Trump

[merman]

Police now using baton rounds to shoot peaceful protestors IN THE HEAD.
That is not what they are made for.

Good to know the UK Government has.... Failed to condemn Trump's actions and continues to export riot gear to the USA. Profit before peace.

[tufty]

Police now using baton rounds to shoot peaceful protestors IN THE HEAD.
That is not what they are made for.

Then what fucking use are they? How are you expected to kill people with them otherwise?

[gilesgoat]

Police now using baton rounds to shoot peaceful protestors IN THE HEAD.
That is not what they are made for.

Good to know the UK Government has.... Failed to condemn Trump's actions and continues to export riot gear to the USA. Profit before peace.

Of course not, Boris cannot harm "his best special friend" and not support him, of course he's sending him "help" for a price ( as USA would do the same in fact, do you think "help" comes for free ? ).

The fact his, history teaches and always repeats in this case, that "protest againist the established power(s)" always tend to end up in "police beating up the crap of people" .. "has some logic" that police is even more brutal than the army .. because you send the army .. that's the army .. we could risk to get at the point "that sounds even like high treason" if you order to shoot on your own people ...

But "police" .. "they do the nasty jobs they told to" ( and some of them even enjoy it so much ) so that's fine, tell them to beat the crap of those protesters and stop them.

But facts remains that "when you protest againist 'the right spots' " protest seems soon to move from "pacific" to "someone getting hurt badly" it's really like "you don't protest about certain things full stop".

Go about those "certain things" and "everything then blurs" and for whatever reasons protesters start to get tear gas, they are now criminals or even terrorist, etc.

Theory ( just theory ) "there are democratic means to make things ( you don't like ) change" , Reality : NO ! ( not until ALL in powers with that ideology are gone - for natural causes - and even in that case might not work as new ones with the same ideas are in place ).

Which leads to :

- unavoidably there will be protests
- unavodiably they will end up not so well
- always "when you reach point X", police are going to treat protesters badly
- democratic system is not perfect has its fair share of failures too
- people at power want to keep that power
- police is NOT "for the people" is FOR THEM
- with various exceptions but "really big changes" seems to happen only after wars/really BIG events
- people at power first protect themselves and their "most useful to them" supporters, then the rest

Extras :

- if you really have to start a war, you better be extremely well prepared first ( i.e. you don't start from "just some protests escalating" )
- wars need lot of weapons, lot of organization, lot of time, lot of resources tactical and human ( and possibly some "investors" in it )
- more people than what you can think of will go to die, many "for nothing"
- you'll always end up owing something to someone for the success of the operation

Extras 2:

- you may establish "a new power" that after N years N not too long will .. face protesters again ..

And the cycle repeats.

[F-ZeroOne]

So, I have a question... where are the militias? "The Feds" have called in the military, "teh AUTHORITAHIES" are shooting at "the people" with tear gas and baton rounds, "the people" are being beaten up in the street for exercising their constitutional rights... so where are are all the people with AR-15s defending them? Or are they too busy standing around outside the nearest city hall because they still can't get a haircut?

[Harlequin]

So, I have a question... where are the militias? "The Feds" have called in the military, "teh AUTHORITAHIES" are shooting at "the people" with tear gas and baton rounds, "the people" are being beaten up in the street for exercising their constitutional rights... so where are are all the people with AR-15s defending them? Or are they too busy standing around outside the nearest city hall because they still can't get a haircut?

Me: I don't understand why you demand unlimited guns?

Right Wing: To defend America when tyrannical Govt deploys the military on American civilians

Trump: I'm deploying the US military on American civilians

Right Wing:

[KlaxonCow]

There's a hashtag trending on Twitter that's documenting the police brutality:

#PoliceBrutalityPandemic

There are cops beating up and arresting medics. A cop caught talking to "Proud Boys" to warn them that the tear gas is coming and to stay in a building or a car, as they can't be seen "playing favourites". A cop spitting repeatedly on a handcuffed black man. Rubber bullet fired at homeless man in a wheelchair. An elderly white peaceful protester bringing back a cop's helmet, who gets pushed to the ground and starts bleeding from the head. Innumerable unwarranted attacks caught on camera.

Here's the old guy who was just trying to return a helmet - look at what's in his hands - to the cops:

[F-ZeroOne]

"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"...

[Foozwah]

So, I have a question... where are the militias? "The Feds" have called in the military, "teh AUTHORITAHIES" are shooting at "the people" with tear gas and baton rounds, "the people" are being beaten up in the street for exercising their constitutional rights... so where are are all the people with AR-15s defending them? Or are they too busy standing around outside the nearest city hall because they still can't get a haircut?

The blatant hyprocrisy (not that I really expected anything more) of the whole NRA-type crowd, with their bullshit 2nd Amendment argument, has been quite staggering to witness.

They finally have the kind of government overreach and attacking of their country's own citizens that they've been waiting for (and masturbating over) for decades, and yet, whoops, guess all those paramilitary cosplayers are washing their hair every night this week.

It couldn't possibly be that their inaction is due to the government attacking its own people is one that they overwhelmingly voted for, of course...

Or that the government is attacking fellow citizens that they would quite like to attack themselves, if they thought they could get away with it...

Nah, couldn't possibly one either of those things. It'll be hair washing. A big ol' week of hair washing and pointedly not defending the people against a tyrannical government after all.

[Foozwah]

Here's the old guy who was just trying to return a helmet - look at what's in his hands - to the cops:

That video makes me alternately so fucking angry and so sad as well. "To protect and serve", eh. To protect and serve...

To be fair, one cop seems to try for a second to see if the guy is okay, but his buddy pulls him back into line and he just walks right by and away with the rest of them.

Cops in situations like this are basically an occupying army crossed with a street gang. Thugs and would-be killers.

[merman]

Police now using baton rounds to shoot peaceful protestors IN THE HEAD.
That is not what they are made for.

Then what fucking use are they? How are you expected to kill people with them otherwise?

THEY ARE NOT MADE TO FUCKING BLIND PEOPLE BY SHOOTING THEM IN THE FACE.

They are a riot CONTROL weapon, designed to be non-fatal when used properly.
They were misused in Northern Ireland, they are being misused in the US.

You slow down or incapacitate the rioter with a baton round.

[tufty]

non-fatal

The actual official term is "less lethal weapons". In the UK, the current L21A1 "baton round" is around 10 times more likely to cause injury, maiming or death than the previous L5A7 "plastic bullet" / "plastic baton round", which was, of course, more dangerous than the previous "rubber bullet". No idea what the maniacs in the US are firing at people.

I've been hit with an L5A7. It hurt like all hell.

[gilesgoat]

The problem is after all this rioting I can't see much "resolution" going to happen.

That there is/are "situations that should not be as they are now", it's clear, that sometime rioting/protesting is the only way "some problems get really noticed" is a fact BUT then .. "they were rioting, they were criminals, they had to be restained with use of force".

.. and the situation is always identically the same as before ..

"People complain, they get silenced", they complain "in a more civil way", nothing particularly happens because the system is what it is.

Police/other forces then will say "see that ? People ARE rioting we NEED even more force/power" .. and they'll probably get it.

The problem of USA is fundamentally "that is a nation based on Money under God's will" .. I suppose .. "you can't talk about Native Americans" in USA and what happened to them .. they don't count, pretend they never existed.

But worries not USA is the land of (unequal) freedom, (unequal) opportunities, (unequal) laws or as that one said "Here everything is equal for everyone, it's not our fault if everyone is not equal" ( in the sense of "there are always those different where things don't apply" ).

What I think was "odd" was for example ( people like ) Alex Jones going on that "becase all this is happening is VERY IMPORTANT/NECSSARY that EVERY AMERICAN MUST BE ABLE TO HAVE FUCKLOAD OF WEAPONS TO DEFEND HIMSELF AND HIS/HER FAMILY" .. ok .. but .. "this means then eveyone can have all weapons he/she wants ?" .. therefore .. "next riot is a full scale civil war because everyone HAS those weapons they just got before to avoid all that ?" .

Funny thing is "that same mis-quoted article" that allows people to have weapons in USA, in this very case, could kinda be "the proper correct article to quote and use for the situation people are protesting for ?" .. as in "if the government is hostile to people people are allowed to take weapons and go againist it ?" ..

Isn't it that what that article says ? Or not ?

Anyway .. I can't see this ending well in any way, unless maybe all this noise "is so significant" to really change the result of the next election and we'll be able to say a certain toupee goobye, hopefully being replaced by someone better.

Because in the end of the day in one way or another protesters will be silenced and such .. but the problems will remain, if not amplified cause the facts.

[p-saurus]

So, I have a question... where are the militias? "The Feds" have called in the military, "teh AUTHORITAHIES" are shooting at "the people" with tear gas and baton rounds, "the people" are being beaten up in the street for exercising their constitutional rights... so where are are all the people with AR-15s defending them? Or are they too busy standing around outside the nearest city hall because they still can't get a haircut?

The militias are white supremacist organizations. I imagine they're itching to start shooting brown people and liberals after the election, but for now, they'll let the police do it for them.

The problem is after all this rioting I can't see much "resolution" going to happen.

The real problem is that it takes all this rioting to get people to open their eyes and see what's going on. Major civil rights legislation wasn't passed in this country until major rioting in 1968. Until then, there were plenty of people who quietly disapproved, but who were unwilling to disrupt the status quo that was working for them. In this case, a lot of people thought most police officers were good, with a few bad apples who did things they didn't approve of. Now, there is video of the police rampaging all over the country. Reform will happen.

I feel for the people who have incurred losses to property through this, but if it results in even a small relaxation of systemic repression and a small breakdown of the police state, it will have been well worth it.

[Harlequin]

Funny thing is "that same mis-quoted article" that allows people to have weapons in USA, in this very case, could kinda be "the proper correct article to quote and use for the situation people are protesting for ?" .. as in "if the government is hostile to people people are allowed to take weapons and go againist it ?" ..

Isn't it that what that article says ? Or not ?

If you mean the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, it states: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. [As ratified by the states]

Or: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. [As passed by the Congress]

As for the Golden Dictator, I would not be at all surprised if he were encouraging a civil war to distract from his other problems.

[KlaxonCow]

If we look to the Virginia "Declaration of Rights", at section 13, we see the origin of the Second Amendment:

That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Compare and contrast to the Second Amendment of the Constitution:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

You see, Virginia had the idea of a charter of rights for its citizenry first, and then this good idea was added to the U.S. Constitution as a series of amendments. As with Section 13 above, the U.S. Constitution borrows from the Declaration of Rights - including wording - but kind of reads like a concise and compact version thereof (e.g. free press and religious freedom are separate in the Declaration of Rights, but all get bundled together in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution).

The reason to bring up this derivation is that Virginia's Declaration of Rights is more verbose and explanatory of the underlying purpose of this right:

"Standing armies, in times of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

That's the problem it identifies this right to be a solution to. And the worry was, after assembling an army to see off the British Empire, that retaining a standing army was dangerous. That those with military power might attempt a coup d'etat. We've seen countries around the world taken over by military juntas. Or, breaking up, that things might get into "warlord-ism" with different militaries / paramilitaries carving up the nation into their own respective fiefdoms.

Yes, we can look back in hindsight and note that this never happened. But, of course, they didn't know that when they were writing this, and there have been other countries - new nations, gaining independence - that have gone down that exact route with the military powers taking dictatorial control.

My favourite bit of Section 13 is:

"and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

And by "civil power", they mean the Virginian government. The Second Amendment advocates like to claim that it exists so that they can defend themselves from the government.

But, actually, Section 13 - after which the Second Amendment is so obviously shamelessly copied from - clearly states that the idea is completely the opposite. It's to defend the government from standing armies. From military coups and armed gangs and warlords.

They were worried that, now the war with the British had been won, the armies that had been assembled to see off the Brits might now decide to exercise some "might is right" military power to take over the joint. The aim was to protect the civil power from military aggression. Hence the need for such military powers to be "under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power".

The Second Amendment does not exist to protect the people from the government, it exists to protect the government from its own standing army.

Now, we can also note that, back in 1776, there was no concept of a police force. Robert Peel had yet to come up with his "Bobbies", and for that idea to spread around the globe.

And with a little imagination, one could see that "a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms" is a description of the police. That, yes, once we all had the police force - which is under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil powers - then we no longer have the military patrol the streets. The military are, ordinarily, kept at arm's length from civilian policing.

The problem, though, is that modern police forces - particularly in America - have been domestic standing armies. And they have become dangerous to liberty.

But, yeah, anyway, the point is that the notion that the Second Amendment is about people protecting themselves from the government? A complete myth, invented by gun manufacturers and their PR group, the NRA. Absolute bollocks. One can review the history, as above, and see that it simply was never true. Quite the opposite - the well-regulated militas were to protect the people and the civil powers from the threat of standing armies who, in a time of peace, might start getting ideas about conquering America for themselves.

Even ignoring that, yes, it's not pragmatically useful anyway, even if it were true, which it isn't.

I mean, what the fuck is a gun going to do against a government enemy that, you know, possesses nuclear weaponry, cruise missiles, aircraft carriers, drone bombers, tanks, etc.? When they send missiles at you, what exactly are you going to point your shotgun at? Guns, to be useful, kind of depend on your enemy sticking their heads up over the parapet for you to shoot at. It doesn't really do anything remotely useful, when the enemy is remote controlling a cruise missile from hundreds of miles away. What do you shoot at exactly?