Is America Losing the Rule of Law?

Current and Former Mayor's Office Staff Organize Protest at City Hall

Credit: mpi43/MediaPunch /IPX

By Jay Jacobson

Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, “There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe nor politic nor popular, but he must take it because his conscience tells him it is right.” With this in mind, I cannot stand aside and watch what is happening to our society without giving voice.

On February 12th, 2020, the Dow Jones Industrial Average enjoyed a record high, closing at 29,551.42 points. A little over one month later, on March 23, 2020, the DOW had plummeted 37% to close at 18,591.93. While there has been significant rebound from the lows of March, our economic framework is visibly damaged.

The Federal Government increased our National Debt by at least another $2 trillion dollars In March. The U.S. Gross Domestic Product shrank 5.0% last quarter. Unemployment went from under 4% in February to over 13% in May. Currently there are 21,000,000 people unemployed. And even today, many states still have COVID-19 closure orders preventing the bourgeoisie (to borrow a Marxist term) from fully returning to work.

In my lifetime, I have not observed my country in such a fragile condition exposed to threats both internal and external. Destructive rioting has demonstrated what happens when the police cannot respond.  The looting and destruction of businesses has produced a further drag on our economy that has yet to be quantified.

How many more people will be unemployed simply because the business they would have returned to has now been vandalized beyond recognition? In the midst of this destruction, there is now a call for a permanent injunction against law and order as the chants, slogans and calls ring out for “Defund the Police!” One has to ask why? What is the end goal?

No one with a conscience can watch the murder of Mr. George Floyd without noting the callous depravity of now former Officer Derek Chauvin. The country is united in this opinion. Yet, suddenly we will find ourselves in a world that appears antithetical unto itself. By calling for the abolition of the police, some believe their community will be safer. There are unintended consequences of heading down a path that will lead to disparity, depression, and chaos.

Recently a Minneapolis City Council Representative, Lisa Bender, was quoted as saying that the mere act of calling the police “comes from a place of privilege.” This is true. It is, however, an American privilege where we are all equally protected by the Constitution. She went on to say, “For those of us for whom the system is working, I think we need to step back and imagine what it would feel like to already live in the reality where calling the police may mean more harm is done.”

Ms. Bender clearly demonstrates that collectivism brings humanity to the lowest common denominator. By defunding or abolishing complete agencies, she is advocating wholesale anarchy. Has she never read Animal Farm or Lord of the Flies?

If we defund the police, then anarchists will continue to loot. If more businesses are looted and destroyed, then our economy will be further destabilized. If our economy becomes unstable, then investment will seek safe havens outside of the United States. If U.S. investment should decline, then unemployment will surely increase.

If more unemployed Americans are forced to become dependent upon government sustenance, then they will vote for those that will guarantee a meager stipend over an alternative that will only provide an opportunity for success. In short, we will cease to be a free market economy, and the United States will cease to exist as we know it.

Certainly if this modern movement were to succeed, the police would not be abolished. A new force not bound by the rule of law would simply replace the traditional police. We have already witnessed this phenomenon in the “Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone.” How is this justice?

By claiming “All lives matter,” one is labeled as a bigot. In truth, for all lives to matter, black lives must matter, too. In Luke 10:27, Jesus made it very clear that we are all commanded to “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” And later in that same chapter, he gave us the Parable of the Good Samaritan as an example of who our neighbor is. Employing that parable today, we all should be committed to look past the superficial differences and serve one another.

It was Martin Luther King, Jr. who said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Let us find solace in the knowledge that Derek Chauvin has been fired, arrested, and indicted for the murder of George Floyd. Chauvin will ultimately be judged by a jury of his peers. The voices of peaceful resistance have been heard. Justice will be served.

John Hancock On Declaration Of Independence

Bigstock

The reader might be wondering why a simple gun manufacturer would ever feel compelled to say anything about a complex public policy matter. John Hancock was a merchant (including a firearms merchant) who realized, as the rule of law was deposed, our society was set to devolve into further tyranny.

John Hancock’s prominent signature on the Declaration of Independence was clearly a risky move that could have led to his arrest and probable execution. Like him, we all should speak out before groups like Antifa take our country to a tipping point. Political correctness, and now brute force, are being employed to stifle reason and speech.

I urge the silent majority to make your voice heard. Stand up for justice and for the preservation of our communities, our constitution, and our country. And in case there was any doubt, let me say that I support the rule of law and every law enforcement officer and agency that maintains their oath to equally protect and defend the Constitution.

 

Jay Jacobson is the CEO of Franklin Armory. 

comments

  1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

    From the article:

    “…the mere act of calling the police ‘comes from a place of privilege.’ This is true.”

    No, it isn’t. It comes from my right to claim a response from the police due to the fact that the governing entity of that jurisdiction (whether state, county, or city level sourced funding) has already taxed me for that very service! The legal contract between Government and its People is that taxes can (constitutionally) be raised for services, but then those services must be delivered. It is therefore a contracted right once the monies are collected from me.

    As soon as I saw this gross error from the author, I disengaged from the article and stopped reading.

    1. avatar Biatec says:

      Yes. I agree.

      1. avatar Thinker1 says:

        I don’t. As the author points out, we all have this privilege in the US. We need to stop making the argument that everything is a right. There is far too much entitlement and far too little work ethic.

        1. avatar Biatec says:

          If they take my money to create a service I have the right to use it. Police are not a right but using services you are forced to pay for definitely is.

        2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          You are correct. Not everything is a right, and the sense of entitlement is too pervasive in our society today. But that is not the point I focused on above.

        3. avatar Geoff "Guns. LOTS of guns..." PR says:

          Haz, the SCOTUS has ruled the police is not obligated to come when called.

          Therefore, an LE response is not a right. There is no penalty for LE to not respond to your call…

        4. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          SCOTUS also ruled in favor of DOMA this past decade, until the very same set of Justices ruled against it two years later. SCOTUS also “found” a supposed right to kill our own children who are waiting to be born. Just because SCOTUS – made up of human beings, some of whom clearly opine based upon their personal feelings on matters instead of Constitutional law – says something is okay, does not make it okay.

          If a government agency taxes us for the funding of a law enforcement agency, and at the same time publicly and repeatedly recommends that we “call the police” when trouble arises instead of handling matters ourselves, then it is clear we are being sold a service in return for our taxes.

          I stand by what I said.

        5. avatar Nickel Plated says:

          So in short the government made an agreement with the people, “Give us money and we will use it to set up a police force for you so that you don’t have to constantly worry about your house being robbed while you’re at work.” Then broke that agreement by saying “Well despite the money you pay, we don’t really HAVE TO protect you if we don’t want to.”
          So does that mean I don’t really HAVE TO pay the portion of the taxes that go to the police?

    2. avatar Porridgeweasel says:

      Yep. Well said Haz.

    3. avatar 9x39 says:

      x2 Whatever else was written became irrelevant in that very instant.

    4. Apparently you weren’t reading too closely. Those weren’t the author’s words, he was quoting Minneapolis City Council President Lisa Bender. He then criticized her reductive view of society which would have been obvious…if you’d kept reading.

      Those same comments were the subject of this post:

      https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/minneapolis-city-council-president-calling-the-police-for-a-burglary-is-evidence-of-privilege/

      1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        I went back to read the article in its entirety…twice. The author quoted Council member Lisa Bender’s words that it “comes from a place of privilege”, and then added his own agreement with the next separate sentence consisting of the words “This is true”, followed by his explanation that our American privilege is protected by the Constitution. I disagree with that statement as well, as our Natural rights pre-existed and even supersede the Constitution.

        I fully stand by my earlier statement that our ability to call police for assistance is not a privilege whatsoever, but a contracted right due to the fact that law enforcement agencies are supported by forced collection of our taxes from us.

        1. avatar Geoff "Guns. LOTS of guns..." PR says:

          What is the penalty for LE if they choose not to respond? A legally-binding contract (their collection of your tax money satisfies that) has specific conditions on what *will happen* if the terms of the contract are not met…

        2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Excellent question, Geoff. One that’s perfect fodder for an argument in court as to why we’re being taxed for LE in the first place. If a municipal police force is – per SCOTUS opinions, as you stated earlier above – only obligated to protect the Mayor and the City’s interests, then why are we being taxed for services such as 911, LE, etc.?

          If the service has been deemed unenforceable, then the tax should be nullified.

          Otherwise, it fits the classic term of “taxation without representation”.

        3. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

          A contract for services is not a right. Only our natural right is a right. They can be enumerated, but that is just to avoid confusion.(yeah, right.) A contract for services is a civil matter.

        4. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

          There is no contract.

          Contracts are a voluntary agreement and we are compelled by the threat of force to pay non voluntarily for the police who, as has been pointed out, have no obligation to provide the services that were in fact only a mere excuse for us being robbed.

          The contract you imagine that you are a participant in is an illusion to keep you from violently resisting being robbed.

        5. avatar LarryinTX says:

          The voters authorized the taxation when they elected the mayor and city council, and citizens in general accepted it when they did not hang the elected officials when the taxes were announced. Whether it was spent on LE or something else is the decision of the city government and none of your business until the next election, when they will lie to you again, and you will be fooled again. When people get just TOO pissed off, a primary challenger will appear, to claim the next shift of fucking the public. But, we will NEVER consider a Republican.

        6. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

          Voting is not indicative of consent, per Lysander Spooner;

          “In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having even been asked a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practice this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further, that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defence, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man takes the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot – which is a mere substitute for a bullet – because, as his only chance of self-preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defence offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him.

          “Doubtless the most miserable of men, under the most oppressive government in the world, if allowed the ballot, would use it, if they could see any chance of thereby meliorating their condition. But it would not, therefore, be a legitimate inference that the government itself, that crushes them, was one which they had voluntarily set up, or even consented to.”

        7. avatar Montana Actual says:

          How did taxes start? Someone voted for them? Nope. They were imposed.

    5. avatar The grid says:

      Thank you! I haz a question, and you haz the answer. You nailed it.

    6. avatar Roger J says:

      The author didn’t say that. It was a quote from the crazy Bolshevik woman.

      1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        The MN Council member mentioned the “privilege”, but the author agreed with her statement when he immediately afterward added his own words “this is true”.

    7. avatar Frontier Jeb says:

      Soon those pretty beaches are going to cost you slave reparations in a state that had no slaves. It’ll be worth it though, I bet;-), and it will be the law. True, it may happen on the federal level, but not as likely nor as quickly.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        I think we should pay the big bucks in reparations to anyone who can prove that they were slaves in America. I met one once, around 65 years ago now, and he was 93 at the time, was born into slavery about 3-4 years before slavery ended, at a cost of hundreds of thousands of white men’s lives, (when do THEY get honored?), so a quick estimate tells me any such reparations would go to people in excess of 158 years old. But, for example, I understand Kamala Harris is of Haitian descent, and her family owned slaves long after slavery was eliminated in America. Yet, her skin qualifies her as “African-American”, so does she need to pay reparations or receive them? My family emigrated here in the 1880s, the whole question should not affect me, Obama’s daddy stopped in for a moment’s dalliance around 50 years ago, with a white woman, his family is unaffected by slavery, but the plan would be that I have to pay, and he would receive? The question is major stupid.

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          If Barack Obama is only 50% black, does he qualify for only 50% of any reparations? He (in a very racist manner, which isn’t discussed for some reason) claimed his black heritage and discarded the white as inferior because he subscribes to the “one drop” rule, in which anyone who has only a single drop of Afro bloodline qualifies as black. That originated in (admittedly very racist) Southern laws regarding the blocking of interracial marriage, but Obama turned it on its head and used it to (admittedly very racist) elevate Afro blood as superior over Caucasian.

          And BLM supports this.

        2. avatar Miner49er says:

          “He (in a very racist manner, which isn’t discussed for some reason) claimed his black heritage and discarded the white as inferior because he subscribes to the “one drop” rule”

          A very interesting claim you have made, could you please provide a source or citation where Obama stated that “he subscribes to the one drop rule“ please, thanks!

        3. avatar UpInArms says:

          ” the “one drop” rule, in which anyone who has only a single drop of Afro bloodline qualifies as black ”

          This is good to know. Both of my parents were Dutch (my mother was born in Holland), and as far back as we can trace the lineage, it’s Dutch through and through.

          Nonetheless… back in the 17th century, Holland was conquered by the Spanish. Miscegenation was common, and I have one sister who is suspiciously darker than the rest of the family. Prior to stomping on the Dutch, the Spanish were conquered by the Moors, who were African, and miscegenation was common there as well. So the “one drop” rule says I am, very likely, black.

          Thank you. I’m looking forward to my reparations check.

    8. avatar d says:

      So, liberals who hate AR15s, borders and ID laws have taken over 6 square blocks of Seattle and are guarding them with AR15s, AND have secure borders AND requiring ID to get in and out?

      Just checking to see if I have that straight

      1. avatar PMinFl says:

        Recall to mind (or look it up) the lyrics of a super hit song…”we won’t be fooled again”. As we meet the new boss in Seattle.

    9. avatar Phil LA says:

      Y’all are missing the forest for the trees.

    10. avatar JLo says:

      Well said Haz, I absolutely agree. Too much over thinking of these matters has spurred some into a mental frenzy of what’s right and wrong. It’s not a privilege to use a taxed service. It’s called using that service. The SCOTUS decision has left many wondering what police are here for, if not to serve, protect…then what for? No obligation to protect life? Then I will use my own means and not bother calling anybody….I work in EMS and have cop friends, so this topic is a hot one.

      1. avatar Greg says:

        I think you misunderstand the spirit of the law. If police are required by law to “serve and protect” them they can be held infinitely accountable for failing to do so i.e. and officer attempts to save a hostage and fails. This would open them up to endless lawsuits.
        The ruling was not intended to say officers are allowed to fail to act such as an active shooter situation. Duty is not the same as legal responsibility.

        1. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

          The opposite is also true. If an officer has no duty to protect, attempts to protect, and fails that officer is equally if not more exposed to lawsuits. So by ruling no responsibility to protect SCOTUS actually prevents officers from taking action to protect someone lest they fail and be sued. In fact, if successful, the perp could sue as the officer had no duty and therefore exceeded his or her authority. Raising the question: If there is no duty does one really have authority?

    11. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Author was quoting Lisa Bender, not stating his opinion or even agreeing.

      1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        The MN Council member mentioned the “privilege”, but the author agreed with her statement when he immediately afterward added his own words “this is true”.

        1. avatar PMinFl says:

          @ Haz, you keep repeating it but somehow folks can’t see it. Reading comprehension ain’t what it used to be.

    12. avatar Greg says:

      Negative. If it is a right that means you are entitled to their labor. Police are voluntary so if you believe it to be a right you would have to believe the government has the right to conscript police. I don’t like conscription at all but national defense is not the same as local defense.

      1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        Disagree. If nobody volunteers to become LE, then we have no LE entity and therefore no taxes are necessary to pay anyone. If 100 persons volunteer and take an oath to defend and protect, then sufficient taxes can be raised to pay for those 100 people so they may devote themselves to carrying out their sworn duty (hence the term “sworn officers”).

        If Seattle or Minneapolis, as examples, dissolve their police departments and resort to “community programs”, then the taxes raised to fund the former LE should be negated entirely. Any programs agreed upon by the residents/voters of that area would be the basis of discussions for new and separate tax efforts.

        1. avatar Greg says:

          I don’t disagree with your reasoning but I don’t think that meets the definition of a God given right, more like a circumstantial entitlement.

    13. avatar William Burke says:

      How can this be so, when the courts have ruled that there is no right to expect a response from the police?
      Can you explain?

    14. avatar strych9 says:

      Worms, meet can opener.

      What you’ve said here is a lot more expansive and complicated than many seem to appreciate. Questions like “What is the essence of law?” and “Do we have valid consent?” are lurking here along with many other questions most people have never considered, like whether or not a “contract” is a form of “private law” and how all of that works in reality before we ever get to the idea of a “social contract” a la Hobbes and Locke. Can perfection ever be reached? What shortfalls must we accept? What damage does this cause and what can we do to ameliorate these problems? How much work does that take and from whom does this work come from?

      The truth is twofold: Most people are not competent to discuss these things and *the powers that be*, when they actually are competent to discuss these things, are not willing to do it but would rather shitstir for profit. The result is what you see with CHAZ and the logical outgrowths thereof. I mean, shit, people are actually scared of blatantly incompetent coffee shop revolutionaries and armchair counter-revolutionaries at this point because the people living in fear are too ignorant to think their way out of wet paper bag.

      The particularly disturbing thing is that most of this was figured out eons ago and then willfully forgotten because people are lazy.

      1. avatar Ron says:

        Personally after much thought on the recent issues, I think we have a golden opportunity here.

        Let the big cities secede if they want to.

        1. We can legitimatize secession. The left right now, is (unknowingly) supporting the philosophy behind past secessionist movements, and we can use this to our advantage.

        2. We let the big cities secede. They full on have to secede though. No dual citizenship, no taxpayer money, no voting in American elections.

        3. Think about the electoral layout of the country. The democrats are entirely confined to the large cities. This means for the rest of America, the Democratic Party ceases to exist, even in NY and CA.

        4. This means total control of all branches by the GOP and likely a new, farther to the right party. Surrounding these cities with walls/fences/drones/border patrol will be totally on the menu for such a government.

        5. If they want food/water/medical supplies, they’ll have to pay the US government for them.

        6. Once out, absolutely no re-admittance into the union, under any circumstances what so ever.

        1. avatar Docduracoat says:

          I agree with Ron when he says we should allow the Democratic enclaves to secede.
          I see it as the only way to avoid a second American Civil War

        2. avatar strych9 says:

          To me it seems like the solution is devilishly simple. It just takes a hell of a lot of hard work that most people don’t want to do. Kinda like starting a garden in the West with a pickax. Pretty straightforward but a lot of sweaty toil.

          Unfuck ourselves. By which I mean stop being a bunch of intentionally ignorant twatwaffles, actually embrace that the “work” part of life doesn’t end until you die, embrace the high road, personal responsibility and all the rest of it. Understand that we will never achieve perfection, Right or Left there is no Utopia and there never will be. There’s only the best we can make of our existence.

          And not like a lot of “conservatives” do, paying lip service to these ideas while actually being lazy fucktards. Gibbon’s masterpiece Decline and Fall is an interesting read to be sure, and I won’t criticize the work or the man. However I’ll point out that the work is far more incomplete than many give it credit for and people don’t seem to recognize that the real trick to understanding Gibbon is to read Gibbon and then go back and read another few thousand pages of the history leading up to where Gibbon picks up. That’s where you start to realize that a lot of the parallels that people draw between the Roman Empire and the USA today are actually quite inappropriate.

          This starts with ending the stupid fights we constantly engage in. Generational warfare and caliber warz being examples common on TTAG threads. You want to fix tHozE sTuiD milleNNiaLs? Mentor them. You want to fix those fucktard boomers, listen to them (hard as that might be in some cases) and then have a constructive conversation wherever possible.

          As in actually do something useful and stop being selfish fucks.

        3. avatar strych9 says:

          Bah! Moderation. Moderation is for cowards.

          No, seriously though, my actual comment here is awaiting said moderation. I’m not going to try to edit a copy that will post now because that’s how I end up with six versions all saying essentially the same thing.

        4. avatar Ron says:

          Strych, I would agree with that assessment, but it’s too late to “unfuck ourselves”. Everyone’s too stuck in their ways and no ones going to change. We’ve already crossed the rubicon.

          The insidious and brainwashed left, certainly isn’t going to change. In their minds, America is literally worse then Nazi Germany. Many of them espouse this exact statement followed by twisted logic and warped senses of justice. The only desire they have to destroy America. The hatred the left has for America now is on par with that of extremist Islam and communist China. Therefore, if they want to leave, I say let them and let them deal with the consequences.

          Your criticism of conservatism is valid, however American conservatism, and the American right in general is far, far, light years in fact, beyond better then the left. The right still in general supports the constitution, gun ownership, the free market, bill of rights, individualism, borders, limited government, and the concept of a republic. The right isn’t perfect in these matters, but they are a *hell* of a lot better then outright Maoist communists.

        5. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

          i find myself, a crotchety, intolerant contradiction, willing to listen and change. it happens, sometimes even here. this tells me that it is not too late.

    15. avatar bob says:

      The author is quoting what she said, or paraphrasing it.
      She had said it was true that we get police response as a privilege.

  2. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    It happened long ago when we first veered from the Constitution and this isa result of where that has taken the nation.

  3. avatar Rgallagher says:

    What is the answer people are people and mistakes happen if the law enforcers ceased to exist totally the thugs who are At lease at bay would turn into the ruling class and leave the people to their mercy and total chaos would be the rule for the day. The man is right to watch that ex-officer kneel on that mans neck is astonishing to me as a retired officer I cannot conceive of any reason for the length of time the offender doesn’t appear to resisting that is an absolute disgrace if that official was on the ground he’d be in enough pain that he’d be praying for death. I don’t have the answer I can only say WTF

    MANS neck is an absolute disgrace I have made many arrests myself and only once did it go to t

  4. avatar FlaBoy says:

    Yes, we can support the rule of law and the police, while at the same time agreeing that the police need reforming. The police have largely brought this upon themselves by refusing to regulate themselves, controlling and removing their own bad actors. Any position that involves authority over others tends to attract and embolden those who would abuse such positions. The “War” on drugs and the associated militarization of the police, with its “us vs them” and treating much of the public as the enemy is also part of the problem. I am old and have observed and experienced the change in attitude of many officers. Officers today are obsessed with absolute “control” and the unquestioning observance of their authority and “lawful commands”. I am white, so I’ve not had the experience of driving while black, but I have met and observed more than my share of officers, often quite young, who have a surly attitude towards and very little respect for members of the public (who happen to be their ultimate employers and pay their salaries). Yes, there are still good officers out there, but the bad actors need removing and attitudes and training need to change. Police unions need to be reined in and the court made law qualified immunity needs to be reformed or removed.

    1. avatar Montana Actual says:

      Hey. No common sense allowed.

    2. avatar California Richard says:

      If they aren’t doing anything illegal or morally reprehensible, then I could care less. You complain about cops being “controlling” and “having a bad attitude”. Take a man pill.

      In the eternal words of Team America; “We’re d*cks. You’re a pu$$y. And he is an a$$hole. D*cks may f*ck pu$$ies but they also f*ck a$$holes. And if you don’t have d*cks around to f**k a$$holes, then you’re going to have sh*t all over everything.”

      1. avatar Frontier Jeb says:

        So, California, you recommend “man pill’ swallowing? You work out, love uniforms, and are very disciplined?:-)

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Well, let’s recall that it is ILLEGAL for an officer to stop someone without cause/warrant, and they do it all the time. In the process surly, grumpy, and threatening. So, they ARE breaking the law, at our expense, are you interested now?

  5. avatar Mickey Mouse says:

    The author is missing the point.. it’s not to completely defund the police tomorrow, it’s to stop using them for things they’re not qualified to do. Like mental health interventions.

    Do a little research before proclaiming “omg they wanna fire all the cops tomorrow “.

    1. avatar Rev. Philip E. Evans, CJ says:

      You are wrong! Many are actually calling for the complete defunding of the police! That is not a practical solution and never will be! If it should happen…then God helps us all!

      1. avatar Texican says:

        Why isn’t it a solution? There was a time in this country when there were no police. Crime was not rampant and people were safer. Why wouldn’t we want to go back to a system like that? The problem when you delegate the policing powers to others is that you get situations like the ones we’re facing now.

        1. avatar Montana Actual says:

          Prove it. Prove that people were “Safer”. Are you sure it’s not because the “police” were the british, and we were at fucking war? And yes, there was still crime. Since you can NEVER know how much, everything you said is just poop out of your mouth. Stop pooping with your mouth.

          Idiot.

        2. avatar Mister Fleas says:

          “Why isn’t it a solution? There was a time in this country when there were no police. Crime was not rampant and people were safer. Why wouldn’t we want to go back to a system like that?”

          Because the America you refer(the America Tocqueville wrote about or the Founding Fathers’ America) no longer exists. Police were unneeded because the vast majority of Americans were decent, peaceful people who respected the rights of other free American citizens, for the most part. If someone got out of line, well, that wrong doer would lucky to face a day in court; if not lucky, then a lynching or thrashing regardless of race.

    2. avatar The grid says:

      Who is going to handle those mental health interventions then? Private security? Medical personnel who already tries to dodge those who show up at the hospital because nobody wants to deal with the mentally ill? It certainly doesn’t always end well with the cops, but nobody is eager to deal with it either. Maybe people will feel better if we send unarmed nurses instead, until some junky experiencing excited delirium slaughters a couple of them. Society is sick and there really isn’t any viable solution so far.

      1. avatar George Washington says:

        I know of a FINAL SOLUTION!…. js

        1. avatar Gordon in MO says:

          The Grid said: “Who is going to handle those mental health interventions then?”

          The active arm of BO’s “Civilian defense force”, Antifa.

      2. avatar Miner49er says:

        “Who is going to handle those mental health interventions then? Private security?”

        It isn’t rocket science, It would be very easy to train a team of 2 to 3 individuals with psychology and non-lethal restraint training to intervene in situations where individuals with mental health issues were acting out.
        When we talk about ‘defending the police‘, we were talking about diverting money from the military equipment budget into a team that would actually address the needs of the community.

        Far too often an individual mental health challenges as a psychotic break, his family calls the only people available to help deal with the situation, the police.

        The police show up and kill the individual or an innocent bystander.

        Remember just a couple years ago when the police shot an adult care worker who was laying on the ground yelling to the police that the young man sitting next to him was autistic and acting out. The police shot the case worker with an AR 15 just because… reasons.

        1. avatar UpInArms says:

          ” non-lethal restraint training to intervene in situations where individuals with mental health issues were acting out ”

          Might work if the individual was having a non-lethal health issue, but what do you do if he comes out swinging an axe or a machete — or a gun? You need to think this through a little more.

        2. avatar PMinFl says:

          a team of two or three??? where do you live? Must be a very small community.

    3. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Bullshit. That is the media attempting to cover for the morons, what they are loudly demanding is to REALLY eliminate all police and have a summer of love. I’m pretty sure that means gang rapes on the town square, but I’m sure they’ll be singing Kumbayya as well. All necessary food will be found growing in nearby freezers, can’t we just all get along? The real bitch is, on my last pass through the grocery, they were out of my favorite popcorn. This summer is going to be epic, for those living at the end of long, dead-end streets. With plenty of ammo.

  6. avatar d says:

    Loosing the rule of law? NO

    Lost the rule of law? Yes

    They better stop burning stuff down otherwise they won’t have any left to burn when Trump wins 2020

  7. avatar Dennis says:

    As many people have said (including myself), the socialist/communist grand plan is a long term affair. A change here, a lost right there, a reduction of police powers everywhere. Seen it coming since the sixties, in increments small enough people dont really get too concerned. You’re looking at the “final solution” now, guess they think the time is right. Just wonder who will win the battle for the next ruler of America, Soros, Steyer, Clinton, Obama?

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I think Bloomberg has bowed out.

    2. avatar Miner49er says:

      “Just wonder who will win the battle for the next ruler of America, Soros, Steyer, Clinton, Obama?”

      None of the individuals you mention has any desire to become the next ruler of America.

      But I’m willing to take up the challenge, I will wager you $1000 that not one of the individuals you named becomes ruler of America within the next 50 years, ready to put your money where your mouth is?

      1. avatar Ron says:

        Are you ready to put your money where your mouth is, is the the question. As I said before, are you going to head to Seattle and stand alongside your liberal brothers in an act you also defined as treason, in which they should all be hung for?

        While at the same time trying to brag about your apparent republican and constitutional bonafides… none the less.

        Or perhaps you are simply wanting to rid the nation of police.

        That’s fine. Just remember when everyone is open carrying the ARs you despise everywhere, and has full auto belt feds on their vehicles, that no police will show up to confiscate them.

  8. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

    november.
    there is some choice bait dangling there. taking it will produce some very questionable optics, and those will be distorted and twisted by the info suppliers.
    firm put down… after the 3rd.
    the twin cities can become a poster child if they like. that in itself should discourage other psychotics from going full ‘tard.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      143 days until Election Day.

      1. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

        That is a long time for Trump to continue speaking/tweeting without thinking. The Democrats are doing a better job of hiding Binden in a memory care unit somewhere.

        1. avatar Montana Actual says:

          And manufacturing a better sticky adhesive for his dentures.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          So long as Trump keeps accomplishing the necessary moves in government, I don’t give a shit what he tweets, I have never used Twitter in my life and do not intend to. If you read them, why are you complaining? Meanwhile, I’m ready to start the Trump 2024 train.

        3. avatar Montana Actual says:

          I don’t think it matters if you have used or ever will use twitter… The mans twitter addiction is a problem. It only hurts him. There are more democratic tweeters than republican, and even more “independant” too. A little bit of clarity:

          https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/04/24/sizing-up-twitter-users/

          It’s pretty straightforward and the source: Twitter posts obviously… because privacy invasion (although, if you are on social media, do you honestly think you still have privacy?)

    2. avatar Gecko says:

      Trump is just the lesser of two evils, he certainly isn’t the solution. The fact you have to choose between Hillary and Trump, then Biden and Trump is absolutely pathetic. Third parties candidates don’t stand a chance and some can’t even get on the ballot in certain states, how is that for democracy? Not that they are much better but they should also have the right to participate without having to overcome far more obstacles than the DNC and GOP candidates. Congress is made of a bunch of arrogant azzholes who steal money and screw Americans, and Justices in the Supreme Court are untouchable.

      1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        SCOTUS Justices are not untouchable, and may be removed at any time via Congressional action for behavior deemed to not meet the “good” threshold:

        U.S.C., Art III, Sec I

        “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”

      2. avatar FlaBoy says:

        Agree with Gecko…it’s a shame we of often have to choose between the lesser of two evils.
        There is no way I can vote for Biden. Trump is his own worst enemy…if he would just keep his mouth shut some of the time and stay off Twitter once in a while. If you consider what he has actually done and ignore much of what he has said, he has actually done alright.

        1. avatar PMinFl says:

          ^^BINGO^^

  9. avatar Cloudbuster says:

    Yes. Yes, we are losing the rule of law. If I tried to take over a single building, no less several city blocks and claim them as my own “autozonomous zone” they’d lock me away. I apparently lack the privilege to get away with that sort of thing. Also, Jeffrey Epstein didn’t kill himself.

  10. avatar Hal_Greaves says:

    The people are getting what they voted for. There’s no reason to intervene in any capacity. They made their choice when they voted these people into power and so let them live with it.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Yup. With none of my tax dollars interfering with their fun. Nor to rebuild when it’s over. The want a 3rd world shithole, let them have it.

      1. avatar Seentoomuch says:

        LarryinTexas, What you’ve just said makes more sense than anything said so far. That’s putting it in a nutshell. We live in a country where everyone should get what they deserve. It’s about time that people who make stupid decisions learn to live with those decisions.

      2. avatar UpInArms says:

        ” The want a 3rd world shithole, let them have it. ”

        The bitch of it is if we let them have their 3rd world shithole, the rest of us get it, too.

  11. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Most of the population of the United States has been grossly rejecting justice (as well as law) pretty much across the board for something like 30+ years.

    Many (perhaps most) of the people in our nation advance what they want even when their “want” is wrong. This applies to all levels, designations, categorizations, demographics, and classes. That is the fundamental problem.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      +1

      Consider this…all those looters who ransacked the stores?…they were the very same people with the very same character the day before. The only thing that changed was the absence of a restraining force. As soon as they believed they could get away with storming businesses and criminally stealing for their own personal gain, they stampeded toward the opportunities.

      What these riots have done is simply lifted the veil and shown many people for the selfish people they’ve always been. If there were to ever be truly widespread civil unrest that LE could have no hope of containing, then all the fence-sitting looters would come out en masse. So would the murderers, rapists, arsonists, etc.

      We are our only true line of defense.

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        Your points are spot on! But there is something that I have brought up that many don’t want to talk about. And that is killing to maintain The Rule of Law. It was expected that an individual or a crowd would be killed if necessary to keep order in the community.

        But Libertarians, Liberals, the Left, Republicans and Democrats. All of them just can’t bring themselves to “pull the trigger”.
        So our cities burn. Or another way to put it is, OTHER PEOPLE’S, cities are burning. But my city is not burning. “So let them burn”. “I don’t live there”. That is how everyone thinks now.

        The riots were stopped in the 1960s with aimed gun fire. Now we tell stories about how bad Kent State was. But they always leave out the destruction of private and government property that occured before the students were shot. The National Guard was wrong when they shot students who were not rioters. But there were students who were rioting.

        So now we don’t shoot rioters and a victims dreams are burned the ground. And they are told “you have insurance”.

        I’ve been the only person on TTAG saying straight up, that people who riot should be shot. That don’t make me blood thirsty. It make me a person who expects civilized behavior be maintained.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          People who riot into my driveway will be shot. By the time such a breakdown reaches me, I suspect I will leave the bodies lie, to rot. We have a lot of buzzards, but I suspect they will be having a lot of work. Coyotes may help.

        2. avatar Dave says:

          Killing everyone in a crowd? Better have damn good evidence that every individual one of them was in fact acting in concert to threaten your life.

          I doubt that “Oh, they were mere collateral damage” will get you far in court.

        3. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          to Dave
          So you’re telling me that “a lynch mob” was not responsible for the people they hanged? Just the two or three with the rope?
          The proper response to a “mob action'” is to kill the leaders. The rest will normally retreat. Or are you one of those people saying “you have insurance”?

        4. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          Shoot the loudest guy first.

          “What to do in a RIOT – Part 1” 5 minutes long

        5. avatar Dave says:

          TTAG isn’t letting me reply properly, so I’m posting this here.

          1. I said “acting in concert”, so I’m not sure how your example is relevant.

          2. A crowd might consist of both peaceful protesters and violent rioters, both of whom may have a right to be where they are (but neither any right to commit crimes). If the answer is “Shoot the entire crowd” and not “Shoot individuals who are lawlessly posing threats of imminent lethal violence” then we should stop pretending that there ever was 1A or a right to life.

          3. Not sure what insurance has to do with anything?

      2. avatar Seentoomuch says:

        Just as locks are used to keep honest people honest, Police are used to keep peaceful people peaceful. Liberals lack common sense and don’t have a clue about human nature.

      3. avatar GS650G says:

        So say you pop a rioter throwing rocks through your window. You might get away with it, but probably not. Your crime will be considered worse. The rioter will be seen as expressing himself. You’ll get screwed and al Sharpton will deliver the eulogy. Long jail sentence for you, hater!

        It will take a complete meltdown for a while to get to the point where we are our own defenders. The best you can hope for is to be alive at the end along with your family. We are basically screwed once they figure out we can hurt them any more than cops can.

  12. avatar Jason says:

    People sure are weak and panicky these days. This country has been through periods of extreme unrest (far worse than this) and we’ve recovered each time.

    As a whole, we’ve just become so accustomed to unprecedented comfort and luxury that the second a tiny bit of unrest occurs, we freak out.

    The unrest occurring now is nothing compared to the 1992 LA riots. Nothing compared to race riots of the 1960s, and a complete walk in the park compared to the labor rights movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries (battle of Blair mountain, anyone?).

    We always recovery and we always emerge stronger and better than before.

    When it comes to defunding the police, very few people want to get rid of police departments completely (every movement has its extremist nutbag contingent). The idea is to take some of the funding from APCs and heavy weaponry and overall turning the police into a paramilitary force, to things like:

    Addressing some of the socioeconomic conditions that often lead to crime?
    Addressing mental health issues
    Adopting a community policing model
    Weeding out bullies, psychopaths, and scaredy-cats from the force
    Ending no knock raids

    Admittedly, “defund the police” is shitty marketing, but not a call to eliminate police as a whole.

    1. avatar Geoff "Guns. LOTS of guns..." PR says:

      “Admittedly, “defund the police” is shitty marketing, but not a call to eliminate police as a whole.”

      You don’t get it, they are not interested in a *fix*, what they want is wholesale regime change, *ON THEIR TERMS*.

      According to them, America was illegitimately founded in the first place, so that makes it moral for them to destroy the system and replace it with *WHAT THEY WANT*…

      1. avatar Jason says:

        Who is they? What system do they want to destroy? What evidence do you have of this?

        Change happens. It’s the reason we’re not all living in the woods, shitting in a hole, and living to 30 at the oldest.

        I’m sure there was a lot of outcry during the 16th to 18th centuries when the shift from monarchies to democracies occurred. A system was destroyed and replaced and that was largely a good thing.

        If a system doesn’t benefit the majority of the people in it, it should be destroyed. That doesn’t have to be done violently.

        1. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

          Was it a good thing?

          At least with a monarch we knew who to blame and who to go after with torches and pitch forks to make pay for injustices.

          Now all point fingers of blame at all and shadowy figures control the mob from afar.

          Also a monarch in theory owned the nation and as it was his private property and the legacy he would leave to his heirs he had some care with maintaining it’s functionality and value, even increasing it if possible. Now we are subject to the tragedy fo the commons in all things.

          I am not a fan of monarchy, but I am also not a fan of democracy. To paraphrase a NY Tory (who originally wrote the line used by Mel Gibson’s character in the movie) during the American revolution I see no advantage in being oppressed by 3000 tyrants one mile away instead of 1 tyrant 3000 miles away.

          Even the use of the term “democracy” is an indication of our great experiments failure. This country was founded as a Constitutional Federal Republic specifically because democracy is nothing more than a dictatorship of the majority,. The founders well understood that democracy is nothing more than mob rule and history as far back as the Roman Empire shows that the mob is easily controlled by the rich and powerful through simple short term rewards; bread and circuses.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          The way to determine whether a society should be replaced or not is the same as it was 5000 years ago. Line everybody on each side up and go to it. This world is hugely overpopulated due to just a couple hundred years of society thinking we can have “peaceful” solutions. When all these crazies get convinced they can declare autonomous zones on my second floor, it will kickoff, and a year or so later the US population will be around 200 million, the economy will be in the shitter for 50 years, but it will be centuries before someone will suggest socialism again.

        3. avatar Miner49er says:

          “At least with a monarch we knew who to blame and who to go after with torches and pitch forks to make pay for injustices.”

          And there it is, POTG whining for a king to rule over them.

          George Washington had that problem as well, being the patriot that he is, he declined.

          But if you really want a monarch to control your life, may I suggest Putin or Kim Jong Un.

          But don’t get too frisky with Kim, Donald Trump said he’s in love with him so he might get jealous.

      2. avatar pwrscourge says:

        James Campbell’s posts are coherent compared to this ridiculous claptrap.

      3. avatar Ing says:

        Who is “they”? Have you been living under a rock?

        Okay, I’ll bite. Short answer: The progressive left.

        Do some reading, and remember that the progressive left has captured most of the traditionally authoritative sources, so you’re going to have to get out of the mainstream news/Wikipedia/Google loop and listen to a lot of “everybody knows they’re bad/wrong/racist/whatever” people in order to find the full story. It takes effort. You’ll run into plenty of kooks and quacks, but you may also start seeing real patterns emerge.

        As for the current Black Lives Matter protests… The overwhelming majority of people in these protests aren’t diabolical; they’re actually right about some of the problems in this country. But they are pursuing a ruinous solution.

        The people and ideology that have led them into that position and set their political and social agenda, on the other hand…I can assure you that if you see America as a place of opportunity, where individual rights and freedom are valued, and where all should be equal under the law, those people are NOT on your side.

        1. avatar Jason says:

          I guess I just don’t believe in the progressive left/communist straw/ bogeyman.

          It could be that I don’t conflate social programs such as universal healthcare, police reform, and even universal basic income with Soviet and Chinese style totalitarianism.

          Social democracies are common in Europe, but I don’t see a lot of gulags and re-education centers over there.

          I’m not naive enough to think that such systems and safety nets would be as easy to make work in giant nation of 300+ million as a postage stamp in Northern Europe with 12 inhabitants, but thinking that no one should go hungry or homeless in one of the wealthiest nations on Earth is hardly an evil philosophy.

          Fear of communism is dumb. Humans are capitalistic by nature. Look at China. For an allegedly communist country, they sure are really good at capitalism.

          The only people in this country promoting Soviet style communism are a handful of college kids who smell like expensive cheese and wear Che Guevara T-shirts. Ironically, these kids are mostly from the upper crust and will change their tunes in their late 20s when they realize how much living like a soviet communist sucks. Just like with most of the hippies of the 60s, daddy’s firm is always there for when they get tired of playing at revolution. They’re worthy of pity, not a threat.

          Capitalism isn’t the problem. Unchecked, predatory, zero sum capitalism is. Authoritarianism and totalitarianism are the threat. Historically left and right have had no shortage of jack booted thuggery.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Jason, that entire second paragraph says you do not understand what socialism/communism is, since what you consider so innocuous is precisely that. Try to remind yourself that there, literally, is no such thing as free stuff, voting for something like “universal healthcare” does not make it appear. See, I can believe in universal healthcare! Really! Just watch. “It has been decided that universal healthcare is desirable for our nation. As a result, beginning on 1 Jan, anybody requesting healthcare without proper insurance will be summarily executed. Problem solved.” And neither can exist outside a totalitarian government with a police state and mass executions for any significant period of time. Cuba awaits your study. I’m sure you will not listen to anyone, so go to Cuba and study its history for 10 years or so, then come back and tell us how wonderful it is.

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          OH! And referring to a “social program” when discussing an expenditure of $50 TRILLION in 10 years is simply moronic.

        4. avatar Miner49er says:

          Jason, very good post, thank you for a moment of clarity.

        5. avatar Ing says:

          Jason, if you don’t fear what communism does to people and nations, then I can’t fix what ails you. China has embraced capitalism, yes…they’re basically fascists now. Totalitarian socialists with a functioning economy.

          Social and financial safety nets aren’t a problem in themselves — the problem I have with them is that they’re presented as the most virtuous solution when they rely on deadly force. Try opting out of the big-government solution to form a more efficient safety net based on voluntary charity and see where that gets you.

          Socialists are either deluded or lying about the virtue of their system. It’s not peaceful or charitable in any way. I’m not holding up capitalists as virtuous, either; both capitalists and socialists are more than happy to point badges with guns at you to get their way. The difference is that capitalism, at least, can create prosperity, while socialism only takes existing money from certain people and redistributes it. Too many ticks and leeches will drain the host of its vitality, and that’s what we’re seeing in Europe, with its mostly moribund economies.

          And again, have you been living under a fucking rock for the last 10 to 15 years? The “social justice” movement is not your friend. It empowers the worst among us to do whatever they will for *their* in-group, and is antithetical to the liberal values encoded in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights.

  13. avatar 24and7 says:

    Biggest part of law and order is a population armed by the second amendment…You can’t sit here and tell me that the number of good people armed are out numbered by the bad people that are armed…It was obvious law-enforcement was going to fail to control the lawlessness…The armed citizen should have taken up the slack and put down the lawlessness..Their lack to do so emboldened a very violent and dangerous minority of people….So the answer is yes we have lost the rule of law…and probably will not get it back anytime soon..We shall reap the fruits of cowardice…

    1. avatar Gordon in MO says:

      The problem with your suggestion: “The armed citizen should have taken up the slack and put down the lawlessness..” is, the places where police are overwhelmed are controlled by democrats (communist party USA) who support those who are overwhelming the police. If armed citizens step in the local government will turn the police on them in all out attach mode.

      If that were not so, the police would not be overwhelmed because the local government would have put a stop to trouble before it got out of hand. Chaos is exactly what the mayor and governor want. They make it possible and encourage the violence.

      Just a few years ago a mayor in a major eastern city publicly told the police to “give them some room to riot” or words to that effect. Now what meaning would any good anarchist take from that?
      And that was not the start of it all….

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Gordon in MO,

        Great minds think alike. You posted almost exactly the same concept that I posted — you were simply a faster typist!

        For reference it was Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake who said, “… we also gave those [rioters] who wished to destroy space to do that as well.”

        1. avatar possum says:

          great minds think alike, you posted almost exactly what I posted. .

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      24and7,

      The problem is that city and state governments are on the same side as the rioters, looters, and anarchists. (Evidence: multiple governments telling their police to stand down — either explicitly or implicitly.)

      Thus, if armed good people go forth to quash the rioting, looting, and anarchy, they will also have to quash those city and state governments that are supporting (either explicitly or implicitly) the rioters, looters, and anarchists. (Why would armed good people also have to quash those governments? Because those governments will try to prosecute anyone who uses force to stop the rioter, looters, and anarchists.)

      Thus, armed good people would face a monumental fight. While they certainly have the numbers to win, they do not yet have the organization, collaboration, and commitment to stop all this insanity.

      1. avatar Seentoomuch says:

        In war, combatants are identified by the uniforms they wear. In a revolution, all the combatants wear the same civilian clothing. The insurrectionists are aware of this problem, so they plan to divide us by skin color. That way when the shooting starts, everyone will know who to shoot at. GOOD LUCK AMERICA. YOU’RE GOING TO NEED IT.

  14. avatar Ralph says:

    I carry the rule of law on my hip.

    1. avatar Tired of the bs says:

      As it should be everywhere.

  15. avatar WRM says:

    The rule of law has been long gone. For evidence, look no further than the obama administration with its long list of crooks who have not been held to account and never will be. Eric Holder, Lois Lerner, Susan Rice, Vallerie Jarrett, Hillary Clinton, etc.

    And all of the FBI and CIA and DOJ folks who planned and executed the so-far failed coup against Trump. If he loses in November, all that garbage will be swept under the rug. The dems will cover for them and they knew that all along.

    Rule of Law doesnt work when laws apply only to one political side and not the other.

  16. avatar Matt in Oklahoma says:

    We are losing period. Not just rule of law but history, freedom of expression and America as we know/knew it. When I grew up it was understood that if you were a criminal and you fought the police you’d probably die or at least be hurt badly. Now somehow it’s become their right to fight, resist and commit the crimes not only unpunished but rewarded.
    Even the elections show how much we’ve lost. Best case I’ve got is a illegal gun rights restricting POTUS.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Yeah, when I grew up, when you heard “Stop! Police! Halt or I’ll fire!”, the next thing you were going to hear was gunfire, unless you hit the dirt with your hands behind your head. Today, no officer would dare, anywhere in America. And it is easy to tell!

      1. avatar Red in CO says:

        You’re right, they wouldnt dare give clear instructions and then shoot when such instructions were violated, today they’ll just open fire the second they decide you might be thinking about maybe doing something. Tell me, how is it that you can love the taste of boot leather so much?

      2. avatar Seentoomuch says:

        If you’ve never witnessed what happens when a whole group of police confront a criminal, you’re in for a surprise. While some of the officers are screaming “FREEZE”, other officers are screaming “SHOW US YOUR HANDS”, while still others are screaming “GET DOWN ON THE GROUND”. This poor guy does this herky jerky little dance until someone finally take charge. It’s a miracle that more suspects aren’t shot.

      3. avatar Miner49er says:

        The police shot 14yr old Tamir Rice in less than two seconds after arriving.

        Oh yeah, that’s plenty of time to issue a command, have it understand and comply with it, sure sounds reasonable to me…

        Clear, reasonable commands with a meaningful amount of time to comply, are a privilege afforded only to white suspects.

  17. avatar enuf says:

    No, the police agencies all across the USA will not be defunded, disbanded, or any other damn fool nonsense.

    It is likely that some agencies here and there will lose some portion of funds once all the noise dies down, but compared to the rest of their budgets it will be small. It is likely too that some small areas of the country will realize they cannot afford the police agency they have been paying for and will take this opportunity to shut that down and return to county and state coverage.

    You will see news media coverage, the camera tightly focused, of those few examples that are insignificant in number. News media has been doing this since the concept of news was invented. In words and images, pick those that are most intense, surprising, frightening, outlandish, extreme. That is what draws in readers and viewers, builds the business of News. It also greatly exaggerates the topic in the public eye.

    I hope that we will be lucky in this current unrest and see changes to how police may operate. The banning of choke holds, no knock warrants for example. There needs to also be a law forcing a Duty of Care upon police. It must be the legislated duty too of all police officers to halt the actions of other officers when they go too far. Put an end to this Warrior Cop bullshit.

    Our American Republic has survived far more serious, disruptive and dangerous times than this one. No doubt the writer intends well, but no, the sky is not falling. All this will pass and we’ll do just fine afterwards.

    In other words ….

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      All the people demanding this “defunding” think those millions and billions will be going directly into their pockets, boy, the drugs will flow freely tonight. They will be PISSED when they discover that city hall will continue to funnel the money into their own pockets, just through something besides the police, or the police by some other name.

      1. avatar Red in CO says:

        Very true!

  18. avatar American Patriot says:

    The Country is already lost, when a majority in congress want it to implode, using social media to control the narrative & inside & outsiders controlling the voting. We are doomed to become another 3rd world country as they try to wipe out the white man. Once he’s gone then their won’t be anyone left to to build…..Only tear apart.

    1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

      try the uppers.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        I always preferred the screamers and laughers.

        1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

          you can make a hormone but you can’t make a vitamin.

    2. avatar Suq Madiq says:

      Are your parents also blood relatives?

  19. avatar N Texas says:

    All said in done , many bibles printed , in different religions , still , my favorite , my bible ,
    United States of America ; Constitution of the United States .

    Really quit sending out our / manufacturing jobs over seas .

    1. avatar Jason says:

      They will stop sending manufacturing overseas.

      As soon as robots can do it cheaper than the Chinese. That’s not very far off. In fact, I’m sure within my lifetime I’ll see most jobs done by robots and algorithms (and at 39, I’m old as fuck).

      I think people will be singing a different tune about social programs when there are way more people than jobs.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        I kinda doubt that is going to happen, will believe it when I see it. Just as I do not believe the world is going to end in 10 years, yet again. On that one I’ve already been correct several times, don’t see any reason to think this one will be different.

        1. avatar Jason says:

          Oh, the world isn’t going to end. None of us get off that easy.

      2. avatar Someone says:

        We heard the same since beginning of the industrial revolution. “Machines are stealing our jobs!”
        Instead, even women joined the workforce and just couple of months ago, before the great China virus panic, we had lowest unemployment in fifty years.

        1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

          define essential.

  20. avatar Mad Max says:

    “Is America Losing the Rule of Law?

    We started loosing it a long time ago. At least as far back as Holder’s Fast & Furious.

    We completely lost the rule of law starting on November 8th, 2016. The Deep State took it from us.

    1. avatar enuf says:

      You missed some dates. Here’s what went horribly, terribly, just awfully wrong:

      2006–2008, Operation Wide Receiver
      2007, Fidel Hernandez Gun Walking Case
      2008, Alejandro Medrano Gun Walking Case
      2009–2011, Operation Fast and Furious
      July 18–21, 2016 Republican National Convention
      July 25-28, 2016, Democratic National Convention
      November 8th, 2016, United States Presidential Election

      “Deep State”? Seriously? You are one of those people?

      1. avatar Ing says:

        You think there isn’t any kind of “deep state”? Seriously…you’re one of those people?

        The Deep State isn’t some shadowy conspiracy, despite what the conspiracists and the statists would have you think.

        It’s real, and it’s right there in front of you — an enormous federal bureaucracy with its own centers of power and its own inertia that outlasts any elected leader. It’s intimately connected with “progressive” thinkers in the corporate sphere, academia, and civil institutions such as the press, and its reach is both wide and deep.

        1. avatar Dave says:

          The Supreme Court is also unelected and outlasts presidential administrations. Do they count in this “deep state” of yours?

          Executive federal-level bureaucracies can be fired by the POTUS and/or defunded by Congress. One can make 10A arguments against their existence, but to talk of them in the language of conspiracy-believers is silly.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Doofus, the entire concept of the “deep state” concerns the powers of people who have never been elected to any position, and you dive straight into elective politics?

  21. avatar former water walker says:

    Yep we’re losing the “rule of law”…the scum are marching on my downtown street’s as I type. Lock n load. On a different tangent my friend showed me(he’s 69) all of his gun collection he’s never shot. He has a perfect Ruger 85 with 2 mags & case. Never fired. And a S&W 3903(?). Small but heavy older perfect early 8round mag semiautomatic pistol. I know the Ruger is valuable. Mebee the other one too. 2 shotguns too. The handguns are mint…

    1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

      can’t see a p85 as being particularly valuable. desirable, as in a reliable, durable brick, yeah.
      the smith semi is more interesting aside from the investment casting of the ruger. but the safety goes up so… some of them were dao, probably the way to go.

  22. avatar Mad Max says:

    “If we defund the police, then anarchists will continue to loot. If more businesses are looted and destroyed, then our economy will be further destabilized. If our economy becomes unstable, then investment will seek safe havens outside of the United States. If U.S. investment should decline, then unemployment will surely increase.”

    No. If we defund the police it will be open season on anarchist rioters, looters, and other criminals. There will be no one to stop an armed populance from protecting themselves. No cops means no laws. Laws are only as good as their enforcement and no cops means no enforcement.

    Truly defunding the police could wind up being the best thing to happen to 2nd Amendment rights in over a century (but I do not advocate this method).

    1. avatar JLo says:

      You could be right…

    2. avatar Red in CO says:

      Thank you. It’s infuriating to me to see such hand wringing about the concept of no cops, from people who supposedly advocate self sufficiency. All it would take is a tiny percentage of the 100 million gun owners in the US to decide to take out the trash and poof, no more looters, rioters, arsonists, etc

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        “All it would take is a tiny percentage of the 100 million gun owners in the US to decide to take out the trash”

        Yeah, a few hundred thousand extrajudicial criminal executions, that sure show them how much you care about the constitution and due process!

        Himmler is so proud of you, bless your heart!

        1. avatar Montana Actual says:

          Nobody said anything about executing anyone. Wanna bet the first shots fired would not even be from civilians defending their freedom?

  23. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    If you want the rule of law you have to be willing to kill to keep it. The mob is a weapon. And It is well armed. Sometimes I wonder if a college education has made some people stupider, than before they went to college. There are many different types of societies. But not all are civilized.
    The talking ends, or it should, when property is being destroyed. The fixed bayonet charge has stopped many a riot. Without ever firing a shot. But I was told that the bayonet was an outdated tool on TTAG. Just a couple of years ago. It was Obama who wanted the bayonet banned by the defense department.

    In fact the 1968 gun control act banned the import of rifles with bayonet lugs. So a useful tool was taken away.

    1. avatar RCC says:

      Chris
      A British army corporal used bayonet charge against Taliban ambush in September 2012. He and his men covered 80 metres (260 feet) under fire.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Yes, but was the result *humane*?

        1. avatar Gordon in MO says:

          The results of an ambush are rarely humane either direction. But, the winner writes the history.

        2. avatar The Huscarl says:

          It is arguable that bayonets have actually saved lives on both sides of a battle because most people don’t want to wait around and be impaled, so they run and leave that position for the enemy to take.

          Foreign observers during the US Civil War wrote reports about how horrifying it was that the lines would just stand there shooting at each other when, had it been a battle in Europe, one side would have charged and cleared the other out.

        3. avatar RCC says:

          All his men survived so “humane“ from their view. Not so much for the taliban on at least two occasions.

      2. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        Thanks for the reminder! Now I have another “research project” to try and learn more about the details.
        (smile)

        1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          btw
          What to do in a RIOT – Part 2

  24. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

    The people doing these things are not anarchists. They do not actually want to abolish the state and live without non voluntary authority. They are Marxists and their fellow travelers who want to seize control of the state and impose authority on all who disagree with them.

    The only demand an anarchist has is “Leave me/us alone!”, or as expressed in times gone by “Don’t tread on me!” These communists have a long list of demands which mostly consist of services being provided for them at others expense which would have to be enforced by an all powerful authoritarian state, and the consequences of their bad behavior being excused.

    All of that has nothing to do with anarchy. Actual anarchists understand that there is only one true law; You can do whatever you want and you have to pay the price for it and suffer the consequences of it.

    1. avatar MyName says:

      Well said. We would be foolish to accept the labels that these people use to describe themselves without scrutiny. The “Anti-Fascists” are anything but opposed to fascisim and the “Anarchists” are anything but opposed to tyrannical control. It forces me to think of the phrase, “1984 was a warning, not an instruction manual.”

    2. avatar Ing says:

      You’re right about who these people really are.

      As for actual anarchists vs. fake ones, well, I too am a Leave Me the Hell Alone-ist — but not an anarchist — because there has never been any kind of peaceful anarchy in human history. True anarchy is Hobbesian: nasty, brutish, and short.

      People in general need leaders and organization; in fact, they crave it. Some kind of government is absolutely necessary. Whether within a single family, a tribe, or a nation, people will form groups and rules of behavior and find leaders (or else leaders will find them). In any human group, there is ALWAYS some kind of leadership and authority structure. It’s inevitable.

      So the issue is what kind of authority is needed and how much power we’re willing to cede to it. The Constitution provided a brilliant answer to that — but people weren’t willing to accept it and kept demanding a government with more authority, until now it seems we’re not allowed to demand *less*.

      I suggest that all of us leave-me-the-hell-alone types need to band together, relinquish harmful “I don’t need groups” notions of anarchy/individualism, and remember that we’re stronger together. We’re not going to be fully left alone. Ever. So we’d better get organized, find allies, and start fighting together, even if it’s distasteful — because the alternative is unlivable.

      1. avatar UpInArms says:

        As I understand it, current anarchist thinking is not on the lines of no government at all. It’s more on the lines of no hierarchy of government.

        Three stoners in a college dorm deciding what toppings they want on their pizza is an act of government. The “modern” anarchist basically scales this idea up to an entire society. There is no hierarchy of government where one group passes laws and enforces them, top down, on everyone else. When conflicts arise or resources need to be allocated, the issue is presented to the collective, a consensus is reached after discussions, and everyone agrees to abide by the decision. In the cases of chronic assholes, they are dealt with by shunning or being invited to leave the community. No one is in charge, yet everyone is in charge. Since everything is done by consensus, enforcement is not necessary.

        That’s the Reader’s Digest version of the theory, anyway. The closest it’s come to being put in to practice was the Occupy Movement some years back. It seems to have worked well for a few days at least. Anyone’s guess if it will stand up to time. I know I have my doubts.

        1. avatar PMinFl says:

          I never considered the occupy movement a success.They were just azzhole selfish children. Maybe their organizing was successful?

        2. avatar Ing says:

          At a societal level, that won’t work, can’t work, never has. The closest historical analog I can think of is probably the Athenian democracy, which functioned entirely by majority consensus…and was actually incredibly petty, unpredictable, and brutal.

          Among small, homogenous groups (tribes or small towns, for instance) that are isolated from other groups, maybe…kind of…but you’ll never convince me that there’s no hierarchy involved. That’s not the way humans work. It may be unofficial, but there WILL be someone who has the authority to speak for others and get things done.

          As Strych9 said below, philosophical anarchists and the run-of-the-mill ginkies we usually see on the news are very different — but they’re alike in that their ideas, if implemented, will lead to nothing but misery.

  25. avatar MyName says:

    A quote from Patrick Henry comes to mind. No, not the one you thought of but, rather, this one:

    “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who comes near that precious jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. When you give up that force, you are ruined. ”
    ~ Patrick Henry

    As it turns out, the one you thought of is pretty damn good too:

    “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”
    ~ Patrick Henry

  26. avatar anarchyst says:

    “Municipal police departments” are a relatively new phenomenon in the grand scheme of human civilization. This concept of “law enforcement” is beholden to the power structure and not to the citizenry.

    In “the good old days”, the “sheriff” was the chief “law enforcement” individual in the county and had broad reign in his respective jurisdiction. When the need arose, ordinary citizens were “deputized” and were given limited “police authority” at the discretion of the “sheriff”. This was used during emergencies when there was a need for “manpower”.
    Today, this has morphed into the need for permanently appointed sheriff’s deputies.

    In order for a sheriff to be elected (and re-elected) he has to have a good reputation among the citizenry. Accountability to the citizenry is a large part of the equation.

    Fast forward to today, where the “chief of police” in the major urban areas is quite often a political “hack” whose allegiance is to the mayor and power structure, not the citizenry.

    This is a large part of the problem as it fosters an “us vs. them” attitude, where the citizenry (us) is considered to be the “enemy”. It gets worse, as city officials “pull back” their police when they should be doing just the opposite.

    The concept of “immunity” for public officials has been expanded to the point that police departments operate with impunity and have no problem abusing their power as the prosecutors, courts, and in general the “system” is heavily stacked against the victim of police abuses. It is almost impossible to sue police departments for abuses committed by their personnel.

    Individual police officers cannot be sued as they are “protected” from lawsuits by their official “immunity”. Even with incontrovertible video and audio evidence, police are rarely convicted of crimes. Juror intimidation is a large factor in the inability to reign in the “bad apples”. Police unions play a large part in whitewashing criminal behavior by police.

    Immunity negates responsibility and must be abolished.

    What we are experiencing today is “blowback”, something that I feared would occur, with the increasing number of publicized police abuse cases. Those who are attacking police see only the uniform and not the person wearing it.

    Not a good situation for either police or the citizenry…

    Just maybe it is time to abolish municipal police departments and go back to the sheriff model of “law enforcement”.

  27. avatar enuf says:

    Every few years there are new, or re-imagined, cries of the coming calamity. Always promoting fear and the need for vigilance and preparation but never once does the calamity arrive.

    If we cannot have a good movie quality apocalypse, at least we can be scared by the apocalypse that is always just ahead, peaking out from under our beds, soon to arise from some hidden place.

    Be afraid, be very afraid!

    Why?

    Um, you know, just because ….

    1. avatar Mike V says:

      I think you’re mostly right. We should be guarded about these things.

      However, the shit does occasionally hit the fan.

  28. avatar tlc says:

    Well, I think all the ‘defund the police’ people originally intended to reform law enforcement by removing funds from the areas/individuals causing the most problems–but the worst of the anti ‘rule of law’ fanatics have hijacked that plan and rhetoric for their own agenda. And I say ‘fanatics’ for one good reason: fanatics do not die for a cause; rightous men and women do. Fanatics want EVERYONE ELSE to die for their cause and have no problems with killing innocent men women and CHILDREN to prove it. Basicly, they are cowards. That’s why so many cut and run when they are faced by an informed armed citizenry (and I include dedicated police and military in that group) that WILL NOT BACK DOWN. Unfortunately, too few exist anymore. Most armed citizens SAY they will defend their beliefs but have they proven it? Words are cheap.

    By the way, until this past year I lived in a township that has had NO law enforcement at the local level for the last forty years. Mostly people are peaceful, but no one stops the bullies from making everyone’s lives miserable because “It’s not my problem.” when that should be EVERYONE’S PROBLEM. County law enforcement consists of a sheriff and two deputies who are more detectives/investigators than hands on law enforcement and are run ragged just keeping up with homicides and theft investigations in our rural county. (And the County Legislature won’t authorize more officers OR money because they can’t see where we need it.) The State Police have to come from the other end of the county more than an hour away. We’ve had to call them a couple of times, once to report a robbery, once to report a drunk driver tearing up the newly planted field just the other side of the hedgerow at 2:30 AM, and they are disinterested in responding or investigating “petty shit” as one told my father to his face. Nearly five thousand dollars of hand portable logging equipment taken from a locked building and twelve thousand dollars worth of crop damage are petty shit? They aren’t to us. That field was a part of the farmer’s livelihood and the missing chainsaws, tools, replacement parts, and gas and oil were essential to my father’s job in logging. His employer paid for replacements when he found out about the theft but none of that stuff turned up anywhere until after Dad died and all but the replacement parts had Dad’s name and phone number on them.
    I will add here that six months after the theft, two months after the drunk tore up the field, a State Police Captain showed up wanting more details about both. Seems there had been a shakeup statewide with new officers coming in to replace ‘retiring’ men (and they were all men) and they found the files to be incomplete at best. For one, though Dad had given them a complete list of missing equipment, there was no list of exactly what was taken and there was no record of who the drunk driver was even though he was still there when the police showed up. (The farmer boxed him in with a truck, two heavy duty tractors and the hedgerow, then insisted on photographing both the guy’s license and the truck registration. The farmer’s lawyer had them because the farmer had sued for crop damage.) We were able to give him the list of missing equipment complete with serial numbers for the four chainsaws and direct him to the farmer whose name wasn’t in the report, we think because Dad had me call the State Police when I called the farmer–who didn’t call them because I already had. Two weeks ago that same Captain finally tracked me down to tell me that two of the chainsaws had been turned in by loggers in the south part of the state who had bought them second hand, then recognized Dad’s name on them. The guy who sold them the saws had about a dozen more and a whole bunch of second hand tools when the police came calling–with no bill of sale for any of it. They’re still sorting out the tools since they were inscribed with eight different names and a lot were not marked by their owners. (Dad died a year ago in Feb. so Mom told the Captain to give the chain saws back to the men who had turned them in and to turn the tools over to a local Vo-Tech school when the Police were done with them.) It has been about fifteen years since the theft and property damage occurred and both my family and the farmer’s thank that SP Captain for never giving up–and whoever sent him to our county’s State Police station after getting rid of the ten or so who ‘retired.’

  29. avatar strych9 says:

    I get the feeling that there are a lot of people on both sides of this who are the political equivalent of that guy wearing a Misfits tshirt because… the cool skull logo. He’s never listened to the music, hell, he doesn’t even know there is a band. But dat logo tho!

    Meanwhile, a hell of a lot of people are in the same position as the lady at 3:37 in the video below. I can’t help but think that Frank McLynn was right about all of this in the introduction to his biography of Marcus Aurelius.

  30. avatar Grim Reaper says:

    All of this, and this article, is fine and good up to a point; however, the much bigger problem is ignored or, more likely, lost upon most people. The bigger problem is the tax and spend, emphasis on SPENDING, government we have. Daddy Bush GHW, used to call them tax and spend dems/libs, but it’s many times worse now; and DJT isn’t a fiscal conservative and he never has been. They all spend like drunk sailors so there really is no hope. All of these things so many worry and stress over are nothing in comparison to what is coming.

    The interest on the national debt is how much the federal government must pay on outstanding public debt each year. The interest on the debt <<>> `estimated to be $479 billion. That’s from the federal budget for fiscal year 2020 that runs from October 1, 2019, through September 30, 2020. BUT, that was BEFORE all that was spent as relief for the on going Pandemic. However the interest on the debt is already $337 billion just through April.

    Before it’s over 7 trillion $ or more will be added to the national debt, that was already 21 to 22 trillion $. Update-The federal government’s total debt will stand at $22.023 trillion as of the end of June, according to the Treasury Department’s monthly reckoning .

    Fiscal Year End 2019, October 1, 2019, the interest, just the interest on the debt, is listed as being/was $574.6 billion. Fiscal Year End 2020, October 1, 2020, how much is the interest on the debt going to be. Even that the FED has interest rates set very low, & this is a scam/sham, it’s going to be a big number. Now try to imagine how it will be, and what will happen, IF the interest on long term debt rises to what is normal levels. Just the interest on the debt will rise to 1 trillion $ or more, but that’s going to happen anyway soon.

    So the real crisis is that the USA is actually bankrupt; they print money, all funny money, to try to paper over the crisis and the national debt has soared; soon covering the interest on the debt will take up so much of the taxes collected,. and tax collections are down, way down, that the numbers will no longer work. So then what to do? Think 1930s as a clue, but a reset like what happens in 3rd world nations is one solution.

    That is devalue the $ by 50% against the currencies of other nations so the value of our debt is, in effect, cut in half as well. The other effects of this, I’ll let you figure them out, won’t be pretty. But the government will survive while the bourgeoisie may not. Wages will stay suppressed while prices and the cost of living will soar based in part on the devalued US $. In such situations other things such as war, famine, we already have pestilence, usually are side effects. Good luck, but most of you are toast and just don’t know it yet.

    https://www.usdebtclock.org/index.html

    1. avatar Montana Actual says:

      Literally nothing to do with the topic, and we already know all that. So hard to read your rambles, but the effort is paid in full through the laughter they bring me.

  31. avatar Red in CO says:

    “Is America losing the rule of law?”

    No, but the rule of law is certainly losing America. When you have generations of pants on head retarded laws that throw honest citizens in jail for hurting nobody, cops, politicians, and other types being repeatedly shown to be above the law, and then just recently small businesses being shut down at gunpoint and the next day looters and arsonists being not only allowed to roam free but actively protected….

    The rule of law needs to be consistent, above all else. If laws are not applied in a just manner then the whole system collapses, and I say good riddance. If this is the best we can get from the “rule of law” then maybe we are better of without it.

    To be clear, I’m not saying anarchy is preferable to law. At its best, law is a wonderful thing. However, what we have today isn’t law as we think of it, it’s a collection of arbitrary rules that are selectively applied based on political reasons, enforced by a well armed group who won’t lift a finger to protect you but will happily throw you into a concrete cell for defending yourself, or even making preparations to defend yourself in the “wrong way”. I’ll take anarchy over selective tyranny any day of the week, and more and more it’s looking like those are, unfortunately, the only options

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      Anarchy vs. Selective tyranny is a choice between laziness and actual work. The former breeds death and despair while the latter leads to far better things.

      One of these starts at a personal responsibility level and grows from there. The unfortunate truth is that most of the people championing personal responsibility are the people who have the least of it.

  32. avatar Cruzo1981 says:

    For sure Floyd was murdered. He was no angel and his life of crime led him to where he was when he was murdered. That has to be said. The case here is one convicted felon was killed by another criminal. Best case would have been no protests or rioting or looting, then we as a society would have been better off. One POS criminal off the streets and one dirty cop off the streets as well. Defending PD is dumbest thing I have ever heard. The people on the left are using the same argument they’re trying to fight against on the police. They are labeling all LEOs like Chauvin. We all know there are good and bad cops, like there are good and bad people, of all races. Also i don’t want anymore people from CA or NY moving into my state…had to be said…

  33. avatar Grim Reaper says:

    UPDATE – Looking at the debt clock just now, WOW…, already shows the national debt at just over 26 trillion $ …

    Need to just move to Alaska with how things have become. Kill just one of the local moose and eat high on the hog for a year or more.

    https://weather.com/safety/news/2020-06-12-living-in-a-city-full-of-moose

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      You fret over insignificance. The debt is a symptom of the problem and it’s actually a pretty minor one.

    2. avatar Montana Actual says:

      Oh, what’s the matter? Can’t make it in the south all the sudden? People like you are not welcome to these kinds of lifestyles up here. Keep your inbred kin in your non mobile trailer in whatever swamp you currently reside in. All talk, bubba.

  34. avatar BLAMMO!! says:

    I wish we would stop calling these radical extremists anarchists. They are much more like nihilists. They only tear things down, destroy and plunder. They build, create or contribute nothing.

    I’m not going to bat for anarchists but anarchy is not complete lawlessness and chaos. True anarchists don’t throw 2x4s through windows or set cars on fire. People who believe in anarchism as a viable social construct (of course, it’s not), have a fundamental respect for other people AND THEIR PROPERTY. These radicals detest the very concept of property rights, ownership and property itself, public or private.

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      There’s a massive distinction, and it’s not a distinction without a difference, between a philosophical anarchist and a run of the mill anarchist.

      The vast majority of the folks who like an encircled A are the the latter rather than the former.

      1. avatar BLAMMO!! says:

        Yes, language evolves, words and syntaxes take on new meanings.

        Fascism was not always the universal pejorative it is today. And none of the “*isms” throughout history have ever been the same as any other.

  35. avatar Miner49er says:

    You people are just watching too much Fox News, trumps disinformation news system.

    Your masters at Fox News are intentionally editing and distorting the video in Seattle in order to inflame you with righteous indignation, don’t be a Rube and fall for their heavy-handed propaganda techniques, think for yourself!

    “Fox News published digitally altered and misleading photos on stories about Seattle’s Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ) in what photojournalism experts called a clear violation of ethical standards for news organizations.
    As part of a package of stories Friday about the zone, where demonstrators have taken over several city blocks on Capitol Hill after Seattle police abandoned the East Precinct, Fox’s website for much of the day featured a photo of a man standing with a military-style rifle in front of what appeared to be a smashed retail storefront.
    The image was actually a mashup of photos from different days, taken by different photographers — it was done by splicing a Getty Images photo of an armed man, who had been at the protest zone June 10, with other images from May 30 of smashed windows in downtown Seattle. Another altered image combined the gunman photo with yet another image, making it appear as though he was standing in front of a sign declaring “You are now entering Free Cap Hill.”

    Fox’s site had no disclaimers revealing the photos had been manipulated. The network removed the images after inquiries from The Seattle Times.
    In addition, Fox’s site for a time on Friday ran a frightening image of a burning city, above a package of stories about Seattle’s protests, headlined “CRAZY TOWN.” The photo actually showed a scene from St. Paul, Minnesota, on May 30. That image also was later removed.

    In an emailed statement, a Fox News spokeswoman said: “We have replaced our photo illustration with the clearly delineated images of a gunman and a shattered storefront, both of which were taken this week in Seattle’s autonomous zone.”

    That statement is inaccurate, as the gunman photo was taken June 10, while storefront images it was melded with were datelined May 30 by Getty Images.
    On Saturday, Fox apologized in an editor’s note posted to stories about CHAZ on its website, sayings its home-page photos “did not clearly delineate” the splicing together of multiple images from different locations. The editor’s note also acknowledged the erroneous use of the Minnesota rioting photo to illustrate Seattle news. “Fox News regrets these errors,” the note stated.
    The network’s misleading and faked images were published as the Capitol Hill zone — quickly labeled CHAZ — became a political flashpoint for conservatives nationally and a target of tweets by President Donald Trump, who has branded the demonstrators “domestic terrorists” and threatened federal action unless local officials “take back” the area.

    National news outlets on Friday also continued to cite a now-withdrawn comment by a Seattle police commander suggesting protesters were extorting payments from businesses within CHAZ. Seattle police Chief Carmen Best walked back that statement on Thursday, saying the comment was based on rumor and social media. “We haven’t had any formal reports of this occurring,” she said.
    The daily scene at CHAZ has mostly been peaceful, with artists painting an enormous “Black Lives Matter” street mural and people gathering for free food, music and documentary films.”

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      It’s hard to take anything you say seriously when you’ve demonstrated an inability to work with conjunctions that consist of two letters and are quite obviously incapable of understanding a non sequitur that’s been laid out right in front of you and explained to be a non sequitur.

      The chances you could actually find, never mind actually deal with, a root cause or moderately complex issue are slim to none.

      Really, the things I wonder about with regard to your trolling are if English is your first language, you’re just playing at being semi-intelligent or if, in fact, both are the case.

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        Thanks for your perceptive observations about my grammar skills.

        But enough about me, how about the fact that Fox News is selectively editing and compiling videos that fraudulently show violence that didn’t occur?

        This TTAG article posits that the rule of law is somehow compromised because of these violent demonstrations in places like Seattle.

        But then we see the right wing news source fox is actually ginning up videos to create a perception of violence where none exists.

        Of course your confirmation bias probably prevents you from grokking the fullness of the deception that’s being practiced by the right wing media.

        And regarding treason, the conduct of Lee and every other officer who had sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution thereby ‘owing allegiance to the United States of America‘, committed treason and when found guilty shall be put to death.

        Yes, the statute does offer an option of a lesser punishment, something more appropriate when an individual donates $100 to the Taliban.

        But when a senior military officer, abandoning his sacred oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, leads hundreds of thousands of armed insurrectionists against the government of the United States of America, death is the appropriate punishment.

        Sadly, your strange obsession with venerating and celebrating the enemies of America places you squarely on the wrong side of history.

    2. avatar Montana Actual says:

      Anytime someone leads with “You people are watching too much (insert biased news channel here)” the rest of their rant is pointless to read. Zip it up Miner.

      1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

        ha.
        it’s pervasive. i sit in the illegaly open for business tavern listening to the touchtunes and watching the muted tele, usually motortrend. here comes vanna and pat, sans facial garb, with a written narrative stating , “this episode was filmed before the national health crisis.”
        i continue to blink and stare vacantly.

    3. avatar Dennis L says:

      “The daily scene at CHAZ has mostly been peaceful, with artists painting an enormous “Black Lives Matter” street mural and people gathering for free food, music and documentary films.”

      You’re stupider then I thought. Six blocks of a metropolitan city taken over by what can only be described as terrorists and you sit there with peanut butter covering your entire body with a big grin on your face quoting some fake news source. You’ve dropped too much LSD in your youth and now the effects are showing. It’s time you stopped being a full time student at some shit hole university and contributed to society. I’d suggest jumping off the Golden Gate bridge with a white guilt sign around your neck.

  36. avatar Chief Censor says:

    Abolish the political goon squad known as the police department. They are not the constitutional law enforcement the founders wanted. They are a standing army for the politicians. They will end up federalized just like communists countries do with their police force.

    There are no good cops, only good people, but eventually good people give in to the system for a bunch of cash and privilege. You can’t be a good American as a police officer because your oaths contradict each other and the system is designed to oppress the liberty of the individual. The cops are literally trained to infringe on human rights and to use brute force to gain compliance.

    Without police the politicians have no power (I have been saying that for a long time). Now you clearly see that is the case. I don’t know any good American that believes politicians are good people. So why should we be fooled into giving the politicians a monopoly on force and giving up the responsibility to provide our own defense? How stupid can gun owners be? Why are the lefties making more sense right about now while the Republicans are calling for maintaining the police state?

    I have seen more lefties making more sense than Republicans. The lefties are calling for more liberty while the Republicans call for domination of the people via the state’s force of arms. The lefties are demanding their own community controlled police, recommending gun ownership, putting an end to the war on drugs, getting rid of victimless laws, etc. The lefties are the ones buying a shit ton of guns right about now and black people have now decided it’s time to get a gun or two.

    All I see from Republicans is complaining about the idea of shrinking the police department and people living the way they want. I hear more constitutional principles coming from the left right about now. This goes to show how the parties have flipped in some respects. I have seen a lot of racism/white supremacy coming out of Republicans in the last two weeks, whereas the left is calling for unity among people and equality under law.

    The left are actually standing up to the government and calling for a new form of governance that respects everyone and holds everyone to the same standards. The Republicans want to maintain the current broken unconstitutional system that caters to corporations, banks and dynasties.

    The Republicans will lose America because they are corrupt and full of pro gun Democrats. The youth will not side with them, future generations will never join them. When someone like Tim Pool is considered a right winger you know something went very wrong with the Republicans party. When an anti gun, New York Democrat, Hollywood star, billionaire is the representative of Republicans only failure will occur. You had a opportunity to fix America after the pandemic and rebellions, but nope… It’s like you wanted to lose on purpose. It’s strange because you will never show up for a boog like the left is.

    I am not voting Biden. However, he does seem like he will be your next president. That is your fault.

    1. avatar Montana Actual says:

      K den.

      Next time just TL;DR us with an “I am a leftist”

      btw, same standards? lol… you mean like the leftists in chaz telling white people to give black people $5?

      You zip it up too.

    2. avatar Dennis L says:

      “The left are actually standing up to the government and calling for a new form of governance that respects everyone and holds everyone to the same standards.”

      The left are a bunch of juvenile terrorists who will take over the country until the time we counter attack and send them screaming to the depths of hell.

  37. avatar Grim Reaper says:

    Montana Actual says: >>> June 13, 2020 at 19:48

    Literally nothing to do with the topic, and we already know all that. So hard to read your rambles, but the effort is paid in full through the laughter they bring me.

    _And yet you’re the ~Actual laughing stock at TTAG. Just keep posting your little worthless blurb type posts there little fella.

  38. avatar Grim Reaper says:

    strych9 says: >>> June 13, 2020 at 18:24

    You fret over insignificance. The debt is a symptom of the problem and it’s actually a pretty minor one.

    _Apparently finance isn’t your strong suit. The debt the is the problem much larger than any other problem such as the things this ttag article is about. For you to write that it’s
    actually a pretty minor one shows and proves that, sorry to say, you’re clueless on this one. I did not really expect many or anybody in the ttag crowd to get it. But you’ll get it soon enough and after it’s much too late to improve your situation. Jay Jacobson may consider it at some point to be able to know about what is much worse than what he writes about. What he writes about will pass; the USA debt bomb never will.

  39. avatar Grim Reaper says:

    The debt is the problem … as correction > for the little spelling and grammar police here…

    The National Debt Clock is a billboard-sized running total display which constantly updates to show the current United States gross national debt and each American family’s share of the debt. It is currently installed on the western side of One Bryant Park, west of Sixth Avenue between 42nd and 43rd Streets in Manhattan, New York City.It was the first debt clock installed anywhere.

  40. avatar Daniel S. says:

    Don’t FORGET, to put out your USA 🇺🇸 on Sunday the 14th, FLAG DAY 🇺🇸

  41. avatar Grim Reaper says:

    Montana Actual says: >>> June 13, 2020 at 19:59

    Oh, what’s the matter? Can’t make it in the south all the sudden? People like you are not welcome to these kinds of lifestyles up here. Keep your inbred kin in your non mobile trailer in whatever swamp you currently reside in. All talk, bubba.

    _Your psychosis is advancing rapidly: Methamphetamine induces a psychosis in 26–46 percent of heavy users. Some of these people develop a long-lasting psychosis that can persist for longer than six months. Those who have had a short-lived psychosis from methamphetamine can have a relapse of the methamphetamine psychosis years later after a stressful event such as severe insomnia or a period of heavy alcohol abuse despite not relapsing back to methamphetamine. Individuals who have a long history of methamphetamine abuse and who have experienced psychosis in the past from methamphetamine abuse are highly likely to re-experience methamphetamine psychosis if drug use is recommenced. Methamphetamine-induced psychosis is likely gated by genetic vulnerability, which can produce long-term changes in brain neurochemistry following repetitive use.

    1. avatar tlc says:

      Which relates to our subject how?

  42. avatar obidon says:

    The rule of law in American is a victim of its own irrationality.

    When The Supreme Court supported the 9th Circuit’s support of the California Governor limiting access to church services at about the same time as California’s streets filled with rioters, the insanity set in.

    What “rule of law” allows rioters to loot and burn but prevents worship?

    When the law becomes so convoluted that it is impossible to defend then it is done.

  43. avatar possum says:

    I’m leaving out “Rule of Law” and just going with, ” Is America Losing?” .My answer would be, Yes.

    1. avatar Miner49er says:

      I thought we were supposed to be winning, we will be doing ‘so much winning we will be tired of winning’?

  44. avatar Rocky says:

    I don’t think that “Rule of Law ” means what Mr. Jacobson thinks it does. It means ALL are equal before the law, not that the executive functions of government (in this instance, the police) are in control. This is a remarkable (yet unsurprising) twisting of the founder’s words. Sad, as some might say…

  45. avatar Matthew Leonard says:

    From my understanding the Powers That Be (Gov/Religion/Banking-Money Printers-Rothschild….. yeah….it is a very tangled web that they have spun) ) were going to pull the bottom out when the Dow reached 30,000. I’d heard this when the Dow was under 10,000 if I remember correctly. Well here we go, folks. This is probably it. They couldn’t do it with the standard War/Anarchy/Fascism etc. so….. they released a virus. “Say g’bye, Dickie.” They expect us to riot so they can murder us “en masse”, just like they told the troops in the Instruction Manuals they doled out some years ago. Didn’t really believe it myself. Maybe peaceful protest / non-compliance will work but…. they’ve probably got the instigator / agitator in place to start the “Rain” when things go sour. Just like the protest about Race. The ride was nice (enough for me!!!) while it lasted.

  46. avatar VTXHonda Ex-Cop says:

    The author says “…and the United States will cease to exist as we know it.” That is the lefts stated goal. They see all of this as a great opportunity to reshape the United States.

  47. avatar Grim Reaper says:

    tlc says: >>> June 13, 2020 at 22:08
    Which relates to our subject how?

    __Here’s how: Taking out the trash is something that needs to be done and has to be done. This is true regardless of the ttag subject that is the topic at the moment. Post some comments that have any merit and you’ll be attacked by those on the left, or on the right, depending on what you post. Note this comment below:

    Montana Actual says: >>> June 13, 2020 at 13:13
    Hey. No common sense allowed.

    _Montana Actual as a LARPer or other delusional type, feels the need to be ‘liked’ here so you know he has problems and needs help. A LARPer is someone pretending to be something they’re really not, and here this often times comes out with folks that can and do only post short-blurb-type comments.

    __A freudian slip, that he has no common sense himself, perhaps, from Montana Actual, but also don’t over look others here like Miner49er, Chief Sensor, Vlad, etc.. Also follow and read the entire thread for context before sticking your nose into something where you don’t have a dog in the fight.

    _I post plenty that’s relevant and on topic; however, at times those on the far left, or those that have little or nothing to offer and really can’t discuss a subject on its merits, need to be dealt with. This is just part of it in what is a public forum. The ttag powers that be probably understand this and know this.

    _Post something besides a short blurb, like most here do, and let’s see what you’re about and what kind of reception you receive. Or, is your little ‘tlc’ handle and comment/question to me just another scatter shot coming from out of left field based on some other agenda. Off subject comments, in response to attacks, are necessary sometimes and are just part of it. So develop some thicker skin or bug out and bug off.

    1. avatar tlc says:

      First off I was trying to find out WHY the rant on meth and meth users was posted. Second I was trying to get the outrageous postings/name calling to stop. That helps no one. And third I have posted more than a short blurp in the past, including this very thread. Furthermore

      Oh hell, why do I bother answering every tom dick & harry who tries to run me off . It only wastes my time and raises my blood pressure.

      By the way, tlc are my initials; that it is also a kind of shorthand for ‘tender loving care’ is purely coincidence. I notice most on here don’t even use that much personal identification.

      1. avatar Montana Actual says:

        Just ignore the troll.

  48. avatar Grim Reaper says:

    tlc says:
    June 14, 2020 at 16:01

    First off I was trying to find out WHY the rant on meth and meth users was posted.

    _ WHY, because – Montana Actual is/was a meth user, from what I gather from his post content, and the fact that he commented on naming a U.S. military base ‘Fort Meth’. If you’re here any length of time be prepared for the fact that there will be ‘all kinds’ of folks in the mix here. That includes gang members and people born in foreign countries that hate the U.S.A. .

    Second I was trying to get the outrageous postings/name calling to stop. That helps no one.

    __This is the internet and YOU want to censor it? Fact is outrageous postings/name calling, and more to the point, free speach, is a big reason for the on going success of TTAG. If it ever becomes like many of the other sites on line, think Facebook, heavily censored, it’s no good. Post your stuff and deal with the tough POTG crowd here, or go away. I have read too many thousands of posts to count here, over time, and I profile many commenters; I’ll do the same with you if you stick around.

    And third I have posted more than a short blurp in the past, including this very thread. Furthermore…

    __You certainly haven’t posted very much here, yet, or else I would recall some of your posts and the content.

    Oh hell, why do I bother answering every tom dick & harry who tries to run me off . It only wastes my time and raises my blood pressure.

    __Probably nobody really wants to run you off. More likely it’s the delusional crowd here that tries to dominate and control the comments, with their groups of like minded political operatives. Need I name them again? Just be ready to play ball and stand up to anybody or any group that tries to run you off. If your comments have merit and add something you’ll know it. – eventually.

    By the way, tlc are my initials; that it is also a kind of shorthand for ‘tender loving care’ is purely coincidence. I notice most on here don’t even use that much personal identification.

    __’tlc are my initials; that it is also a kind of shorthand for ‘tender loving care’ is purely coincidence’ … That was my first thought about your tlc handle, ‘tender loving care’ being what it stood for, and I started to mention it and ask if that’s what it stood for. But I would suggest something more memorable and unique as a handle. Using personal identification here, or anything close to it, isn’t a good idea. I need not know or care whom you are; your comments will be judged on their merits. It’s better for all that way.

    Montana Actual says: >>> June 14, 2020 at 16:45

    Just ignore the troll.

    __Keep at it little fella. It’s the meth that keeps you going?

    1. avatar Montana Actual says:

      I’m so glad you take this so serious. lol at the meth insults (But I thought you were the one keeping this civil?) It’s hilarious actually. You truly believe you are a middle man. Post a book, post a sentence… doesn’t matter. Make your point or shut the fuck up.

  49. avatar BusyBeef says:

    This article shows a pretty profound lack of understanding with regard to the topic that it is trying to discuss.

    “Defund the police” doesn’t mean abolish them.

    It means use unarmed responders for non-emergencies.

    It means stop selling military surplus to those who would oppress us (and enforce unconstitutional gun control laws).

    1. avatar Montana Actual says:

      No. They actually believe “defund the police” means remove them entirely. Give it time, they will find another way to word it so there is no denying it.

  50. avatar EG says:

    @Jay Jacobsen get your facts straight – bourgeoisie is a medieval French term used to describe what is akin to our middle class, the caste between peasants and landowners in French society.

    1. avatar EG says:

      Marx borrowed this term for his own purposes 🙂

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email