Massacre Again

Well was the man resisting?
Are there dozens of these videos? Hundreds? Thousands?
Brings me back to the causes listed under the study...did you bother to read the study or did you just simply poo-poo it because of the source?

The "limp citizen" was not resisting, and said so. The video was one of a series of "test" videos filmed in similar situations -- a private citizen going to a police substation outside of daytime business hours and asking how to file a complaint against a police officer. Only about 10% of the situations resulted in the citizen getting a department complaint form or directions about how to file a complaint online or by mail, while most of those departments had a written policy that citizens would be given a form on which they could file their complaint. Denial, intimidation, unwarranted traffic tickets (things like following the citizen to the parking lot and issuing a ticket for "improper backing"), assault, and false arrests were not uncommon.

The situation was so common that it leads me to believe that it is trained -- which brings us back to Lexipro's core business.
 
The "limp citizen" was not resisting, and said so. The video was one of a series of "test" videos filmed in similar situations -- a private citizen going to a police substation outside of daytime business hours and asking how to file a complaint against a police officer. Only about 10% of the situations resulted in the citizen getting a department complaint form or directions about how to file a complaint online or by mail, while most of those departments had a written policy that citizens would be given a form on which they could file their complaint. Denial, intimidation, unwarranted traffic tickets (things like following the citizen to the parking lot and issuing a ticket for "improper backing"), assault, and false arrests were not uncommon.

The situation was so common that it leads me to believe that it is trained -- which brings us back to Lexipro's core business.
Which brings me back to you didn't read the article...
 
Opinion | A Surprisingly Simple Way to Make Sure Good Gun Laws Get Passed
Opinion by By Richard Feldman - 7h ago

In the wake of two horrible mass shootings in as many weeks, Congress appears as if it might… might…want to do something about how the wrong people obtain guns. As usual, the urgency is coming almost exclusively from the Democratic side, but some Republicans, led by Texas Sen. John Cornyn, are actively participating in drafting potential legislation. But for Congress to actually enact bipartisan legislation, rather than simply go through the motions of another fruitless debate, lawmakers will have to focus on specific preventions not generalized gun bans.

Many on the left will likely say bans are prevention measures. But bans on certain types of weapons or ammunition aren’t practical or politically smart. There are hundreds of millions of semi-automatic firearms owned by over 100 millions Americans, including over 20 million AR-15-type rifles, the most common rifle sold in the U.S. Moreover, bans immediately alienate law-abiding gun owners whose support is crucial to Republican legislators whose support is essential to passage of any new bill.

The key is to remember that neither the “gun lobby” (which President Biden has blamed) nor the “gun grabbers” (the NRA’s boogeyman) supports arming violent predatory criminals or psychopaths. We are not fighting about the policy results because we already agree that dangerous people shouldn’t have access to weapons. To avoid the pointless trap of political demonization, our orienting question must be: “In whose hands are the guns?” Whatever laws we write should be smart enough to distinguish between law-abiding gun owners and people with criminal intent. For the latter group, which the shooters in Buffalo and Uvalde so obviously belong to, we must then ask: How did they get the weapons and how can we make it harder for those types to get them in the future?

Instead of farcical ideas like arming elementary school teachers, which isn’t any more palatable to educators than mandating psychiatric exams prior to buying guns are to firearm owners. Instead let’s examine ideas that can make us safe and are in the realm of the possible. Here are a few,

1. Under the law today, an 18-year-old cannot buy a beer or purchase a handgun until he turns 21. But he can buy a rifle, including the AR-15 style weapon used in the Uvalde massacre, within days of turning 18. We can raise the age for purchase of a long gun to the same age under federal law for purchase of a handgun – 21 years old. It would have prevented both the shooter in Uvalde and Buffalo from obtaining the guns they in fact lawfully purchased and disturbingly used.

2. The next item that we could fix is a properly drafted gun restraining order or “Red Flag Law.” To obtain gun owner support (indeed any civil libertarian support), such a law must limit those seeking the restraining order to those who have close interactions with the respondent. They must have clear and convincing evidence that the person is an immediate danger. In an emergency situation, the order could be granted before the respondent can counter, but a full hearing must expeditiously be granted. If we adhere to due process (avoiding hearsay,for example) gun owners can’t complain that the laws infringe the rights of peaceful gun owners. Several states have enacted RFL’s with varying degrees of opposition and success. The more careful we are in drafting this law, the less likely it will become a poorly used prohibition that gun owners will decry.

3. We can pass background checks for all commercial transfers of firearms. Note that I didn’t suggest the more politically charged and counter-productive “universal” background checks. Universal background checks include transfers to family members which inevitably will be ignored, making de facto criminals of millions of children, parents and spouses. The value of background checks is verifying the safety of people you don’t know, not delaying transfers to those who sleep in the next bedroom or long-standing close friends.

4. Let’s pass legislation that gives an immediate income tax deduction for the purchase of gun safes for both home and cars. States with sales taxes can piggyback this with a sales tax exemption as well. This might sound like an unusual indulgence for gun owners, but isn’t the point to prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands? If we can achieve that with a tax carrot rather than a criminal stick, why shouldn’t we? Let’s encourage gun owners by using our tax code before we consider more mandates in our criminal code.

5. Finally, we need an organized and coordinated approach to this multifaceted problem. This should begin immediately but the benefits will take more time. WPete Gagliardi, former director of Congressional affairs at the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, has proposed a “national task force on mass shootings.” Gagliardi wrote, “To label the cause of the problem as one thing or another — mental illness or guns or both — without deliberate review by diverse entities at this point may be little more than opinions, as well-intended as they may be. Even if 100 percent correct, they are not in and of themselves sustainable solutions without a well-conceived proper plan of action.” Maturity requires using the moment to make the right decisions. If we continue following the pacifying cry to “just do something,” we will again miss the opportunity to make effectual choices.

Defined in terms of promoting safety rather than denying rights, new gun laws can be politically advantageous to both sides.

The past two years saw a huge increase in gun buying amongst Asians, Black people, Hispanics and women, constituencies the Democrats historically count upon. These voters are listening to this debate and what they hear (intentionally or otherwise) is that “they can’t be trusted with the guns they own” and that they should rely on the police for protection. (The inadequate performance by law enforcement in Uvalde makes this proposition debatable at best.) Gun laws that make it impossible for citizens to protect themselves will only help drive more voters into the arms of the GOP.

When Republicans “Just say no,” a defensive crouch that doesn’t align with the majority of public opinion, and Democrats seek to outlaw the last firearm type misused it’s no wonder Americans feel hopeless from calculated gridlock. There are answers surrounding the misuse of guns if we will address them calmly and without the annoying tribal accusations that underscore infuriating politics but preclude constructive policy accomplishments.

Good politics dictate that the people participate in the policy process. If you don’t like the process of democracy, that’s a whole different debate. We used to be pretty good at balancing interests, rights and responsibilities in the United States. In the 1980s, Mothers against Drunk Driving helped to raise the drinking age to 21. We didn’t set as a goal the prohibition of alcohol nor the suspension of the sale, ownership or use of private vehicles. We zeroed in on the problem of a deadly behavior. We ought to try that strategy again right now.

Opinion | A Surprisingly Simple Way to Make Sure Good Gun Laws Get Passed (msn.com)
 
The "limp citizen" was not resisting, and said so. The video was one of a series of "test" videos filmed in similar situations -- a private citizen going to a police substation outside of daytime business hours and asking how to file a complaint against a police officer. Only about 10% of the situations resulted in the citizen getting a department complaint form or directions about how to file a complaint online or by mail, while most of those departments had a written policy that citizens would be given a form on which they could file their complaint. Denial, intimidation, unwarranted traffic tickets (things like following the citizen to the parking lot and issuing a ticket for "improper backing"), assault, and false arrests were not uncommon.

The situation was so common that it leads me to believe that it is trained -- which brings us back to Lexipro's core business.

Here's another example of well-trained intimidation tactics --

 
Look's like the Chief of Police was also pals with Beto and Joe. He gave $5 to both of them to show support in their elections. Then we have Beto interrupting press conference and now we have Joe wanting all the good weapons illegal. He say's you can keep your 22 because if the enemy does come at you and you shoot them in the lung, the bad guys won;t die because a 22 won;t destroy the bad guy with a better gun and that is trying to take you down. These people are nuts and they will go down as the most stupid humans ever. Pick the TRUTH over the LIES.
 
Talk about mass killings. I'm SMFH this morning. I have a meet up with my best liberal friend. I love this guy and he loves me. I can;t wait to show him the pics of his fav Anti-Trumper Congressman Shifty. I know some people that have some weird fetishes and that should remain private. However, if they involve minors and those minors were stolen and or harvested for these fetishes', then that cannot remain private and if it is the actual virus, then we all need to at the very least, help contain that behavior and not make it so normal. We have to PROTECT the kids and that starts when their woven together in the womb and after a male and female hook up. We have a problem in this country and it involves the children and we all know it.

1654262029052.png
 
I was born into Private Foster Care ((PFF)). My other pals in the adoption world or no adoption world were born into State Foster Care ((SFC)). I had a very dear pal from church days that had a wife that cheated on him when they were going through her alcohol addiction. Long story but she met a guy at rehab and they had sex and she got pregnant. My pal did tell her if she doesnt seek treatment, he will leave her. She got arrested for crashing her car and was told by the judge, "Jail or rehab." She chose the latter and my pal was happy for a few months until she told him she was pregnant. He knew 100% it wasn't his kid because. He already had two kids with her and he really did love his wife and believed in her and thought this was his calling in life, to love another man's child. He told me all this and asked me for advice along the way. I told him what I would do from the very beginning but he didn;t listen. She promised to quit once and for all and that she made a mistake and she will be better. So they both decided to keep the baby and raise this baby and they tried. The biological father was a crack addict and drank booze during the time they conceived the child. This is called a "Crack and Alcohol baby" and it's sad that two adults would be so irresponsible and treat life like they did. I am not making this up. Anyway, wife never quit and they got a divorce. My pal 100% tried to raise the other guys child for two years by himself and his two kids but the kid was a mess. I say this lightly and with 100% compassion you guys. He was arrested in grade school for crazy stuff and my buddy said, "no mas." The boy was put in a half way house and jail was next. This is where crush comes in. I felt so bad for him and thought I could love him and "fix" him. His mom was in jail and he had no true family, except his mom and she was a mess and still is last I heard. One reason I hate booze. He never met his biological dad and the dad he thought was his dad is not his real dad after all. The only dad he knew gave hom to the State. So I stepped and my son tied to help. We took him to church and lunch at my house. He was such a cool kid but so angry and full of abandonment and lack of love. Wouldn;t you be angry a little? This is where they groom these kids. I tried my best but he got into some big fights and then to the Big House and I lost track of him. He became very violent and full of rage. I pray for him a lot. His name is David and he's not a monster. He needed love you guys from birth.

1654279462816.png
 
I didn;t even know this. Espola been telling us all that all they did back then was hide under the table from a Nuke attack. Can you imagine today's teacher on guns?

1654280340405.png
 
It began In 1768, “the freeholders” led by John Hancock and James Otis, met in Boston at Faneuil Hall and passed several resolutions. Including “that the Subjects being Protestants, may have Arms for their Defense.”

The royal governor rejected this proposal.

1654362582990.png
 
Back
Top