"Police departments are paramilitary organizations."

imported post

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/28/BAN016NS9F.DTL

I'm not even going to post how idiotic this article is, posted by a SF journalist.

... He goes on to the skin color argument... "We didn't have power in the cities, with people like Elihu Harris or myself as mayors. We didn't have Eric Holder as attorney general. We didn't have Barack Obama as president."

imported post

"There is no civil liberties issue here. There is no justification for an AK-47 in private hands. Period."

There's really no "justification" for Hummmers, Explorers, F450's, etc, for mostpeople but youhave the right to purchase these vehicles if so desired.

"There used to be a nationwide ban on assault rifles, until it expired in 2004. We should bring it back."

No, it will achieve nothing other removing them from the hands of LAC's. Hence, "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns"

"As for what to do in high-crime neighborhoods, I've been there, and the only answer is to be tough."

...And armed.

"Public safety cannot be subjected to popularity. You've got to execute on the basis of what you believe will make it safe, and you've got to be prepared to take the heat."

We do, that's why we pack it.

"Police departments are paramilitary organizations. They can't be made up of social workers. Officers risk their lives every day, and you've got to back them."

Again, we do, that's why we pack it.

"If there's an incident like the BART police shooting of Oscar Grant, you have to be decisive as well. Investigations have to be quick and they have to be thorough."

They were.

imported post

He's right about one thing, police depts arenothing more than paramilitary organizations. He is intimately acquainted with law enforcement having been investigated by the FBI so much. Another crooked politician.

imported post

Does anyone want to break the new to him that "assault weapons" are already illegal in Cali and did nothing to keep this guy from getting them? What are they going to do, double ban them? Triple ban them maybe, third time's the charm. Or maybe, just maybe, if they quadruple ban them, that's when bad guys will actually start obeying the ban :quirky

imported post

"Public safety cannot be subjected to popularity. You've got to execute on the basis of what you believe will make it safe, and you've got to be prepared to take the heat."

I agree Willie. According to crime statistics the consistently most violent crimes are committed by Hispanic gangs. So first thing we'll do is round up everyone who looks Hispanic and has gang tattoos and send them off to a high security prison camp.

The most disproportional group of offenders to their population are black males. So, we'll round up those guys whenever we want and if they have gang tattoos or brandings they'll go off to the camp too. If they do something really bad we'll just hang them on the nearest tree as a warning to others that we demand public safety.

Now, one of the best predictors of future criminality is being one of several out of wedlock births to an unmarried female. The proportion of these out of wedlock births are particutlarly high in the black and hispanic communities where we find a correspondingly disproportionate crime rate. Therefore, in the name of public safety, all black and Hispanic women will be subject to mandatory sterilizing following any out of wedlock pregnancy.

See Willie, you stupid self-righteous media-whore, once you open the door to start infringing on constitutionally protected rights totally in the name of safety, or if you punish entire populations for the acts of a few members of that population, things quickly go in a direction you might not like and may come right up to your door step. But that is ok. We've got to be prepared to take the heat.

imported post

Police departments are paramilitary organizations: "Of, relating to, or being a group of civilians organized in a military fashion".

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

"Public safety cannot be subjected to popularity. You've got to execute on the basis of what you believe will make it safe, and you've got to be prepared to take the heat."

I agree Willie. According to crime statistics the consistently most violent crimes are committed by Hispanic gangs. So first thing we'll do is round up everyone who looks Hispanic and has gang tattoos and send them off to a high security prison camp.

The most disproportional group of offenders to their population are black males. So, we'll round up those guys whenever we want and if they have gang tattoos or brandings they'll go off to the camp too. If they do something really bad we'll just hang them on the nearest tree as a warning to others that we demand public safety.

Now, one of the best predictors of future criminality is being one of several out of wedlock births to an unmarried female. The proportion of these out of wedlock births are particutlarly high in the black and hispanic communities where we find a correspondingly disproportionate crime rate. Therefore, in the name of public safety, all black and Hispanic women will be subject to mandatory sterilizing following any out of wedlock pregnancy.

See Willie, you stupid self-righteous media-whore, once you open the door to start infringing on constitutionally protected rights totally in the name of safety, or if you punish entire populations for the acts of a few members of that population, things quickly go in a direction you might not like and may come right up to your door step. But that is ok. We've got to be prepared to take the heat.

Click to expand...

You really should send that to him.

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

"Public safety cannot be subjected to popularity. You've got to execute on the basis of what you believe will make it safe, and you've got to be prepared to take the heat."

I agree Willie. According to crime statistics the consistently most violent crimes are committed by Hispanic gangs. So first thing we'll do is round up everyone who looks Hispanic and has gang tattoos and send them off to a high security prison camp.

The most disproportional group of offenders to their population are black males. So, we'll round up those guys whenever we want and if they have gang tattoos or brandings they'll go off to the camp too. If they do something really bad we'll just hang them on the nearest tree as a warning to others that we demand public safety.

Now, one of the best predictors of future criminality is being one of several out of wedlock births to an unmarried female. The proportion of these out of wedlock births are particutlarly high in the black and hispanic communities where we find a correspondingly disproportionate crime rate. Therefore, in the name of public safety, all black and Hispanic women will be subject to mandatory sterilizing following any out of wedlock pregnancy.

See Willie, you stupid self-righteous media-whore, once you open the door to start infringing on constitutionally protected rights totally in the name of safety, or if you punish entire populations for the acts of a few members of that population, things quickly go in a direction you might not like and may come right up to your door step. But that is ok. We've got to be prepared to take the heat.

Click to expand...

:what:holy hell!

imported post

Nobody needs an assault rifle. I agree. Get full-sized battle rifles instead. No more of these half-measures.

-ljp

imported post

You're limiting yourself even so, Legba. Go all out, get a tank. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vESIVemfG8

*disclaimer, I'm not actually advocating getting a tank.

imported post

I wouldn't mind rehabbing a Mark V Panzer... ;-/

-ljp

imported post

i sent him an email. here's a copy. i'm probably wasting my breath.



Willie,



You obviously do not know anything about guns, civil rights or are just purposely ignorant. For instance,



“There is no civil liberties issue here. There is no justification for an AK-47 in private hands. Period.”

Is there a justification for you to fly to Paris for your birthday along with 120 other people to celebrate? Is there justification for people to own Hummers, or private aircraft? What is the justification for fast food, soda, alcohol, cigarettes, or doughnuts? What is the justification for “assault weapons” in police officers hands?

First off, how much did you spend on a trip to Paris and the ensuing party? Would that money not have been better spent on less frivolous things? You are a leader and should set the example. Your example in this regard has been, I’m going to Paris even though the world’s economy is in serious peril.

Secondly Hummers should have no place in the civilian market by your logic either because they are strictly military in nature. Private planes should not be in citizens hands either and neither should private pilots licenses because of the multitude of civilian related crashes/deaths that happen every year. In fact, we should just walk everywhere to cut down on the risk of transportation in general by your logic and you know what, we might solve America’s obesity problem in the process.

Do you need doughnuts? What about alcohol, fast food or soda? They are just as detrimental to the U.S. as weapons in general (and I’m not talking about only guns). According to the CDC roughly 30% of Americans are obese. And obesity has been linked to a definite increase in the risks of:

· Coronary heart disease

· Type 2 diabetes

· Cancers (endometrial, breast, and colon)

· Hypertension (high blood pressure)

· Dyslipidemia (for example, high total cholesterol or high levels of triglycerides)

· Stroke

· Liver and Gallbladder disease

· Sleep apnea and respiratory problems

· Osteoarthritis (a degeneration of cartilage and its underlying bone within a joint)

· Gynecological problems (abnormal menses, infertility)

For instance in the U.S. nearly 24 million people have diabetes. What justification do we have for access to items that increase our risk of obesity? And Alcohol related deaths are a very hot topic in the U.S. Why not just ban alcohol all together, we don’t need it right? It just causes problems. Alcohol is just a loaded gun pointed at innocent people right? Just get rid of it. And cigarettes, I don’t think I need to elaborate on this in any way shape or form.

What purpose do officers with assault rifles/carbines serve that officers without assault rifles/carbines don’t? Weapons are just tools for a job. Like a hammer or car. They have a set purpose. And in the hands of responsible people they have no criminal potential. However in the hands of an irresponsible or criminal person the potential is great. Blunt force trauma is one of the leading causes of injury related deaths in the U.S. according to the CDC. Wow, hmmm what is something we could use for that purpose? A car, a hammer? Possibly a fist even.. So maybe we need to cut everyone’s hands off? How’s that sound?



“There used to be a nationwide ban on assault rifles, until it expired in 2004. We should bring it back.”

“We should bring it back” ? Sir, are you not familiar with California law? California currently has an “Assault Weapons Ban” in place and you would know that if you where actually a leader instead of a puppet. The current overly aggressive gun laws that govern California did not prevent the shooter in Oakland from obtaining and using one in your precious state of CA. Laws only apply to law abiding citizens. It’s crazy how that works.



“Public safety cannot be subjected to popularity. You've got to execute on the basis of what you believe will make it safe, and you've got to be prepared to take the heat.”

It is NOT the government’s responsibility to protect us from ourselves. It is NOT the government’s responsibility to dictate what is or is not safe. What happened to personal responsibility? The excuses “it’s for public safety” or “think of the children” are tiresome and inaccurate. You are wrong.

I removed my name but, other than that it's a straight up "Copy/Paste" of what I sent him.

imported post

Jizzzle wrote:

It is NOT the government’s responsibility to protect us from ourselves. It is NOT the government’s responsibility to dictate what is or is not safe. What happened to personal responsibility? The excuses “it’s for public safety” or “think of the children” are tiresome and inaccurate. You are wrong.

Click to expand...

Simply put, we're citizens not subjects.