EMILY MILLER: D.C.’s crime solution: Be a victim

[Owen Sparks]

This is not so much about liberals as it is statists who believe that the government should have a monopoly on the use of force.

 

[rbernie]

This is not so much about liberals as it is statists who believe that the government should have a monopoly on the use of force.

That's absolutely correct - the loose use of the terms 'liberal' or 'conservative' does not accurately capture the true essence of threat or ally.

THR also has specific prohibition about such labels, and we ought to be careful to mind that.

 

[1911Tuner]

I apologize if the debunking regarding additional protection for officials was not explicitly shown through of the posters who supported an unbacked assertion: they claimed that the loss of a public official didn't matter because they were interchangeable.

Not everybody acquiesced. Most of'em just got tired of arguing and let it go because the majority never said that even anti-gun elected officials shouldn't be protected. You threw that in in an attempt to take attention from the topic.

They pointed to the hypocrisy of surrounding themselves with armed security, or even carrying guns themselves while demanding that the serfs disarm...and it is blatant hypocrisy, no matter what sort of whitewash you put on it.

And, they are all pretty much two sides of the same coin in that they're far more concerned with the consolidation of power in government instead of the people...the way that the founders intended for it to be. Lose one, and there are a dozen just like him standin' in line to take his place. Next day, it's business as usual. It's a little like losing the top buck on opening day. There are more bucks that can perform the same task, and the girls will never notice the difference.

 

[mdauben]

Makes me want to get down on my knees and thank god I don't live in DC. I don't know what's worse there, the criminals or the politicians (or is there a difference?).

 

[Baba Louie]

See Warren v. D.C. for the end results no politician will ever admit.

You. Are. On. Your. Own. Absolutely.

 

[JustinJ]

That's absolutely correct - the loose use of the terms 'liberal' or 'conservative' does not accurately capture the true essence of threat or ally.

THR also has specific prohibition about such labels, and we ought to be careful to mind that.

Personally i think its long past due for a zero tolerance on said rule. I'm not saying to ban members for it but at least delete the threads. The number of threads going off on politcal tangets because somebody can't resist expressing a right wing view is irritating. I've also been dissapointed to see threads with left bashing that received not so much as a warning.

 

[danez71]

Personally i think its long past due for a zero tolerance on said rule. I'm not saying to ban members for it but at least delete the threads. The number of threads going off on politcal tangets because somebody can't resist expressing a right wing view is irritating. I've also been dissapointed to see threads with left bashing that received not so much as a warning.

100% agree.

The term "Liberal" is mis-applied so often its not even funny. The majority of the ones I know are fence sitters on the issue.

Making fun of them or otherwise disparaging them isnt helping.

 

[rbernie]

I've also been dissapointed to see threads with left bashing that received not so much as a warning.

You have no visibility into the posts deleted or the infractions handed out, so do not presume too much here.

Let's keep things on track, please.

 

[DAP90]

Let's keep things on track, please.

To that end if anyone knows how to contact her we should send a simple thank you for the work that she’s done.

 

[mortablunt]

It is sad to see our nation's capital be so naive about stopping criminals. The solution is more guns with more civilians.

 

[Neverwinter]

Not everybody acquiesced. Most of'em just got tired of arguing and let it go because the majority never said that even anti-gun elected officials shouldn't be protected. You threw that in in an attempt to take attention from the topic.

They pointed to the hypocrisy of surrounding themselves with armed security, or even carrying guns themselves while demanding that the serfs disarm...and it is blatant hypocrisy, no matter what sort of whitewash you put on it.

And, they are all pretty much two sides of the same coin in that they're far more concerned with the consolidation of power in government instead of the people...the way that the founders intended for it to be. Lose one, and there are a dozen just like him standin' in line to take his place. Next day, it's business as usual. It's a little like losing the top buck on opening day. There are more bucks that can perform the same task, and the girls will never notice the difference.

Good effort, but an inaccurate synopsis. My objection was to the claim that was posted in the thread that increased protection for elected officials was wrong. Those posters are the ones who distracted the thread with that internally inconsistent position that they continued to defend.

Additionally, they continued to confuse the concept of private citizens prohibiting other private citizens while retaining their arms along with the concept of elected officials retaining protections beyond private citizens. The former is hypocrisy, while the second is not hypocrisy. Those public officials haven't elevated themselves above to strip the arms of the "serfs"; those "serfs" elected those officials to represent them.

If you want hypocrisy, you can get it from the people who think that additional protection to ensure that their selection isn't removed from their position by an assassination is wrong, while refusing to abdicate their right to selection at an earlier step in the process.