Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire It is not just cops

Oh heck, to put things in parlance probably familiar to FreeMe... gentlemen, we have a runaway train here... this makes post #158 unless someone else is typing as I speak...

OK Joe, you can let your neighbor sell cocaine to your kids, which he won't of course because in a free society we are all responsible individuals, and your kids won't ask him anyway 'cause you taught 'em not to, in which case they will of course and if he does sell 'em cocaine you can just shoot him in defense of your family, and maybe shoot his buddies when they come to shoot you because they didn't think that cocaine dealing ought to be a capitol offense because after all your responsible kids asked him, all of which might involve car chases which will be hard to spot on account of everyone drives like they're in Mexico anyway... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Sorry Joe, no actual disrespect intended, must be my ethnicity acting up again <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Which brings us to a more interesting debate than ol' Hitler... How about one on a comparison of the Federal Govt vs. the Confederacy with respect to individual rights within both during the Civil War...

Which of course brings up History. Please no one EVER start spouting off college degrees as evidence for intelligence or whatever, unless you actually invented something useful. I have two such degrees myself, and hence know that college mostly involves reading books and then writing stuff about what other people wrote, which can be done at home far more cheaply (here, for instance), except of course there prob'ly ain't several thousand co-eds living in immediate proximity to your house.

See y'all on some OTHER thread <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />.

Birdwatcher

Wimp! Are you quitting early? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
Seriously, this ain't nuttin compared to the garbage on AR political forum.

Hell, I've allays been one to make a tired dog hunt. I reckin' I'm proof positive thet it don't take brains to make a good argument. An my 3rd grade educashun got me to where I am today, so don't nobody go badmouthin' schoolin'. I don't really unnerstand what some of y'all are sayin', but it sounds like you want to live in the wild west, with the reach of the law bein' only as far as the range of yer gun. Sounds fair to me. You got a problem with somebody, you take a vote an' shoot the sucker. Course, I been accused of wantin' to bring back the great buffler herds and scalping as a means of settling civil disputes.

""""""""I am I hearing that my B.A. in History and French has taught me nothing? I graduated Magna Cum Laude with a 3.89 grade point average on a 4 point scale. I was inducted into five Honor Societies including Phi Kappa Phi. I was chosen History Student of the Year two years in a row, but I�m being told that I know nothing of history."""""""""""

Hey baby, you can be anyone you want to be on this thing. Throw in a few more impressive stats so's we'll "really" be impressed, instead of "just a bit". Its always been fascinateing to me anyway how so many , so-called educated people, can spend so much time walking around with their heads between their legs, looking up, and trying to figure out if they are punched or drilled.

Most of all I love the Internet tough guys, in these gun forumns, that somehow think that as long as they have that pop gun in their hands they are safe from criminals, will never need help, and all the police have to do is show up late and haul off the evil-doer's bodies after the I-net hero has slayed them in rightous indignation.

To the rest of you, the majority that has some common sense, trust me when I say when you are hip deep in [bleep] there is no more welcome a sound then those sirens coming closer. And thats from the lips of someone who really is a tough street cop, and knows theres always someone tougher, better armed, and more of them, standing around the next corner. Ive had the be-jeezuz scared out of me enough to know "I" aint so tough. And if "I" aint so tough, then certainly the "haggis's" out there aint so tough.

""""""""Jesus said, "Before the law there was no sin." If we are plagued with criminals and high crime rates it is because our system tries to legislate the very air we breath and then put a bunch of half-wits out there with guns and clubs to enfoce the new laws.

Many laws, many criminals.
No laws, no criminals.

We only have a high crime rate because we have so many laws.
""""""""""

Its really hard to believe theres actually an adult thats behind such a post. I just wish some of you guys could actually stare into the eyes of some of the offenders I regularly put into prison. Theres no "soul" inside them, no humanity, and absolutly no morals. The media creation of the "honorable criminal" is just that, a movie creation.

But tell me again how, once armed, you will never need the help of LE . I get a kick out of that one...............10

10Point: Thanks for showing up. Thanks for some sound reason.
I am still waiting on Haggis to explain to me exactly how the no laws/no crime thing works.

Birdy..."...except of course there prob'ly ain't several thousand co-eds living in immediate proximity to your house."


<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" /> Now I REALLY feel cheated!


"... gentlemen, we have a runaway train here... "

Yes indeedy, I do believe we've pissed away our air... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

-FreeMe

FreeMe

I hope you're not including me in the diploma dropping group. I've mentioned going to law school but only as a context for my experiences. I don't need a diploma to know that I am smarter than just about anybody. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Birdwatcher:

I would be glad to discuss the War of Northern Aggression with you sometime. The Confederacy was right and the Federal Government was oppressive and invaded a soveriegn people in an illegal war. The American Republic died at Appamattox.

10point:

Your attitude is exactly the attitude that I despise. Don't tell me I need protection and that the "tough old street cop is there to protect me". It is one more example of Government knows best. I don't want you or need you to protect me. And no, I do not go around habitually armed and do not feel the need to do so. I have never been the victim of violent crime and I KNOW that the police have had nothing to do with that fact. Yes, I know there are some bad hombres out there, but I would rather take my chances with criminals operating outside the law than thugs operating within the auspices of the law. If I want around the clock personal protection, I'll hire a bodyguard. If I want someone to show up too late to do any good and then tell me that there is little that can probably be done, then I'll call a cop.

I am sorry but the attitude that we are unable to fend for ourselves is part of the erosion of our liberties. Police are there to apprehend offenders, not to protect me or anyone else. In fact, courts have consistently ruled that a policeman is under no obligation to come to someone's aid in a time of distress.

Now the whole point of this thread, was not that all police are bad, or even a significant majority of them are dishonest. It was that the system is becoming increasingly oppressive, police training needs to be revised, we have runaway government, there are too many laws, and that the police are in danger of becoming merely the tools of the this system and will be used to keep the people in line. I believe in many cases that this has already happened. None of this precludes the fact that there are a great many good police that do good things or that even "bad police" may do as much good as harm on many occasions. The point is that good people can become parts of bad things and that they can be held accountable for those things if they do not engage in a little self-examination.

At least, I may have started the longest thread in the history of this board.

Joe...It's amazing how we agree on quite a few points. Here's the strongest one: I don't hold anybody responsible for protecting me other than myself. A task so personal is best left up to me. I think I may have already stated that earlier.
I do, however appreciate cops enforcing certain traffic laws (for protection of others) and apprehending offenders.

By the way, this is not the longest thread by a very very long shot. Search for a 30-06 thread in the classifieds. I don't recall how long it was, but it seems 20-35 pages or something like it. Very entertaining reading, seriously.

Joe I dont much care what you think of my attitude. Ive always said, from my begining in LE, that each person should take responsability for their own safety. And I dont need you to lecture me about "courts" "liberties" or much of anything.

The whole point I was makeing was that I think characters like you are fools, and comical ones at that. I dont know how many lives Ive saved "out there" but its way to many to have to listen to someone like you seriously. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Just another Internet tough guy , gee while your at it tell me about all the gunfights you been in <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ooo.gif" alt="" />............10

Wasn't Hitler elected to power? He was Chancellor Hitler before he appointed himself Der Furer, wasn't he?

Anyway, that's besides the point. I think Haggis may have overstated it a little, but the point he is making is a valid one. We are being wrapped tightly in such a web of laws and regulations that at any given time each one of us is probably in violation of a couple of them, and subject, consequently, to be harrassed by some level of government, or even shot if we resist, at the discretion of government. There was a time when any common Joe knew what was legal and what was not. Generally, if you did something bad to someone, that was illegal. Otherwise it was not. As the situation is now, and it's getting more so every day, government can almost literally act arbitrarily to destroy any American at a whim, because they can almost always find some obscure law that you are in violation of. Laws should only punish wrong action, not the mere potentiality of wrong actions. This is what Joe is saying. Yeah, if your neighbor is shooting his air gun onto your property, whether he hurts anyone or not, that's an actionable thing. You can take them to court for that, and always have been able to. Reckless conduct is actionable, but the mere fact that he is shooting in his backyard is not de facto reckless. There's a bigger point in there somewhere. Just think about it.

Hawkeye...no, Hitler was not elected chancellor. I've explained it in two earlier posts. His party got 37 percent of the votes. Hitler then sweet-talked Reichspresident Hindenburg into appointing him Chancellor, then he sweet-talked him into giving him more powers. He also used the Reichstag Fire (Which he was most likely responsible for) to blame his liberal opponents and seized even more power to effectively "combat" this terrorism. Geez...sounds familiar.

I generally agree with the jist of what you're saying. I just don't think it to be of the extent you do.

Let me correct myself: Hitler did not sweet-talk senile Hindenburg into a political appointment. He used blackmail and terror, as well as shady backroom deals to make Hindenburg appoint him. He then used the Reichstag fire incident to draw upon extraordinary powers, including Article 48 of the German constitution.
He did, however, sweet-talk Hindeburg into signing his terror bill.
Democracy had not much to do with Hitler's rise to power. In fact, the majority of Germans made it clear that they wanted to continue the Weimar Republic, and NOT have Hitler has Fuhrer.

I am sorry I keep correcting folks on this Hitler deal. I feel that if you want to change your government, and you cite historical examples, it would be beneficial to actually understand the cited history. Otherwise, you build your visions for the future on flawed history.
Not a very solid foundation.

10point

Thanks for proving my point. When you brag about how many lives you have saved and how many gunfights you have experienced, you sound like one of those fat, BDU wearing (bootstrings flying all over the place of course), donut eating slobs who thinks he is "hero" because he is an LEO.

Gunfights? I want my LEOs to avoid gunfights. Hell, even Wyatt Earp admitted that he had only been involved in one or two actual gunfights his entire career as a lawman.

Lives saved? If you pulled someone out of a burning car, then great and thank you. If your bragging about the lives you saved by taking "criminals" off the street, then you're a joke.

When you brag about gunfights and lives saved, you're a joke. Unfortunately, not a funny joke. Now, look straight down at your chest and your rather large gut, wipe away the donut crumbs, and step away from the computer, slowly, with your hands in the air or I will be forced to flame you some more. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> Harsh, yes, but then again, I am just an Internet "fool" according to you and my opinions are nothing compared to those of a "real live LEO". Oh please, noble and brave LEO, save me from myself and my foolish opinions.

Matthius

I am going to disagree with you again on this. Germany had a parlimentary system before Hitler. Now, Hitler's party got the largest single percentage of the vote of any party in the Reichstag elections that year. In a Parlimentary system that means as leader of his party, he was entitled to a position of leadership in the government. Everyone knew this going in before the election and those voting for Hitler knew that Hitler could come to power if he got enough of the vote. Yes, Hitler was supposed to be at the head of a coalition government and he soon ignored the rest of the coalition and made himself dictator. But the fact remains, that as head of the party receiving the most votes in the Reichstag, he was entitled to a position of power under the Parlimentary system.

The point of the whole comparison to Hitler being elected is that just because an official is initially elected does not mean that he is incorruptible or incapable of using that position for personal gain. I did not wish to discuss the intricacies of pre-war German politics.

Here is what I beleive we can agree on. Hitler's party received the largest single amount of votes in the 1933 elections. He used this seeming legitimacy as a springboard to greater power. He used this greater power to the detrimate of many people. We must be vigilent that something similar does not happen here. It could happen here as that the natural tendency of all governments is to grasp power. A terrible situation in this country, similiar to the problems faced by the Weimar Republic, could make us vunerable to unscrupulous men or women. These persons will almost assuredly be elected to some position before they make any outright grab for power. We must also be vigilent against creeping government power and understand that just because we vote, it does not always mean that we can undo any harm by means of another vote.

Quotes:

In the first election, held on March 13, 1932, Hitler received 30 percent of the vote, losing badly to Hindenburg's 49.6 percent. But because Hindenburg had just missed an absolute majority, a run-off election was scheduled a month later. On April 10, 1932, Hitler increased his share of the vote to 37 percent, but Hindenburg again won, this time with a decisive 53 percent. A clear majority of the voters had thus declared their preference for a democratic republic.

On July 31, 1932, the Nazis won 230 out of 608 seats in the Reichstag, making them its largest party. Still, they did not command the majority needed to elect Hitler Chancellor.

In another election on November 6, 1932, the Nazis lost 34 seats in the Reichstag, reducing their total to 196. And for the first time it looked as if the Nazi threat would fade.

As much as he hated to do so, he seemed resigned to offering Hitler a high government position. Many people were urging him to do so: the industrialists who were financing Hitler, the military whose connections Hitler had cultivated, even Hindenburg's son, whom some historians believe the Nazis had blackmailed. The last straw came when an unfounded rumor swept through Berlin that Schleicher was about to attempt a military coup, arrest Hindenburg, and establish a military dictatorship. Alarmed, Hindenburg wasted no time offering Hitler the Chancellorship, thinking it was a last resort to save the Republic.


"Hitler came to office in 1933 as the result, not of any irresistible revolutionary or national movement sweeping him into power, nor even of a popular victory at the polls, but as part of a shoddy political deal with the 'Old Gang' whom he had been attacking for months� Hitler did not seize power; he was jobbed into office by a backstairs intrigue." (4)
Hitler's deal did not even give him a majority in the Reichstag. His coalition of Nazis and Nationalists had only 247 out of 583 seats in the Reichstag, still not a majority.

End Quotes

He was not elected. His party was elected, and had was the strongest party in the parliament. Without Hitlers backroom deals - which were out of voters hands - he could never have risen to his infamous position.

I will agree that we have slightly differing views on this.

I also agree with most of your conclusion.
Remember: The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. I mean that.

Nevertheless, Hitler would never have been in position to effect a backroom deal if his party had not received 37 percent of the vote. As to your contention that Hitler himself received no votes, true enought. Neither did Tony Blair, at least not for the position of Prime Minister. He was appointed to position by the Queen because his party got a majority of seats in Parliment. England has a two party system so they don't have to deal with the problems of no party receiving a majority of the votes.

I wouldn't call the fact that the Nazis did not receive a majority of the votes as a ringing majority for democracy in Weimar. The communists and other extreme right wing nationalist parties also received votes and seats in the Reichstag.

Quote:

"I wouldn't call the fact that the Nazis did not receive a majority of the votes as a ringing majority for democracy in Weimar."

Quote:

"In 1932, hoping to establish a clear government by majority rule, Hindenburg held two presidential elections. Hitler, among others, ran against him. A vote for Hindenburg was a vote to continue the German Republic, while a vote for Hitler was a vote against it. The Nazi party made the most clever use of propaganda, as well as the most extensive use of violence. Bloody street battles erupted between Communists and Nazis thugs, and many political figures were murdered.

In the first election, held on March 13, 1932, Hitler received 30 percent of the vote, losing badly to Hindenburg's 49.6 percent. But because Hindenburg had just missed an absolute majority, a run-off election was scheduled a month later. On April 10, 1932, Hitler increased his share of the vote to 37 percent, but Hindenburg again won, this time with a decisive 53 percent. A clear majority of the voters had thus declared their preference for a democratic republic."

Pay attention to the last sentence in the quote. Not a victory for democracy?



Quote:
"Neither did Tony Blair, at least not for the position of Prime Minister. He was appointed to position by the Queen because his party got a majority of seats in Parliment."

True enough. However, Hitler did not have the required number of votes to be appointed Chancellor.
A backroom deal got him there, not a legitimate appointment.