MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus:         Newsletters 
Saturday, January 31, 2015 |  Madison, WI: 26.0° F  Light Snow Fog/Mist
Collapse Photo Bar

Bill Maher calls it a police state?

Races for the Senate, U.S. House, etc. and other issues of national importance.

Re: Bill Maher calls it a police state?

Postby bdog » Mon Apr 29, 2013 3:12 pm

The solution is obvious - pump a bunch of G-23 Paxilon Hydrochlorate into the atmosphere.

It will calm the population and weed out aggression.

No downsides.
bdog
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3325
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 5:26 am

Re: Bill Maher calls it a police state?

Postby Dangerousman » Mon May 06, 2013 2:24 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:
Steve Vokers wrote:Pressure cooker bombs aren't protected by the second amendment.

Don't tell that to DMan.



Why, Henry? Did I say pressure cooker bombs are protected by the 2nd Amendment? I don't believe I offered an opinion either way about that. I stated, factually, that they are regulated as Title 2 weapons and that's all I said about it. Now if one agrees with the US V Miller decision from the 1930's you'd have to say they're not protected by the 2nd Amendment because "pressure cooker bombs" aren't in use by the "militia" (at least not used as standard equipment) just as Mr. Miller's sawed off shotgun was not something in use by the 1930's US military. But if we accept that reasoning, then I guess the Supreme Court is saying that conventional military weapons ARE protected, right? If so, then maybe I ought to consider upgrading my AR-15 to full auto...
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Bill Maher calls it a police state?

Postby Henry Vilas » Mon May 06, 2013 2:44 pm

DMan, are you now saying that there are limits on what weapons a civilian can possess (under your interpretation of the Second Amendment)? I didn't think that was your opinion.
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 20406
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: Bill Maher calls it a police state?

Postby Dangerousman » Mon May 06, 2013 2:45 pm

As to the original question on this thread: No, I don't consider the police response to the Boston bombings to be indicative of a police state regardless of what either left-wing and right-wing kooks are saying. On one of the gun forums to which I subscribe, someone suggested that the show of force by the police was intended to intimidate the public. I disagreed and said, if anything, the show of force indicates how much the police were intimidated by the bombers.

A strong police response to a crime isn't the same thing as using police as a general means of intimidation, control and repression of the public. The latter I would consider indicative of a police state. As I understand it, the suggestion that people stay home and not go out was merely that: a suggestion, that people were free to follow or ignore. Looks like most of the people chose to follow the suggestion, but hey, who doesn't welcome an excuse to miss work now and then?

Several years ago I was in NYC when a bomb went off in a subway (the train, not the restaurant.) Turns out it was very close to where we were staying and we came upon it as we returned from a day of shopping and sight-seeing. I must say that the paramilitary-like response in post-2001 NYC that happened around me was rather impressive. Hundreds, if not thousands, of police swooped into the area in a very short time, on foot, on horseback, by car, in the air, by armored vehicle. But it didn't bother me one bit. The only thing that bothered me was NY's Draconian and oppressive laws that interfere with the ability of the majority of people to provide for their own self-defense in a reasonable manner. That, if anything, is the police-state aspect of it all.
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Bill Maher calls it a police state?

Postby Dangerousman » Mon May 06, 2013 2:47 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:DMan, are you now saying that there are limits on what weapons a civilian can possess (under your interpretation of the Second Amendment)? I didn't think that was your opinion.


Refine your question. Are you asking if there ARE limits, or if I think there OUGHT to be limits?
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Bill Maher calls it a police state?

Postby Henry Vilas » Mon May 06, 2013 2:50 pm

Dangerousman wrote:
Henry Vilas wrote:DMan, are you now saying that there are limits on what weapons a civilian can possess (under your interpretation of the Second Amendment)? I didn't think that was your opinion.


Refine your question. Are you asking if there ARE limits, or if I think there OUGHT to be limits?

Huh? I said "your interpretation" and "your opinion." I thought that was very clear.
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 20406
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: Bill Maher calls it a police state?

Postby Dangerousman » Mon May 06, 2013 3:04 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:
Dangerousman wrote:
Henry Vilas wrote:DMan, are you now saying that there are limits on what weapons a civilian can possess (under your interpretation of the Second Amendment)? I didn't think that was your opinion.


Refine your question. Are you asking if there ARE limits, or if I think there OUGHT to be limits?

Huh? I said "your interpretation" and "your opinion." I thought that was very clear.


Well, the phrase "shall not be infringed" seems very clear to me-- much more than how you asked your question. As I've stated a long time ago, I think there are natural limits that are practical and economic in nature. I doubt even Bill Gates, should he be inclined to have a fully armed and manned battleship, would be able to maintain one for a long time. But as far as legal limits, yes-- I believe whatever weapon one has, be it a .22 single-shot squirrel rifle, or a fully automatic M-60 machine gun, should be limited to non-criminal use only. Just like I think you shouldn't be allowed to use your car in a criminal manner, and I have no problem with laws that criminalize intentionally running people over.
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Bill Maher calls it a police state?

Postby jman111 » Mon May 06, 2013 3:10 pm

snoqueen wrote:...I can't avoid mentioning an anomaly (or even anachronism) between insisting on a strict 18th century definition of "regulated" but insisting on a 21st century definition of "arms" that includes weapons way beyond the founders' 18th century reality.

Spot on, sno.
jman111
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3179
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:43 pm
Location: Dane County

Re: Bill Maher calls it a police state?

Postby fennel » Mon May 06, 2013 3:25 pm

I'm puzzled that, though my car has been registered with the government for years, they have yet to come for it.
fennel
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3275
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 4:24 pm
Location: Inside the Green Zone, Madison

Re: Bill Maher calls it a police state?

Postby O.J. » Mon May 06, 2013 3:25 pm

Image
O.J.
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3026
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 10:13 am

Re: Bill Maher calls it a police state?

Postby Dangerousman » Tue May 07, 2013 4:20 pm

fennel wrote:I'm puzzled that, though my car has been registered with the government for years, they have yet to come for it.


Right.

But if the government, for whatever reason, decided that they did want to come after the cars, would you be puzzled that they somehow knew that you had one in your garage?
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Bill Maher calls it a police state?

Postby snoqueen » Tue May 07, 2013 6:02 pm

They don't have to bother with the garage. People leave their cars all over, like, the street. With their bare licenses hanging out.

This is an outrage and we need to immediately ban the licensing of motor vehicles on constitutional grounds. Somebody could be setting up a database, you know?
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11961
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: Bill Maher calls it a police state?

Postby Bludgeon » Tue May 07, 2013 6:41 pm

It's sad that in this news cycle any discussion about government use of force turns into a proxy argument for the gun debate. I never really thought much about it until that mess in Connecticut.

Guns was always one of those issues like abortion for me: file under "who gives a shit?"

For the life of me, I can't figure out why any conservative would be against abortion. Do they not realize that if they could have their way and undo every abortion that's happened in the last 40 years, that the welfare state would have swallowed up our society decades ago?

With the gun issue, liberals and conservatives seem to have had equally stupid, senseless, opposite reactions:

1: Liberals want to pass more laws to achieve the same aim as the aim of our current laws, even though the crime they're inspired by is one far beyond the reach of any law they could pass. Basically liberals want a trophy bandaid and then they will do their job and look the other way when these new laws fail as miserably as our current ones.

2. Conservatives for god knows what reason, respond by demanding we put armed, unionized police forces on school property, completely oblivious to the bald faced failure that all our current unionized public employees have brought to their own jobs that they already have. So even if the armed guard was a good idea, and it isn't, it would still be completely contrary to actual conservative principles, which have just gone out the window on this issue.

Watching 'Wyatt Earp' the other day, it was instructive to recall how even in the gun-loving hay-day of the Old West, places like Tombstone and Dodge City had a legal policy, "no guns allowed."

When I think about this it seems crystal clear and plain and obvious that a one size fits all gun policy is wrong, nationally.

Nonetheless, four weeks out and I'm still no less unnerved by spectacle there in Boston. How about being surprised by the police in the privacy of your own home and dragged out into the street just like your neighbors as para-military troopers search your house? I'm a little surprised so many self proclaimed pacifists and peace activists are so quick to proclaim, 'nothing to see here!'

I mean, check the video again - time: 03:44.

They are just blasting the shit out of this boat. We know the guy survived, was wounded, may have been wounded again during apprehension, but basically was harmless and immobile enough that the unarmed man who discovered him was able to go peek into the boat see the wounded kid, then call 911, the kid doesn't/can't move - - - so what the fuck are they blasting at with 800 rounds of ammunition? What did they hit? What for? By all appearances, it looks like a testosterone juiced, trigger happy rage fest.

They're just basically out there with "armored 'assault vehicles'", with automatic military weapons, blasting the shit out of a neighborhood.

End result aside - this is a good thing? They have a good reason to be doing this/we want them doing this?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... state.html
Bludgeon
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:27 am

Re: Bill Maher calls it a police state?

Postby fennel » Tue May 07, 2013 7:04 pm

Dangerousman wrote:But if the government, for whatever reason, decided that they did want to come after the cars, would you be puzzled that they somehow knew that you had one in your garage?
OMG! I just realized they have my social security number! What if they want to harvest my organs?

But really, if the gummint wanted to know who owns guns and wanted to waste it's time confiscating what are pea-shooters, in government terms, it would purchase the information from a corporate data collection service.

But if a police agency wanted to return a stolen gun to its rightful owner (think of a stolen car, now), the owner would probably be out of luck.
fennel
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3275
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 4:24 pm
Location: Inside the Green Zone, Madison

Re: Bill Maher calls it a police state?

Postby snoqueen » Tue May 07, 2013 8:02 pm

Bludgeon wrote:It's sad that in this news cycle any discussion about government use of force turns into a proxy argument for the gun debate....

For the life of me, I can't figure out why any conservative would be against abortion. Do they not realize that if they could have their way and undo every abortion that's happened in the last 40 years, that the welfare state would have swallowed up our society decades ago?


Hell is freezing over tonight and I find myself in agreement with a whole lot of what Bludgeon said here including the above. Let's go: Snipping of quotes by me is for brevity, not distortion.

With the gun issue, liberals and conservatives seem to have had equally stupid, senseless, opposite reactions:

1: Liberals want to pass more laws to achieve the same aim as the aim of our current laws, even though the crime they're inspired by is one far beyond the reach of any law they could pass.


OK, but is the ineffectiveness of current laws not at least partly a function of drastically and deliberately underfunded enforcement?

And is what you just said a reason we would not be better served by licensing, training, tracking the flow and accumulation of weapons, considering biometrics or other controls over discharging a gun, and much more? Prevention need not happen only at the last step, when someone commits mass murder. What about pattern-detection on a larger scale, the way we supposedly address political terrorism (which succeeds at least part of the time)?

Basically liberals want a trophy bandaid and then they will do their job and look the other way when these new laws fail as miserably as our current ones.


I don't think this is quite true, although liberals (like everyone else) are all over the map on what they want. I think some consensus could be assembled around the idea we would like the US to look more like a whole lot of other industrialized countries and entire continents, including Europe, much of industrialized Asia, and countries of the former British Empire: way fewer guns and less reliance on guns to settle differences.

Whether this can be legislated, though, is the question. As long as we've got a chunk of the populace who thinks a personal collection of assault weapons is a fine idea and the only way they can sleep at night, probably not.

So I think you're not totally off base here. At least you're asking discussable questions.

2. Conservatives for god knows what reason, respond by demanding we put armed, unionized police forces on school property, completely oblivious to the bald faced failure that all our current unionized public employees have brought to their own jobs that they already have. So even if the armed guard was a good idea, and it isn't, it would still be completely contrary to actual conservative principles, which have just gone out the window on this issue.


While I don't think this is entirely a union-related issue, we can agree the armed guard thing isn't a good idea and is, indeed, completely contrary to the part of conservative principles which have to do with limiting, not expanding, the role of government, and the part that honors the past or parts of the past as precedent.

Watching 'Wyatt Earp' the other day, it was instructive to recall how even in the gun-loving hay-day of the Old West, places like Tombstone and Dodge City had a legal policy, "no guns allowed."

When I think about this it seems crystal clear and plain and obvious that a one size fits all gun policy is wrong, nationally.


I too have found the Dodge City "no guns allowed" history so ironic in light of what we're hearing today. The frontier mentality wasn't quite like it's being imagined in 2012, and the "War of Northern Aggression" wasn't the totality of American history.

I agree about the one size fits all policy being unworkable, and I tried to say the same thing when I talked about how so many fissures in public opinion are being ignored: urban/rural, race differences, ethnic differences, sex differences, regional differences. We'll never settle this as long as we're pretending all that stuff is secondary. To imagine it is makes the urban viewpoint, the African American or Hispanic viewpoint, the women's viewpoint, and various regional viewpoints inferior to the viewpoint of the NRA and its allies. This is contrary to what I understand as the American fundamentals whether you're conservative or liberal or nothing.

Nonetheless, four weeks out and I'm still no less unnerved by spectacle there in Boston. ...

I mean, check the video again - time: 03:44.

They are just blasting the shit out of this boat. We know the guy survived, was wounded, may have been wounded again during apprehension, but basically was harmless and immobile


Much agreement with the boat thing. I don't know what shape the kid was in when he first hid, but he didn't come out looking so good. And if they're investigating what happened to him in between, they're keeping it very, very quiet. Was he armed at all in the boat? Did he attempt suicide? Was he a threat to anybody else such that he couldn't be flushed out with tear gas? We were told a professional negotiation guy was on the scene -- what happened to that?

What did they hit? What for? By all appearances, it looks like a testosterone juiced, trigger happy rage fest.


I didn't mind the show of force, but the boat thing crossed a lot of lines in my view.

I don't like the media silence on this either. We've seen a media silence before and the most salient example was the invasion of Iraq. No good came of that. None.

All this is hardly an excuse to get all armed up and make threats about resistance at gunpoint, but all the parts are there. We need a discussion and accountability in the form of transparency, even though nobody -- especially in Boston -- is saying the Marathon bombing was mishandled. People -- officials, even -- were frightened and acted quickly. Assuming this will happen again in some form, what would be a more measured response?

I appreciate your posting, and would add if we saw reasonable commentary like this more often we might find a path back to a workable two-party system.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11961
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

PreviousNext

Return to National Politics & Government

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR
Created with flickr badge.

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar