New Armed Citizen Patrol Forms In Josephine County
#21
(11-22-2013, 12:39 PM)PonderThis Wrote: I'd like to hear a few more mute points debated here.

Although we probably all think there are some people on here who should be mute, I think you mean moot Wink
Reply
#22
(11-22-2013, 12:44 PM)GPnative Wrote:
(11-22-2013, 12:39 PM)PonderThis Wrote: I'd like to hear a few more mute points debated here.

Although we probably all think there are some people on here who should be mute, I think you mean moot Wink

That was his point, to make fun of my spelling.
Reply
#23
(11-22-2013, 12:36 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(11-22-2013, 12:20 PM)csrowan Wrote:
(11-22-2013, 12:04 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(11-22-2013, 11:55 AM)csrowan Wrote: I find the notion of a bunch of armed civilians looking for criminals to be inherently dangerous for innocent bystanders.

Is that so hard to understand?

Not coming from you it isn't. You gun haters always look for the worst case scenario. Too bad you can't or won't consider the possibility that these volunteers are more likely to save a life as they are to accidentally kill an innocent.

BTW, you and your ilk aren't hard to understand.

You realize, of course, that this all stemmed from Ponder's simple question "Wouldn't it be easier to just pay your fucking county taxes like everyone else does?"

You followed up with wanting to know WTF was wrong with people wanting to do their best to reduce crime.

Well, I gave an answer. You may not like it, but that's my answer. I'd rather have people pay their fucking county taxes like everyone else does and have REAL law enforcement rather than have civilians go out armed with guns and go looking for criminals. Maybe they have prevented some crime so far, but who is to say that they really will end up saving more lives in the long run? What happens if they find a couple of armed robbers in the middle of a heist, and they've got hostages?

I see this logic a lot here. War is bad. so lets not have wars.Rolling Eyes

I responded to Ponders question LOGICALLY. He said "Wouldn't it be easier to just pay your fucking county taxes like everyone else does?"


I said of course. But the obvious fact that somehow you and Ponder want to overlook is that fact that people WON"T pay enough. So the next step for me is look at the second best option and not to sit here and debate a mute point.

And I'll say of course something bad could happen but unlike you I'm totally with the people who are willing to take that chance rather than sit on your hands while criminals run rampant.

I never suggested people should sit idly by while their city is looted and criminals run rampant.

I just suggested they should pay their fucking taxes so that trained professionals could take over law enforcement instead of relying on roving bands of armed civilians who might end up in a situation they're woefully undertrained for.
Reply
#24
JoCo will resemble Dog Patch as time goes by. This 'system' will work until there is an incident. Then it will capture national attention and the Fed will be compelled to ask questions. Is it even legal for a town not to have a working police department? Many towns have volunteer fire departments but relying on trigger-happy citizens who don't have anything like the training required in a 'real' police department is just asking for trouble.

Well-trained police officers make enough mistakes. A volunteer 'force' is just a tragic incident waiting to happen.
Reply
#25
You wouldn't know what a mute point was if it hit you in the ass. Perhaps you meant moot. Smiling

1mute adjective \?myüt\
: not able or willing to speak

: felt or expressed without the use of words

(Edit: I see quite a few posts slipped in between on this one.) Laughing
Reply
#26
(11-22-2013, 12:47 PM)csrowan Wrote:
(11-22-2013, 12:36 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(11-22-2013, 12:20 PM)csrowan Wrote:
(11-22-2013, 12:04 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(11-22-2013, 11:55 AM)csrowan Wrote: I find the notion of a bunch of armed civilians looking for criminals to be inherently dangerous for innocent bystanders.

Is that so hard to understand?

Not coming from you it isn't. You gun haters always look for the worst case scenario. Too bad you can't or won't consider the possibility that these volunteers are more likely to save a life as they are to accidentally kill an innocent.

BTW, you and your ilk aren't hard to understand.

You realize, of course, that this all stemmed from Ponder's simple question "Wouldn't it be easier to just pay your fucking county taxes like everyone else does?"

You followed up with wanting to know WTF was wrong with people wanting to do their best to reduce crime.

Well, I gave an answer. You may not like it, but that's my answer. I'd rather have people pay their fucking county taxes like everyone else does and have REAL law enforcement rather than have civilians go out armed with guns and go looking for criminals. Maybe they have prevented some crime so far, but who is to say that they really will end up saving more lives in the long run? What happens if they find a couple of armed robbers in the middle of a heist, and they've got hostages?

I see this logic a lot here. War is bad. so lets not have wars.Rolling Eyes

I responded to Ponders question LOGICALLY. He said "Wouldn't it be easier to just pay your fucking county taxes like everyone else does?"


I said of course. But the obvious fact that somehow you and Ponder want to overlook is that fact that people WON"T pay enough. So the next step for me is look at the second best option and not to sit here and debate a mute point.

And I'll say of course something bad could happen but unlike you I'm totally with the people who are willing to take that chance rather than sit on your hands while criminals run rampant.

I never suggested people should sit idly by while their city is looted and criminals run rampant.

I just suggested they should pay their fucking taxes so that trained professionals could take over law enforcement instead of relying on roving bands of armed civilians who might end up in a situation they're woefully undertrained for.

UnbeliveableRolling Eyes who gives a damn what they SHOULD have done. They are doing what the NEED to do because what SHOULD have happened DIDN'T.

I hate to bust your libtard bubble but right now thousands of people have guns and do successfully protect their property and their neighbors.
Your assumption that things will certainly go wrong if armed citizens simply drive around and WATCH for crime is as bad as your false assumption that they have no training.
Reply
#27
And another thread bites the dust......
Reply
#28
In the USA, we have the freedom to have towns with 'volunteer' law enforcement. Some citizens will find that attractive and want to live there. I guess that is up to them. I would rather have a professional police department and will always live in a place where that is provided.
Reply
#29
(11-22-2013, 12:53 PM)TennisMom Wrote: JoCo will resemble Dog Patch as time goes by. This 'system' will work until there is an incident. Then it will capture national attention and the Fed will be compelled to ask questions. Is it even legal for a town not to have a working police department?

Yes

Quote: Many towns have volunteer fire departments but relying on trigger-happy citizens who don't have anything like the training required in a 'real' police department is just asking for trouble.


Why do you chose to assume these watch volunteers are inept untrained boobs?

Especially after Gapper gave information to counter that.






Quote:Well-trained police officers make enough mistakes. A volunteer 'force' is just a tragic incident waiting to happen.

Right and letting criminals run rampant is a much safer alternative?? No way something tragic might happen if no one does anything???
Reply
#30
I have one word for the folks supporting these armed civilians looking for criminals.

- Zimmerman -

People are finally waking up to this gun madness of allowing just anyone to own a gun no matter if they are mentally unsound and incapable of understanding when not to use one.

The ''Neighborhood Watch'' program where Zimmerman killed an unarmed teen has said;

“We will not allow a person to carry a firearm while operating as a member of our neighborhood watch program,”

They have no policing powers, carry no weapons, are nonconfrontational, and always coordinate activities with law enforcement.
Reply
#31
(11-22-2013, 12:56 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(11-22-2013, 12:47 PM)csrowan Wrote:
(11-22-2013, 12:36 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(11-22-2013, 12:20 PM)csrowan Wrote:
(11-22-2013, 12:04 PM)tvguy Wrote: Not coming from you it isn't. You gun haters always look for the worst case scenario. Too bad you can't or won't consider the possibility that these volunteers are more likely to save a life as they are to accidentally kill an innocent.

BTW, you and your ilk aren't hard to understand.

You realize, of course, that this all stemmed from Ponder's simple question "Wouldn't it be easier to just pay your fucking county taxes like everyone else does?"

You followed up with wanting to know WTF was wrong with people wanting to do their best to reduce crime.

Well, I gave an answer. You may not like it, but that's my answer. I'd rather have people pay their fucking county taxes like everyone else does and have REAL law enforcement rather than have civilians go out armed with guns and go looking for criminals. Maybe they have prevented some crime so far, but who is to say that they really will end up saving more lives in the long run? What happens if they find a couple of armed robbers in the middle of a heist, and they've got hostages?

I see this logic a lot here. War is bad. so lets not have wars.Rolling Eyes

I responded to Ponders question LOGICALLY. He said "Wouldn't it be easier to just pay your fucking county taxes like everyone else does?"


I said of course. But the obvious fact that somehow you and Ponder want to overlook is that fact that people WON"T pay enough. So the next step for me is look at the second best option and not to sit here and debate a mute point.

And I'll say of course something bad could happen but unlike you I'm totally with the people who are willing to take that chance rather than sit on your hands while criminals run rampant.

I never suggested people should sit idly by while their city is looted and criminals run rampant.

I just suggested they should pay their fucking taxes so that trained professionals could take over law enforcement instead of relying on roving bands of armed civilians who might end up in a situation they're woefully undertrained for.

UnbeliveableRolling Eyes who gives a damn what they SHOULD have done. They are doing what the NEED to do because what SHOULD have happened DIDN'T.

I hate to bust your libtard bubble but right now thousands of people have guns and do successfully protect their property and their neighbors.
Your assumption that things will certainly go wrong if armed citizens simply drive around and WATCH for crime is as bad as your false assumption that they have no training.

This is a discussion forum. We are discussing something and I am giving my opinion on something. The fact that it has already happened doesn't mean that I can't have an opinion on what should have happened in the past.

My assumption that things COULD (as opposed to "will certainly") go wrong (your reading comprehension problem is showing) and go wrong badly is based on my assumption that these people are not nearly as well trained as law enforcement officials. While I originally assumed they were untrained, I then read the article, saw that there was required training, and made a post retracting my "untrained" comment. Which you either missed or ignored. Again, problems with reading comprehension.
Reply
#32
(11-22-2013, 12:56 PM)tvguy Wrote: I hate to bust your libtard bubble but right now thousands of people have guns and do successfully protect their property and their neighbors.
Your assumption that things will certainly go wrong if armed citizens simply drive around and WATCH for crime is as bad as your false assumption that they have no training.

In Jackson County, they apparently have plenty of money for the sheriffs to do their own driving around looking for crime, and they pay $2.11 per thousand, and an owner of a $200,000 property pays $422 a year in county taxes.

While in crime ridden Josephine county, they pay 58 cents per thousand, so that $200,000 property pays $116. For a mere $308 more a year, a person can avoid the expenses of driving their own car around (around 60 cents a mile), the inconvenience and the risk, and stay inside where it's warm and comfy. They can scheme a way to make an extra $308 a year with the extra mental energy they have to waste. Isn't that a lot easier use of your life and your time? That's the point I'm trying to make.
Reply
#33
(11-22-2013, 01:01 PM)TennisMom Wrote: In the USA, we have the freedom to have towns with 'volunteer' law enforcement. Some citizens will find that attractive and want to live there. I guess that is up to them. I would rather have a professional police department and will always live in a place where that is provided.

Me too. But what the hell does that have to do with what we are discussing?

We are talking about somewhere that right now has no police. The people who live there for the most part CAN'T move elsewhere.

Why is it just the most liberal people here who find fault with a solution and can't offer an alternative. Other than just saying they should pay their taxes?

I Think it's just an attitude that people with guns can never be trusted.
Reply
#34
(11-22-2013, 01:03 PM)csrowan Wrote:
(11-22-2013, 12:56 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(11-22-2013, 12:47 PM)csrowan Wrote:
(11-22-2013, 12:36 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(11-22-2013, 12:20 PM)csrowan Wrote: You realize, of course, that this all stemmed from Ponder's simple question "Wouldn't it be easier to just pay your fucking county taxes like everyone else does?"

You followed up with wanting to know WTF was wrong with people wanting to do their best to reduce crime.

Well, I gave an answer. You may not like it, but that's my answer. I'd rather have people pay their fucking county taxes like everyone else does and have REAL law enforcement rather than have civilians go out armed with guns and go looking for criminals. Maybe they have prevented some crime so far, but who is to say that they really will end up saving more lives in the long run? What happens if they find a couple of armed robbers in the middle of a heist, and they've got hostages?

I see this logic a lot here. War is bad. so lets not have wars.Rolling Eyes

I responded to Ponders question LOGICALLY. He said "Wouldn't it be easier to just pay your fucking county taxes like everyone else does?"


I said of course. But the obvious fact that somehow you and Ponder want to overlook is that fact that people WON"T pay enough. So the next step for me is look at the second best option and not to sit here and debate a mute point.

And I'll say of course something bad could happen but unlike you I'm totally with the people who are willing to take that chance rather than sit on your hands while criminals run rampant.

I never suggested people should sit idly by while their city is looted and criminals run rampant.

I just suggested they should pay their fucking taxes so that trained professionals could take over law enforcement instead of relying on roving bands of armed civilians who might end up in a situation they're woefully undertrained for.

UnbeliveableRolling Eyes who gives a damn what they SHOULD have done. They are doing what the NEED to do because what SHOULD have happened DIDN'T.

I hate to bust your libtard bubble but right now thousands of people have guns and do successfully protect their property and their neighbors.
Your assumption that things will certainly go wrong if armed citizens simply drive around and WATCH for crime is as bad as your false assumption that they have no training.

This is a discussion forum. We are discussing something and I am giving my opinion on something. The fact that it has already happened doesn't mean that I can't have an opinion on what should have happened in the past.

My assumption that things COULD (as opposed to "will certainly") go wrong (your reading comprehension problem is showing) and go wrong badly is based on my assumption that these people are not nearly as well trained as law enforcement officials. While I originally assumed they were untrained, I then read the article, saw that there was required training, and made a post retracting my "untrained" comment. Which you either missed or ignored. Again, problems with reading comprehension.

I comprehend YOU just fine.. IDIOT. You on the other hand can't even admit that continually claiming harm will come from this and ignoring the fact that their is ALREADY harm happening NOW.
Reply
#35
(11-22-2013, 01:02 PM)Leonard Wrote: I have one word for the folks supporting these armed civilians looking for criminals.

- Zimmerman -

People are finally waking up to this gun madness of allowing just anyone to own a gun no matter if they are mentally unsound and incapable of understanding when not to use one.

The ''Neighborhood Watch'' program where Zimmerman killed an unarmed teen has said;

“We will not allow a person to carry a firearm while operating as a member of our neighborhood watch program,”

They have no policing powers, carry no weapons, are nonconfrontational, and always coordinate activities with law enforcement.

Never mind the fact that Zimmerman was viciously attacked for doing nothing but WATCHING.
Reply
#36
Shouldn't these be mute points? Smiling
Reply
#37
(11-22-2013, 01:12 PM)PonderThis Wrote: Shouldn't these be mute points? Smiling

LaughingLaughing
Reply
#38
(11-22-2013, 01:04 PM)PonderThis Wrote:
(11-22-2013, 12:56 PM)tvguy Wrote: I hate to bust your libtard bubble but right now thousands of people have guns and do successfully protect their property and their neighbors.
Your assumption that things will certainly go wrong if armed citizens simply drive around and WATCH for crime is as bad as your false assumption that they have no training.

In Jackson County, they apparently have plenty of money for the sheriffs to do their own driving around looking for crime, and they pay $2.11 per thousand, and an owner of a $200,000 property pays $422 a year in county taxes.

While in crime ridden Josephine county, they pay 58 cents per thousand, so that $200,000 property pays $116. For a mere $308 more a year, a person can avoid the expenses of driving their own car around (around 60 cents a mile), the inconvenience and the risk, and stay inside where it's warm and comfy. They can scheme a way to make an extra $308 a year with the extra mental energy they have to waste. Isn't that a lot easier use of your life and your time? That's the point I'm trying to make.

There are threads about taxes in JOCO a mile long. IMO This thread is about what people are doing BECAUSE there are no police.
Reply
#39
(11-22-2013, 01:09 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(11-22-2013, 01:03 PM)csrowan Wrote:
(11-22-2013, 12:56 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(11-22-2013, 12:47 PM)csrowan Wrote:
(11-22-2013, 12:36 PM)tvguy Wrote: I see this logic a lot here. War is bad. so lets not have wars.Rolling Eyes

I responded to Ponders question LOGICALLY. He said "Wouldn't it be easier to just pay your fucking county taxes like everyone else does?"


I said of course. But the obvious fact that somehow you and Ponder want to overlook is that fact that people WON"T pay enough. So the next step for me is look at the second best option and not to sit here and debate a mute point.

And I'll say of course something bad could happen but unlike you I'm totally with the people who are willing to take that chance rather than sit on your hands while criminals run rampant.

I never suggested people should sit idly by while their city is looted and criminals run rampant.

I just suggested they should pay their fucking taxes so that trained professionals could take over law enforcement instead of relying on roving bands of armed civilians who might end up in a situation they're woefully undertrained for.

UnbeliveableRolling Eyes who gives a damn what they SHOULD have done. They are doing what the NEED to do because what SHOULD have happened DIDN'T.

I hate to bust your libtard bubble but right now thousands of people have guns and do successfully protect their property and their neighbors.
Your assumption that things will certainly go wrong if armed citizens simply drive around and WATCH for crime is as bad as your false assumption that they have no training.

This is a discussion forum. We are discussing something and I am giving my opinion on something. The fact that it has already happened doesn't mean that I can't have an opinion on what should have happened in the past.

My assumption that things COULD (as opposed to "will certainly") go wrong (your reading comprehension problem is showing) and go wrong badly is based on my assumption that these people are not nearly as well trained as law enforcement officials. While I originally assumed they were untrained, I then read the article, saw that there was required training, and made a post retracting my "untrained" comment. Which you either missed or ignored. Again, problems with reading comprehension.

I comprehend YOU just fine.. IDIOT. You on the other hand can't even admit that continually claiming harm will come from this and ignoring the fact that their is ALREADY harm happening NOW.


READ. THE. WORDS. I. WROTE.

I never claimed harm WOULD come. It's just more dangerous than having trained law enforcement, and therefore, AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT, an unnecessary risk to innocent bystanders.

I never claimed they aren't preventing crime now.

I never suggested they should stop patrolling in the absence of law enforcement.

USE YOUR FUCKING BRAIN TO ACTUALLY READ WHAT PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY SAYING INSTEAD OF WHAT YOU WANT THEM TO SAY SO YOU CAN PICK A FIGHT.
Reply
#40
(11-22-2013, 01:12 PM)PonderThis Wrote: Shouldn't these be mute points? Smiling

Wow you really are trying to get a lot of mileage out of that aren't you. Sheesh could you possibly act more like a giggling little girl?
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)