We are to be pitied because we have so few assault rifles in this town I guess. Come on people...man up! Everybody needs an AR-15 with a 30 round clip! If we'd just get more guns, then we wouldn't be so pitiable.
Used to live in PPP, Emerybay (along with registered assault weapons). It's easy to say weapons are not for defense when you have front desk security. Ken James either mis-spoke or is a fool, weapons are absolutely for self defense and frankly with all the murders in the area (I've met two people murdered in the 10 years I lived in Emeryville) you're a fool not to be armed (unless again of course you have front desk security). Most the Berkeley liberals live in a bubble and think nothing will ever happen to them. Others are more practical and come prepared.
Until I read a rational pro-gun screed in these comments, I'm clamping down on all this. While It can be fun for awhile to engage with the childish irrationality flourishing here, I've reached my limit. I need to hear an original thought or just some old fashioned rationality...the talking points from the NRA are not going to be posted here anymore. So, gunnies, it's up to you.
So, Brian and Ronald, you're OK with your local police officers being armed, not as a defensive measure, but as a tool of fear and intimidation? Glad to see Fascism is alive and well. It has worked out so well for others around the world that you embrace it with vigor. Well done!
Fascism...yeah, you hear that charge a lot nowadays; ironically from the right wing in America. Commonly, they'll conflate fascism and socialism or communism. I think this anti-rational line of "thinking" is perpetuated by right wing think tanks and released as talking points to be wall-to-wall disseminated to the ignoramuses who listen to right wing radio. I've never heard yet an accurate or cogent description of actual fascism from these dunderheads.
To this commenter, your use of the word in this context answers all all I need to know about responding.
Yes, the term has been used by both right wingers and left wingers in describing their opponents, depending on the situation. It is a somewhat nebulous concept that takes on elements of far right and far left. In this context, perhaps it would have been more appropriate for me to say "some elements of" preceding the term. Totalitarianism or authoritarianism may have been more to your liking.
Or how about this tact; for the chief, ANY chief, to describe firearms, including those carried by police officers, NOT as defensive weapons but as weapons of fear and intimidation is just about the most absurd statement to come from the mouth of a chief law enforcement officer that I have ever heard. And, as a retired 30+ year law enforcement officer of a state I've heard a few absurd statements in my time. It is counter to everything that law enforcement officers receive in academy and in-service training everywhere in this country. As a current LE academy instructor in firearms, defensive tactics and use of force, if I were to go in front of an academy class and tell them that the firearms they will be carrying are tools of offensive power and to be used, not for defense of self and others, but for intimidation I would be tossed out on my ear, and rightfully so.
So tell me Brian, do you agree with those statements of the chief? Is that how you view your police force? Are you OK with them viewing their citizenry as subjects who must be intimidated and wanting to be feared, with firearms being the basis for that intimidation and fear?
Fear, intimidation, and a show of power may be the reason gang-bangers and other criminal users of firearms may carry and use them. Not so the police OR armed, law abiding citizens who chose to take responsibility for their own immediate personal safety. To say otherwise is just flat incorrect.
Sorry, there's nothing "nebulous" about fascism. It's an easily definable political philosophy with historic precedence. Incidentally, it's actually counter to socialism. WWll so you know, was a war against fascism by the forces of democratic socialism (and communism if you call the Soviet Union communist).
Chief James in the video is talking about the reason police carry firearms. He's using the fact law enforcement carries guns to draw a distinction between the police as existing to fight back against criminals versus the notion that police exist to stop crime. It's a somewhat nuanced (hence the rage on the right) view that puts police officers as the more powerful force between criminals and the law. This is not only reasonable, it's totally what I expect out of a police force. That's why they're here after all.
It seems to me you've got some obsession with guns. You ought to take a more rational and dispassionate look at these tools law enforcement uses. You should save your outrage for all the gun kooks and their culture-of-death dystopian world view they're loudly proclaiming as (biblically) Constitutional.
" Incidentally, it's actually counter to socialism. WWll so you know, was a war against fascism by the forces of democratic socialism (and communism if you call the Soviet Union communist)."
Except for the pesky fact that the fascists and communists (or socialists) were ALLIES at the start of the war.
Sure, yes, the Soviet Union (communist sort of) formed an offensive/defensive pact with Germany (fascist). And what of it? There's nothing pesky about it. Two divergent political/economic regimes formed a pact because they could both thought such a pact could bring benefit to each from a geo-political perspective. How about the fact that later on the Soviet Union was allied with the United States...does that prove the US was communist? Or that the Soviet Union was capitalist? Is there a pesky fact with the allied staus of the Soviet Union and the US? I can't understand what your greater point is supposed to be.
Where do yo find an "obsession with guns" in my posts? Because I was a law enforcement officer and currently train officers in their use? How does that translate to an obsession with guns? I view firearms just exactly as you suggest, a tool. An inanimate object that can be used for good or evil, depending on the intent of the user. My goal is to ensure that law enforcement officers who carry them every day are equipped with the knowledge and skills to use them properly and effectively in defense of self and others. And if a private individual chooses that same tool for the same reasons, that doesn't make them a kook. If those views make me obsessed with guns in your view, then so be it. There are kooks on both sides of this issue. I have used my "outrage" to speak against both extremes. This particular incident with the chief is just one of those sides. You can parse his words any way you like. The notion that the police don't carry firearms for defense of self and others but as a show of power and intimidation is still wrong.
OK, we believe you...you're not a kook. Really, we believe you. And your gun, aaah.... hobby.... isn't an obsession. OK there chief; not a kook and no obsession. We got it.
It's easy to label firearm owners as kooks living in the bubble of the east bay when your daily experience is high density urban environment and your only interaction with the other side is the occasional punk at Macarthur BART or a belligerent patron at the Pack n Save. As a former Emeryville resident and Cal Alum I know many like this - good hearted but hopelessly naive. The other side of that coin as a former Hayward business owner who works late has been robbed at gun point, has had the business broken into by multiple burglars with axes and sledgehammers on multiple occasions, and who has had relatives and friends shot in the east bay I know it only takes one incident to be a victim, a split second to lose your life, and that a firearm can potentially be your best friend and save your life. It's the same reason I carry an earthquake preparedness kit in my car, the same reason my auto policy has a $1 mil liability policy, and my house has earthquake insurance. Yes I enjoy shooting as a hobby, but a firearm is also a tool. It's frighteningly naive to believe that if you are a victim the PD is just a phone call away - perhaps Emeryville PD can dispatch to PPP in less than 2 minutes - I have been in situations where the PD takes more than 15 minutes to arrive. When you are in your business at 11pm and a group of guys is trying to crowbar your back door are you going to bet on the PD coming on time, or do you use your 12-gauge shotgun as a defensive weapon? I have been in that situation - and while no one got hurt it could have easily gone the other way. If you're trying to improve the world start by campaigning for a ban on alcohol. 80K related deaths according to the CDC, no medical benefits. A firearm will save your life, alcohol will not. Does my proposal seem ridiculous? Is it because you drink responsibly on occasion but have never owned a firearm? Some things to think about... -Your former neighbor
Are you going to address the point of my post (that in one statement the Chief made two contradictory points) or are you going to continue to ignore it?
Read my response about this above. The statements are not contradictory. The point the Chief is making is nuanced, again something the right wing, especially the gun kooks are incapable of sensitivity to, yourself included. The fact that the guns kooks, many of them Constitutional "originalists" think the right to bear assault rifles is ensconced in that document is evidence to what I am speaking about. The whole Constitutionality of specific guns is totally arbitrary, another point that you won't understand. I think you should start fighting for our right to bear these arms: rocket propelled grenade launchers and surface-to-air missile launchers. These are both arms and so we have a right to bear them.
Until I read a rational pro-gun screed in these comments, I'm clamping down on all this. While It can be fun for awhile to engage with the childish irrationality flourishing here, I've reached my limit. I need to hear an original thought or just some old fashioned rationality...the talking points from the NRA are not going to be posted here anymore. So, gunnies, it's up to you.
I'm proud of our Police Chief!
ReplyDeleteWhat a fool, I pity the people of Emeryville.
ReplyDeleteWe are to be pitied because we have so few assault rifles in this town I guess. Come on people...man up! Everybody needs an AR-15 with a 30 round clip! If we'd just get more guns, then we wouldn't be so pitiable.
DeletePerfect response.
ReplyDeletehttp://youtu.be/iBi7OeAohok
Ken James is a bought and paid for tool of the anti-gun lobby.
The anti-gun lobby: also known as the people of Emeryville. Oh and yes, we do pay him for his services.
DeleteUsed to live in PPP, Emerybay (along with registered assault weapons). It's easy to say weapons are not for defense when you have front desk security. Ken James either mis-spoke or is a fool, weapons are absolutely for self defense and frankly with all the murders in the area (I've met two people murdered in the 10 years I lived in Emeryville) you're a fool not to be armed (unless again of course you have front desk security). Most the Berkeley liberals live in a bubble and think nothing will ever happen to them. Others are more practical and come prepared.
DeleteUntil I read a rational pro-gun screed in these comments, I'm clamping down on all this. While It can be fun for awhile to engage with the childish irrationality flourishing here, I've reached my limit. I need to hear an original thought or just some old fashioned rationality...the talking points from the NRA are not going to be posted here anymore. So, gunnies, it's up to you.
DeleteSo, Brian and Ronald, you're OK with your local police officers being armed, not as a defensive measure, but as a tool of fear and intimidation? Glad to see Fascism is alive and well. It has worked out so well for others around the world that you embrace it with vigor. Well done!
ReplyDeleteFascism...yeah, you hear that charge a lot nowadays; ironically from the right wing in America. Commonly, they'll conflate fascism and socialism or communism.
DeleteI think this anti-rational line of "thinking" is perpetuated by right wing think tanks and released as talking points to be wall-to-wall disseminated to the ignoramuses who listen to right wing radio. I've never heard yet an accurate or cogent description of actual fascism from these dunderheads.
To this commenter, your use of the word in this context answers all all I need to know about responding.
Yes, the term has been used by both right wingers and left wingers in describing their opponents, depending on the situation. It is a somewhat nebulous concept that takes on elements of far right and far left. In this context, perhaps it would have been more appropriate for me to say "some elements of" preceding the term. Totalitarianism or authoritarianism may have been more to your liking.
DeleteOr how about this tact; for the chief, ANY chief, to describe firearms, including those carried by police officers, NOT as defensive weapons but as weapons of fear and intimidation is just about the most absurd statement to come from the mouth of a chief law enforcement officer that I have ever heard. And, as a retired 30+ year law enforcement officer of a state I've heard a few absurd statements in my time. It is counter to everything that law enforcement officers receive in academy and in-service training everywhere in this country. As a current LE academy instructor in firearms, defensive tactics and use of force, if I were to go in front of an academy class and tell them that the firearms they will be carrying are tools of offensive power and to be used, not for defense of self and others, but for intimidation I would be tossed out on my ear, and rightfully so.
So tell me Brian, do you agree with those statements of the chief? Is that how you view your police force? Are you OK with them viewing their citizenry as subjects who must be intimidated and wanting to be feared, with firearms being the basis for that intimidation and fear?
Fear, intimidation, and a show of power may be the reason gang-bangers and other criminal users of firearms may carry and use them. Not so the police OR armed, law abiding citizens who chose to take responsibility for their own immediate personal safety. To say otherwise is just flat incorrect.
Sorry, there's nothing "nebulous" about fascism. It's an easily definable political philosophy with historic precedence. Incidentally, it's actually counter to socialism. WWll so you know, was a war against fascism by the forces of democratic socialism (and communism if you call the Soviet Union communist).
DeleteChief James in the video is talking about the reason police carry firearms. He's using the fact law enforcement carries guns to draw a distinction between the police as existing to fight back against criminals versus the notion that police exist to stop crime. It's a somewhat nuanced (hence the rage on the right) view that puts police officers as the more powerful force between criminals and the law. This is not only reasonable, it's totally what I expect out of a police force. That's why they're here after all.
It seems to me you've got some obsession with guns. You ought to take a more rational and dispassionate look at these tools law enforcement uses. You should save your outrage for all the gun kooks and their culture-of-death dystopian world view they're loudly proclaiming as (biblically) Constitutional.
" Incidentally, it's actually counter to socialism. WWll so you know, was a war against fascism by the forces of democratic socialism (and communism if you call the Soviet Union communist)."
DeleteExcept for the pesky fact that the fascists and communists (or socialists) were ALLIES at the start of the war.
Geez, history much?
Sure, yes, the Soviet Union (communist sort of) formed an offensive/defensive pact with Germany (fascist). And what of it? There's nothing pesky about it. Two divergent political/economic regimes formed a pact because they could both thought such a pact could bring benefit to each from a geo-political perspective. How about the fact that later on the Soviet Union was allied with the United States...does that prove the US was communist? Or that the Soviet Union was capitalist? Is there a pesky fact with the allied staus of the Soviet Union and the US? I can't understand what your greater point is supposed to be.
DeleteGeez, logic much?
No, it means your original point has no logical basis whatsoever.
DeleteYou're done here..too childish for my interest.
DeleteWhere do yo find an "obsession with guns" in my posts? Because I was a law enforcement officer and currently train officers in their use? How does that translate to an obsession with guns? I view firearms just exactly as you suggest, a tool. An inanimate object that can be used for good or evil, depending on the intent of the user. My goal is to ensure that law enforcement officers who carry them every day are equipped with the knowledge and skills to use them properly and effectively in defense of self and others. And if a private individual chooses that same tool for the same reasons, that doesn't make them a kook. If those views make me obsessed with guns in your view, then so be it. There are kooks on both sides of this issue. I have used my "outrage" to speak against both extremes. This particular incident with the chief is just one of those sides. You can parse his words any way you like. The notion that the police don't carry firearms for defense of self and others but as a show of power and intimidation is still wrong.
ReplyDeleteOK, we believe you...you're not a kook. Really, we believe you. And your gun, aaah.... hobby.... isn't an obsession. OK there chief; not a kook and no obsession. We got it.
DeleteIt's easy to label firearm owners as kooks living in the bubble of the east bay when your daily experience is high density urban environment and your only interaction with the other side is the occasional punk at Macarthur BART or a belligerent patron at the Pack n Save. As a former Emeryville resident and Cal Alum I know many like this - good hearted but hopelessly naive. The other side of that coin as a former Hayward business owner who works late has been robbed at gun point, has had the business broken into by multiple burglars with axes and sledgehammers on multiple occasions, and who has had relatives and friends shot in the east bay I know it only takes one incident to be a victim, a split second to lose your life, and that a firearm can potentially be your best friend and save your life. It's the same reason I carry an earthquake preparedness kit in my car, the same reason my auto policy has a $1 mil liability policy, and my house has earthquake insurance. Yes I enjoy shooting as a hobby, but a firearm is also a tool. It's frighteningly naive to believe that if you are a victim the PD is just a phone call away - perhaps Emeryville PD can dispatch to PPP in less than 2 minutes - I have been in situations where the PD takes more than 15 minutes to arrive. When you are in your business at 11pm and a group of guys is trying to crowbar your back door are you going to bet on the PD coming on time, or do you use your 12-gauge shotgun as a defensive weapon? I have been in that situation - and while no one got hurt it could have easily gone the other way. If you're trying to improve the world start by campaigning for a ban on alcohol. 80K related deaths according to the CDC, no medical benefits. A firearm will save your life, alcohol will not. Does my proposal seem ridiculous? Is it because you drink responsibly on occasion but have never owned a firearm? Some things to think about...
Delete-Your former neighbor
Do you realize just how tedious this is?
DeleteFirst Ken James says:
ReplyDelete“One issue that always boggles my mind is that the idea that a gun is a defensive weapon. That is a myth. A gun is not a defensive weapon.”
but then he says:
"They (the police) carry a gun to do their job in a safe and effective manner and face any oppositions (sic) that they may come upon."
Which is it? Carrying a gun to "face any oppostions" is the very definition of a defensive use of a gun.
This is an utterly vapid statement.
More "logic" from the what should I call them... gun aficionados. There's nothing to your revelation dude.
DeleteAre you going to address the point of my post (that in one statement the Chief made two contradictory points) or are you going to continue to ignore it?
DeleteRead my response about this above. The statements are not contradictory. The point the Chief is making is nuanced, again something the right wing, especially the gun kooks are incapable of sensitivity to, yourself included.
DeleteThe fact that the guns kooks, many of them Constitutional "originalists" think the right to bear assault rifles is ensconced in that document is evidence to what I am speaking about. The whole Constitutionality of specific guns is totally arbitrary, another point that you won't understand. I think you should start fighting for our right to bear these arms: rocket propelled grenade launchers and surface-to-air missile launchers. These are both arms and so we have a right to bear them.
Until I read a rational pro-gun screed in these comments, I'm clamping down on all this. While It can be fun for awhile to engage with the childish irrationality flourishing here, I've reached my limit. I need to hear an original thought or just some old fashioned rationality...the talking points from the NRA are not going to be posted here anymore. So, gunnies, it's up to you.
ReplyDelete