Posted on 10/28/2011 6:54:34 PM PDT by chessplayer
Hot Air has confirmed with the Arizona Department of Public Safety that fliers have been found at Occupy Phoenix instructing people on when to shoot police officers. First reported by the Jon Justice show on 104.1 FM in Tucson, the flier resulted in a counterterrorism alert issued to all law enforcement agencies in the state:
More “working on gun control under the radar”?
No FReeper advocates killing cops. Period, not in the context of this article. BTW, Molon Labe doesn’t mean “shoot the cops” it means come and take them, in the context of the government trying to take our constitutional rights, including our weapons. However, that is not advocating shooting cops. Only a total frickin’ fool would think it was. Shoe fit? Then wear it.
These are the people that Mac daddy stands behind, way, way behind.
I knew police haters would rear their ugly heads!!!
You apparently have not been around much.
Armed resistance against the jack-booted thugs of the federal government is a pretty common meme around here.
In fact, that is usually presented as the main reason we have a 2nd Amendment.
Which pretty much means shooting cops (and soldiers). Or what did you think armed resistance means?
Or do you contend there are no possible circumstances in which armed resistance to tyranny is justified?
What you were saying, equating FReepers with the mindless OWS flyers for shooting cops, is BS. What you are saying now is something totally different than what you said in your original comment. Truly worthy of a frickin’ lefty. Talking about why we have a second amendment is not advocating shooting cops out of hand, especially for being stopped for a DUI, as that flyer does. Yes, we all expect to defend our rights if we have too, FReepers do not advocate shooting cops out of hand. Make up your mind what you want to say the first time around and you won’t look like an idiot they way you do now.
I’m not advocating killing cops, just saying others have, at least in hypothetical situations. I couldn’t get the link to this story to come up, so I don’t know what this loony flier said, nor was I agreeing with the poster you were responding to. I’m not saying people are advocating whatever is in it. I was just responding to your post, saying your blanket statement is also incorrect.
Did the cops who saw this stack of fliers remove them or just leave them there to be further distributed?
It’s true
Impaired Hippies, and commies high on whatever, ARE RIGHT! The Semi-naked Socialists always win gunfights with cops wearing body armor.
This will work out just fine.
There is nothing like a population of the treasonous which adopts a belief system which guarantees culling of said population.
Evolution works in mysterious ways, indeed.
PS Has anyone notified the Darwin Award Committee of this development?
The quote below is not mine, and its source can be found on my homepage.
LESSON NO. 1: If a bureaucrat, or a soldier sent by a bureaucrat, comes to knock down your door and take you someplace you do not want to go because of who you are or what you think -- kill him. If you can, kill the politician who sent him. You will likely die anyway, and you will be saving someone else the same fate. For it is a universal truth that the intended victims always far outnumber the tyrant's executioners. Any nation which practices this lesson will quickly run out of executioners and tyrants.
That may be a good theory on what to do, but the quote below is from someone with experience.
“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, polkers, or whatever else was at hand? After all, you knew ahead of time that those bluecaps were out at night for no good purpose. And you could be sure ahead of time that you’d be cracking the skull of a cutthroat. Or what about the Black Maria sitting out there on the street with one lonely chauffeur — what if it had been driven off or its tires spiked. The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! - Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn
Both quotes were shamelessly lifted from earlier posts on FR.
Bottom line: We can win, but we won't all be there for the Victory Parade.
When Should You Shoot A Cop?That question, even without an answer, makes most “law-abiding taxpayers” go into knee-jerk conniptions. The indoctrinated masses all race to see who can be first, and loudest to proclaim that it is NEVER okay to forcibly resist “law enforcement.” In doing so, they also inadvertently demonstrate why so much of human history has been plagued by tyranny and oppression.
In an ideal world, cops would do nothing except protect people from thieves and attackers, in which case shooting a cop would never be justified. In the real world, however, far more injustice, violence, torture, theft, and outright murder has been committed IN THE NAME of “law enforcement,” than has been committed in spite of it. To get a little perspective, try watching a documentary or two about some of the atrocities committed by the regimes of Stalin, or Lenin, or Chaiman Mao, or Hitler, or Pol Pot, or any number of other tyrants in history. Pause the film when the jackboots are about to herd innocent people into cattle cars, or gun them down as they stand on the edge of a ditch, and THEN ask yourself the question, “When should you shoot a cop?” Keep in mind, the evils of those regimes were committed in the name of “law enforcement.” And as much as the statement may make people cringe, the history of the human race would have been a lot LESS gruesome if there had been a lot MORE “cop-killers” around to deal with the state mercenaries of those regimes.
People don’t mind when you point out the tyranny that has happened in other countries, but most have a hard time viewing their OWN “country”, their OWN “government”, and their OWN “law enforcers”, in any sort of objective way. Having been trained to feel a blind loyalty to the ruling class of the particular piece of dirt they live on (a.k.a. “patriotism”), and having been trained to believe that obedience is a virtue, the idea of forcibly resisting “law enforcement” is simply unthinkable to many. Literally, they can’t even THINK about it. And humanity has suffered horribly because of it. It is a testament to the effectiveness of authoritarian indoctrination that literally billions of people throughout history have begged and screamed and cried in the face of authoritarian injustice and oppression, but only a tiny fraction have ever lifted a finger to actually try to STOP it.
Even when people can recognize tyranny and oppression, they still usually talk about “working within the system”-the same system that is responsible for the tyranny and oppression. People want to believe that “the system” will, sooner or later, provide justice. The last thing they want to consider is that they should “illegally” resist-that if they want to achieve justice, they must become “criminals” and “terrorists,” which is what anyone who resists “legal” justice is automatically labeled. But history shows all too well that those who fight for freedom and justice almost always do so “illegally” – i.e., without the permission of the ruling class.
If politician think that they have the right to impose any “law” they want, and cops have the attitude that, as long as it’s called “law”, they will enforce it, what is there to prevent complete tyranny? Not the consciences of the “law-makers” or their hired thugs, obviously. And not any election or petition to the politicians. When tyrants define what counts as “law”, then by definition it is up to the “law-breakers” to combat tyranny.
Pick any example of abuse of power, whether it is the fascist “war on drugs,” the police thuggery that has become so common, the random stops and searches now routinely carried out in the name of “security” (e.g., at airports, “border checkpoints” that aren’t even at the border, “sobriety checkpoints,” and so on), or anything else. Now ask yourself the uncomfortable question: If it’s wrong for cops to do these things, doesn’t that imply that the people have a right to RESIST such actions? Of course, state mercenaries don’t take kindly to being resisted, even non-violently. If you question their right to detain you, interrogate you, search you, invade your home, and so on, you are very likely to be tasered, physically assaulted, kidnapped, put in a cage, or shot. If a cop decides to treat you like livestock, whether he does it “legally” or not, you will usually have only two options: submit, or kill the cop. You can’t resist a cop “just a little” and get away with it. He will always call in more of his fellow gang members, until you are subdued or dead.
Basic logic dictates that you either have an obligation to LET “law enforcers” have their way with you, or you have the right to STOP them from doing so, which will almost always require killing them. (Politely asking fascists to not be fascists has a very poor track record.) Consider the recent Indiana Supreme Court ruling, which declared that if a cop tries to ILLEGALLY enter your home, it’s against the law for you to do anything to stop him. Aside from the patent absurdity of it, since it amounts to giving thugs with badges PERMISSION to “break the law,” and makes it a CRIME for you to defend yourself against a CRIMINAL (if he has a badge), consider the logical ramifications of that attitude.
There were once some words written on a piece of parchment (with those words now known as the Fourth Amendment), that said that you have the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures at the hands of “government” agents. In Indiana today, what could that possibly mean? The messages from the ruling class is quite clear, and utterly insane. It amounts to this: “We don’t have the right to invade your home without probable cause … but if we DO, you have no right to stop us, and we have the right to arrest you if you try.”
Why not apply that to the rest of the Bill of Rights, while we’re at it? “You have the right to say what you want, but if we use violence to shut you up, you have to let us.” (I can personally attest to the fact that that is the attitude of the U.S. “Department of Justice.”) “You have the right to have guns, but if we try to forcibly and illegally disarm you, and you resist, we have the right to kill you.” (Ask Randy Weaver and the Branch Dividians about that one.) “You have the right to not testify against yourself, but when we coerce you into confessing (and call it a ‘plea agreement’), you can’t do a thing about it.” What good is a “right” –what does the term “right” even mean- if you have an obligation to allow the jackboots to violate your so-called “rights”? It make the term absolutely meaningless.
To be blunt, if you have the right to do “A,” it means that if someone tries to STOP you from doing “A” –even if he has a badge and a politician’s scribble (“law”) on his side – you have the right to use whatever amount of force is necessary to resist that person. That’s what it means to have an unalienable right. If you have the unalienable right to speak you mind (a la the First Amendment), then you have the right to KILL “government” agents who try to shut you up. If you have the unalienable right to be armed, then you have the right to KILL “government” agents who try to disarm you. If you have the right to not be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures, then you have the right to KILL “government” agents who try to inflict those on you.
Those who are proud to be “law-abiding” don’t like to hear this, and don’t like to think about this, but what’s the alternative? If you do NOT have the right to forcibly resist injustice – even if the injustice is called the “law” – that logically implies that you have an obligation to allow “government” agents to do absolutely anything they want to you, your home, your family, and so on. Really, there are only two choices: you are a slave, the property of the politicians, without any rights at all, or you have the right to violently resist “government” attempts to oppress you. There can be no other option.
Of course, on a practical level, openly resisting the gang called “government” is usually very hazardous to one’s health. But there is a big difference between obeying for the sake of self-preservation, which is often necessary and rational, and feeling a moral obligation to go along with whatever the ruling class wants to do to you, which is pathetic and insane. Most of the incomprehensible atrocities that have occurred throughout history were due in large part to the fact that most people answer “never” to the question of “When should you shoot a cop?” The correct answer is: When evil is “legal,” become a criminal. When oppression is enacted as “law,” become a “law-breaker.” When those violently victimizing the innocent have badges, become a cop-killer.
The next time you hear of a police officer being killed “in the line of duty,” take a moment to consider the very real possibility that maybe in that case, the “law enforcer” was the bad guy and the “cop killer” was the good guy. As it happens, that has been the case more often than not throughout human history.
I couldn't disagree more
When I google your tagline it's "Hugin" all the way... Did you make it up? It's a good one.
You apparently haven’t read the flyer you are so confidently denouncing. It has extreme anti-authority content but remarkably little that would tell you whether the author is coming at his antipathy to authority from a right or left wing perspective, though I suspect left-wing. The only real clue being an emphasis on referring to the authorities as fascist, which is more common among lefties or people who think of themselves as anarchists.
OTOH, it appears to be strongly in favor of inalienable rights, including the right to keep and bear arms, which is a position very few leftists have ever taken. Can’t build utopia using the power of the state (which is what leftism is all about) if people are able to resist that power effectively, or even if you recognize they have rights as individuals. Possibly the author is an extremist libertarian.
BTW, the flyer does not talk about shooting cops for being pulled over for a DUI. It talks about random stops and searches, whether for airport security or DUI roadblocks, as being violations of our rights, not a stop for probable cause. Then it says we are justified to fight back forcibly against those who infringe our rights.
I have seen a great many posts on FR objecting to such random searches as violations of our rights. I have also seen a great many claiming the right to fight back against violations of rights, especially if they try to take our guns. Or what did you think the slogan about taking guns “only from my cold, dead hands” means? Surely it means dying in combat against the police and/or military, doing your best to try to kill the attackers. The only other possible meaning is suiciding rather than giving up your guns, which seems a little pointless. Not to mention overly Japanese.
Though most seem to be unwilling to take it to the obvious next logical step of shooting the cop at the roadblock or the TSA guy. (Please note this is logical only if you accept the premises, which I don’t.)
I find it fascinating that you and others claim freepers would never say it’s time to shoot cops. Yet there are posts farther down the line disagreeing with me when I say it isn’t already time to do so.
If you hang out on the WBTS threads you will quickly discover there are a number of freepers who look forward not only to shooting individual servants of the state, but also to launching a new and improved civil war. Usually with the South seceding again, doing it right this time, complete with ideological cleansing and expulsion (or possibly extermination, they’re a little vague on specifics) of undesirable elements. These guys don’t view such an eventuality as an undesirable likelihood, they positively look forward to it. (Though I strongly suspect these loud talkers will not be in the front lines if such war ever breaks out.)
My posts on this topic are entirely consistent, thank you.
Nope, you aren't consistent, at least not in this exchange. Please don't send another 10 paragraphs full of BS. I won't read it or respond.
“Did you make it up?”
It’s from the movie Open Range, with Kevin Kostner and Robert Duval. I was watching Glenn Beck showing an interview of George Soros saying that destabalizing countries was the “fun” part of what he does. After that I switched to the movie. I heard that line, and thought, “God, ain’t that the truth!”, so I wrote it down. Seems I got a couple words wrong, so I’m correcting my tagline.
**********************************************************
BUTTON: Maybe we should push on.
BOSS: Do no good, Button. I seen them like Baxter before. He means to have this herd or scatter it to the wind.
BUTTON: If he was gonna take the herd, why not just keep you in town? Marshal already had Mose.
CHARLEY: Wants us all in one place. Far from there when it happens.
BUTTON: Don’t make no sense, him telling us to move on and all.
CHARLEY: Weren’t the only thing he said. Most time, a man’ll tell you his bad intentions if you listen, and let yourself hear. A few years back, a free-graze outfit come through. That weren’t no idle story.
The 'Soros' part is icing on the cake - great story. Thanks for sharing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.