the oaths they took (as they seem to do on a regular basis depending on who is deemed a scumbag, and dregs of society that day) and I want the odds to be even.
The difference is that you think the police, on a regular basis "decide" to violate people's rights and do so in an egregious manner. The facts are that this happens only very rarely and when it does it's punished. EVEN RARER STILL is the use of FA weapons when those violations occur.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OuTcAsT
Now, you may proceed to make arguments against the "tin-foilness" of that comment to your hearts content.
It really doesn’t need such an argument from me. You've done so prima facie. lol

Quote:
Originally Posted by OuTcAsT
I laid my cards on the table, got the cajones to do the same "Big" guy ?
"Big guy?" ROFL. Such a comment implies either some familiarity or is used deprecatingly. I'd bet on the latter. Just more rudeness from someone who's run out o logic and reason and has lost the argument.

I laid my cards on the table for nearly 30 years on a police department plus nearly four years in the military. Might we know of your contributions?

Quote:
Originally Posted by OuTcAsT
This post may draw an insta-ban, but I will not sit here and be "citizen-bashed" any longer. As cop-Bashing seems to be verboten, but "citizen-bashing" seems fine. Hypocritical you say ?
Odd but I haven't seen anyone bashing the citizens. But I have seen quite a few, you included, talking about the police violating the rights of citizens on a regular basis. "deciding not to uphold their oaths." Being, all but incompetent, with their weapons, and more.

The first sentence of this paragraph, mentioning that it "may draw an Insta-ban" shows us that you KNOW that this comment is inappropriate and improper. Yet you still wrote it. It would appear that YOU are the one violating the rules, yet you fear the police doing the same thing. AGAIN we see hypocrisy from you.

I suggest that you take the advice of George Bernard Shaw to heart, "Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted."

You just edited your post to add this paragraph.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OuTcAsT
What is hypocritical about that stance ? If full auto becomes available to the public, under different terms than it is now, then by all means, the police should have access to them. I don't want an "army" on my block under the guise of "keeping the peace".
More tinfoil–worthy comments. Thinking that a police officer who does not have an M-16 in his trunk is perfectly OK but as soon as that M–16 appears he becomes an "army on [your] block" and a violator of your rights and empowered to enslave you, is well … well it's just beyond silly.
bigger hammer is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.02316 seconds with 8 queries