Domestic gun grab. Real threat or BS?

[Primus]

Oh, man. Is this guy for real????

If you don't pay your taxes, you can go to jail. Resist even the tiniest bit, and you will get more than a threat of violence--you will get the actual violence. Try to repel those arresters when they first come to your home and see if you don't get a SWAT team dumping magazines into your home.

The threat of violence looms behind the enforcement of every law, regulation, and rule. You must comply. If you resist, you will get violence.

Now, stop being absurd. Just because people avoid violence by complying doesn't mean the threat of violence isn't there.

Yes if you PHYSICALLY resist, which is applying your own force, then you would be met with greater force in return. That would be a RESPONSE to force/violence.

Again, do you feel you pay for your coffee in the morning under the threat of violence? Do you stop at stop signs under the threat of violence? Do you pay for your dentist after a root canal under the threat of violence?

Why not? If you didn't pay for your coffee you could be arrested. If you didn't stop at a stop sign you may be caught and have to pay a ticket. If you don't you could be arrested. If you don't pay your dentist you'd certainly get a bill and then a summons to court.

Is everything you do under a threat of violence?

 

[davidmcbeth]

If you recognize that there are 2 ways to settle a confrontation, then you will see the application here:

1) Use of logic - reasoned conversation.

2) Application of force on a sliding scale.

Here is one model as an example:

Is there a Power Point slide for citizens' use of force?

 

[davidmcbeth]

Yes if you PHYSICALLY resist, which is applying your own force, then you would be met with greater force in return. That would be a RESPONSE to force/violence.

Again, do you feel you pay for your coffee in the morning under the threat of violence? Do you stop at stop signs under the threat of violence? Do you pay for your dentist after a root canal under the threat of violence?

Why not? If you didn't pay for your coffee you could be arrested. If you didn't stop at a stop sign you may be caught and have to pay a ticket. If you don't you could be arrested. If you don't pay your dentist you'd certainly get a bill and then a summons to court.

Is everything you do under a threat of violence?

I would not expect a reply from such queries .... (I think that if there were no repercussions from not paying a fine then no one would pay lol ~~ hence the penalties for not payin, right? I don't pay any $$$ to anyone unless there is a repercussion for not paying ~ I like money; and there have been some isolated instances where I have been found guilty of something by a court/tribunal and not paid the fine simply because there was no penalty for not paying.)

Have you ever been threatened w/ real violence from a governmental body yourself?

 

[Grapeshot]

Is there a Power Point slide for citizens' use of force?

Not specifically a Power Point presentation of which I am aware.

See the chart offered above as a reasonable example of what a non-Leo might consider, being aware of the inherent difference between the normal legal function(s) of LEOs and LAC.

 

[OC for ME]

Yes if you PHYSICALLY resist, which is applying your own force, then you would be met with greater force in return. That would be a RESPONSE to force/violence.

Again, do you feel you pay for your coffee in the morning under the threat of violence? Do you stop at stop signs under the threat of violence? Do you pay for your dentist after a root canal under the threat of violence?

Why not? If you didn't pay for your coffee you could be arrested. If you didn't stop at a stop sign you may be caught and have to pay a ticket. If you don't you could be arrested. If you don't pay your dentist you'd certainly get a bill and then a summons to court.

Is everything you do under a threat of violence?

Not resisting and not complying will be met with a violent physical response or even a threat of violent physical response. Try this and see what happens: if you get pulled over for a traffic infraction do not speak to the cop, simply comply, silently. You may be surprised at what cops could do because you remained silent.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Now, stop being absurd. Just because people avoid violence by complying doesn't mean the threat of violence isn't there.

+100

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Yes if you PHYSICALLY resist, which is applying your own force, then you would be met with greater force in return. That would be a RESPONSE to force/violence.

Again, do you feel you pay for your coffee in the morning under the threat of violence? Do you stop at stop signs under the threat of violence? Do you pay for your dentist after a root canal under the threat of violence?

Why not? If you didn't pay for your coffee you could be arrested. If you didn't stop at a stop sign you may be caught and have to pay a ticket. If you don't you could be arrested. If you don't pay your dentist you'd certainly get a bill and then a summons to court.

Is everything you do under a threat of violence?

Did you go to the same strawman school as EriK?

Arrest is force the courts have even ruled so, and why we have the common law right to resist an unlawful arrest, because its an assault. So you have it back assward.

Your comparison of a purely voluntary exchange between two private parties to that of government agents is asinine. As far as the stop sign analogy-yes and no, we may stop at a sign where we can clearly see no one is coming from both directions because the state will stop and and punish you for breaking a law that hurts no one. At all other we do it because we realize it's for our own safety and for the safety of others.

You get arrested because you stole someones property.

 

[eye95]

The government having the ability to threaten force or violence is not a bad thing.

I kinda like a cop being able to shoot a murderer before he can get off another shot. It is good that Hassan is paralyzed and that more soldiers at Ft Hood are not dead. I like that Hassan is facing the death penalty for his actions.

It really is foolish to denigrate the government's ability to use force or violence. The government exists to protect our rights (including soldiers' right to life at Ft Hood) and sometimes must use force or violence in that protection. It is not the force or violence that is wrong. It is the unlawful application of force or violence that is wrong.

I intend to use force or violence if I must to protect me and mind. Force and violence, like guns, are neither good nor bad. They are tools in the hand of the user. He and his actions will be what is good or bad.

 

[OC for ME]

The unlawful application is always determined after the violent force is used, too late for some and for the citizenry at large. I desire a government that informs its agents, before hand, what will be the consequences if they do unlawfully use violent force. Sadly that is not the case. Cops should fear consequences just as we do for our acts. A paid vacation is not a consequence.

 

[davidmcbeth]

Not resisting and not complying will be met with a violent physical response or even a threat of violent physical response. Try this and see what happens: if you get pulled over for a traffic infraction do not speak to the cop, simply comply, silently. You may be surprised at what cops could do because you remained silent.

That's what I do !

Some get pissed and yell but that is the extent of the behavior I have seen. And they like to ask lots of questions. Just sit there with a stupid look on your face ... they get the hint.

Some don't care .. they ask a ? , get no response, and hand you a ticket.

If you are getting pulled over, your getting a ticket 95% of the time...so have some fun at least!

And my silence has paid off ! Zero convictions for traffic code violations. Hooray in remaining silent !

 

[marshaul]

Last time I checked, .govs have progressed from beheading for political opposition (France) to being able to post anything you want on a forum or rallying and saying literally anything you want about the President. Do you know what would have happened in Rome if you posted a picture mocking the Ceaser? Death.

So, because things are better than they have been at points in the past, we should reject any attempts to seek further improvement?

 

[eye95]

... to being able to post anything you want on a forum or rallying and saying literally anything you want about the President. Do you know what would have happened in Rome if you posted a picture mocking the Ceaser? Death...

About Obowma [sic], that is categorically not true. Post a threat to the penisident [sic] and first his censors here will delete it and if it gets out then you can expect a visit from the Schutzstaffel SS protection squad.

Try arguing against what he actually said. He said nothing about threatening Obama.

 

[Grapeshot]

Originally Posted by Primus

... to being able to post anything you want on a forum or rallying and saying literally anything you want about the President. Do you know what would have happened in Rome if you posted a picture mocking Caesar? Death...

Originally Posted by Nightmare
About Obowma [sic], that is categorically not true. Post a threat to the penisident [sic] and first his censors here will delete it and if it gets out then you can expect a visit from the Schutzstaffel SS protection squad.

Try arguing against what he actually said. He said nothing about threatening Obama.

The operative word here is "able" = physically capable. So yes one can post whatever they chose - doing so is not entirely free of repercussions though.

Nightmare simply expounded on what would be the outcome should one say "literally anything". While Primus did not specifically reference making threats, IMO such would be included in "anything" - QED, Nightmare was accurate.

 

[eye95]

The operative word is about. Saying something "about" the president is not threatening him.

Moving on.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Non, non sic erat scriptum! Erat scriptum sic.

Look at Nightmare, he is so lettered. Surely his position is sound. He's probably read, like, 12 books on the subject.


..... Why is there a lightbulb on my post.

 

[eye95]

His goal is to impress, not to sway. Laughable.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[Primus]

That's what I do !

Some get pissed and yell but that is the extent of the behavior I have seen. And they like to ask lots of questions. Just sit there with a stupid look on your face ... they get the hint.

Some don't care .. they ask a ? , get no response, and hand you a ticket.

If you are getting pulled over, your getting a ticket 95% of the time...so have some fun at least!

And my silence has paid off ! Zero convictions for traffic code violations. Hooray in remaining silent !

Ok so thats my point, you were never beaten, shot, threatened, etc. etc. So where's this threat of violence??

 

[OC for ME]

If you see a cop violate a minor traffic law, no turn signal used for example, follow him and when he stops confront him about his "lawlessness" and see what happens. Get pissed and yell at him for violating the law. I'll betcha he will not remain silent.

Anyway.....

 

[Citizen]

Ok so thats my point, you were never beaten, shot, threatened, etc. etc. So where's this threat of violence??

Your evasive arguments rise to maliciousness--you're insulting our intelligence to the point it cannot be anything but deliberate.

First, you're pretending an absence of violence equals an absence of threat of violence. I don't believe for one moment you cannot distinguish between violence and a threat of violence.

Second, you danced around the threat of violence inherent in the traffic stop itself. Just try not stopping at all. See if you're not roadblocked, tire-spiked, or PITted.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

The government having the ability to threaten force or violence is not a bad thing.

I kinda like a cop being able to shoot a murderer before he can get off another shot. It is good that Hassan is paralyzed and that more soldiers at Ft Hood are not dead. I like that Hassan is facing the death penalty for his actions.

It really is foolish to denigrate the government's ability to use force or violence. The government exists to protect our rights (including soldiers' right to life at Ft Hood) and sometimes must use force or violence in that protection. It is not the force or violence that is wrong. It is the unlawful application of force or violence that is wrong.

I intend to use force or violence if I must to protect me and mind. Force and violence, like guns, are neither good nor bad. They are tools in the hand of the user. He and his actions will be what is good or bad.

When governments use of force or violence is in response to the use of force it is justified just as any humans use of force is, but that isn't what is being discussed.

The government theoretically exists to protect our rights, and under the founding principles of natural law/rights, we all have property/rights in our person, the government has moved to stealing/infringing upon these rights and it does so by threat of violence. It steals your property by theft called taxes, it steals you by conscription/draft, it has deluded the population into thinking many rights are "privileges" because they are not enumerated, if you don't succumb to these intrusions it will kill you.

Force and violence is always bad, it is allowable and justified when responding to the acts of an aggressor. Does it matter whether it is one individual acting alone or a million under the guise of a government?