Uhm, isn’t that your job?
Chief of police can’t understand why people want guns to defend themselves.
15 Responses to “Uhm, isn’t that your job?”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
January 10th, 2012 at 10:27 am
Thanks for the link!
January 10th, 2012 at 11:22 am
“What I can’t understand is how come we have not evolved beyond the point that the best way to protect ourselves is a gun? How come we cannot come up with something that is less destructive and less permanent.”
What? Well excuse me for not evolving better natural defenses, I’ll get right on that.
January 10th, 2012 at 11:39 am
He typifies the mind-controlled zombie preferred as the agents of tyranny.
January 10th, 2012 at 11:50 am
I spent a week at the U of W Law School a couple of years ago and found Madison to be a lot like San Francisco.
A lot of fun to visit, but pretty much a different planet.
It’s quite rich for someone who wouldn’t give up his own gun to not understand why someone else would want that same protection.
January 10th, 2012 at 1:56 pm
Reading between the Lines, I get the impression that the Chief considers all Citizens who want to use their God-Given RKBA to be “Less Evolved.”
So translating, if you don’t want to “Engage in Reasonable Discourse,” or are “against Common Sense Gun Laws,” then YOU are the Problem. YOU must be some sort of “Sub-Human Retard” who can’t see the “Inevitably of History,” as Marx once wrote.
The Modern Day Anti-Gunner is easy to understand. They think they are better than you and me, they are always right in their thinking, and they DESERVE to be in Charge, because they are just they are so much more “Evolved.”
BTW, this is the same thinking of Hitler, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Kim, Pol Pot, Chavez, et.al.
And like all those Mothers, the Anti-Gunner would have NO Problem putting all the Citizens who use the RKBA into Camps, if push came to shove. Joe Huffmann’s “Jews in the Attic” Test comes to my “Sub-Human Retarded Excuse for a Brain.”
The Irony is, to put Us behind the Wire, it would take People with Guns to make it happen. But never let a little Hypocrisy get in the way of the Cause, eh?
Know Thy Enemy.
January 10th, 2012 at 2:34 pm
Because we know a young mother in Oklahoma was on the phone with the police dispatcher for 21 minutes while the cops drove around in circles waiting for the danger to end before they would drive to her house.
January 10th, 2012 at 3:07 pm
So I’m supposed to evolve and do what? Use the Force to defend myself?
January 10th, 2012 at 3:11 pm
He needs to get out in the field more. I’m sure his patrolmen can explain why they feel a need for their self-defense weapon even with all their police pain-compliance equipment and backup just a radio call away.
Just how ignorant they are is exemplified by this from the source article by a Madison police officer and weapons expert:
Except none of those replace a firearm for self defense in a life threatening situation. They are pain compliance spectrum methods and fighting techniques. They are not defense from imminent threat of death and bodily injury and generally non-police in legal trouble.
January 10th, 2012 at 3:51 pm
The day the Madison police decides to follow the British model and go without guns I consider his suggestions.
January 10th, 2012 at 5:10 pm
Bubblehead,
Well-said!!
And how is the gun control of the anti-gunners to be enforced? Oh, by guns, of course!
January 10th, 2012 at 7:16 pm
If thier Chief of Police is the standard example of how the human race should “evolve” I would rather remain intelligent.
January 10th, 2012 at 7:53 pm
Become venomous, that’s the ticket! I’m going to as soon as I figure out how. Until then, .45ACP will have to do.
January 10th, 2012 at 10:36 pm
Recent posts at PJ Media have pointed up the fact that, legally, the police and the fire department are not required to protect individuals.
The legal argument for police forces is that they are intended to act as a deterrent to crime, but that there just are never enough officers to realistically respond effectively to, you know, actual crimes in progress.
I notice that they are pretty effective at enforcement on the law abiding though.
So, the old saw that says, “When seconds count, the police are only an hour away”, has some meat on the bone.
I don’t guess I’ll be spending no 21 minutes on a 911 call, if the situation ever comes up.
Your milage may vary, of cource.
January 11th, 2012 at 6:45 am
B Dubya mentioned the legal part, I thought I’d provide an interesting link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
January 16th, 2012 at 12:01 pm
MU:
When the British Bobbie carries a handgun, they carry it concealed.