I'm curious as to what side of the isle you guys think is behind this type of false reassurance. I hate b.s. statements like this from the police, especially when the media seems to feel obligated to repeat them in every rerun of the story. But I also always ask myself who's behind these types of statements and how whomever it is can be bedfellows with the media?

As somebody pretty far to the left, I don't typically think of the police as liberal. I think of the police and leaders making these types of statements as probably more conservative. I assume they vote for the republican candidates in every election. But I would expect conservatives to typically believe in one's right to self defense, that government shouldn't be totally relied upon to protect us from crime, etc. But that's where the disconnect comes in for me. Why are what I perceive to be conservatives making these types of statements, and worse yet, using what these same conservatives call the "liberal" media to get this false message across? Why don't we see conservative leaders using instances like this to argue for stronger self defense rights, to argue against more constraints on legal gun ownership and use, etc.? Heck, why don't we see the liberal leaders using instances like this to scare the people into passing more laws against gun ownership, to increase taxes to pay for more cops, etc.?

Is it just that all leaders, regardless of what political party they belong to, are all on the same wavelength when it comes to trying to cover up the fact that none of them are coming up with fixes to these problems? It's like they all have some secret pact whereby they have agreed never to highlight the fact that crime is random and all around the citizenry because by admitting such it makes all the leaders look bad.

I think one's attitude toward self defense depends more on one's personality type than political philosophy. There are plenty of "conservative" control freaks, and plenty of "liberal" control freaks.

This kind of person will argue in favor of self defense rights-for THEM. As soon as they have secured their own position, they want to regulate everyone else.

Also, many people see no problem sacrificing individual rights for the "greater good". They see anyone talking about "my rights" as a real selfish person, not a proud citizen. They are proud to step aside, and want you to do the same. Advising people like that to think for themselves raises therir anxiety level. They want groupthink.

Even in your motorcycle group, I'd bet half the riders would give great deference to the police. These types emotionally rely on the "system" for security, and if you criticise it, they suddenly feel unsafe. They WANT the "control freak" in charge of everyone, even when it makes no sense.

We see the difference on the forum all the time.

The individualists, on the other hand, are more threatened by the powerful system, supported by those who feel best when a designated control freak is in charge. They want to be in control of themselves.

I've found logic doesn't work well with the extremes of either type of person, I think it's more emotional.

Yup.

This indicates a perpetuation of a problem that started a long time ago. At some point, one control freak and a bunch of sheep ran into each other, and "poof," the problem began. The part that I don't understand is that no leader -- regardless of how much of a control freak they are -- ever challenges this. I can see how the sheep don't speak up, but I would think some control freak would think he or she could get the upper hand in the control area by smashing this falsity, i.e., pointing out the lie that it is and at the same time providing some solution that the sheep would accept in its place. Instead, control freaks that can't see eye to eye on anything else all seem to work together to keep in the air this same ball of incredible fear mongering. They themselves seem to have to believe their own lie for fear of what acknowledging and speaking the truth would do to them. Hardly a trait one would expect in a leader.

Freedom is unsafe. The freer a society, the more interpersonal conflict that will occur and must be accepted as a "cost" of that freedom. I'm willing to pay a higher cost than the nannies at CSM because I believe it is both unavoidable and worth it.

I have always felt that people confuse Liberty with Freedom. Do not rely on the dictionary, WITHOUT LIBERTY THERE IS NO FREEDOM:!: The intrusion of the STATE on the PEOPLE is an affront on the PEOPLE of the STATE. : Freedom comes at a cost, and it is difficult and arduous to accept that cost comes with pain. To the extent that we give up certain liberties we surely give up freedoms. We have a history of accepting intrusions on our freedom, in the name of the State (common good). And so in the name of the STATE we accede to registrations, licensing, taxes, and other intrusions of the STATE, and in doing so we relinquish elements of our FREEDOM. Complex, but on the other hand simple.

The state likes to create "problems" so they can get us to pay for the "fix" which they also create, and then they become our "protector"

Oh, wait, that sounds like Al Capone taking care of the gin joint owners during prohibition...

History has shown that an armed society is the fix for random crime, and God knows we can't have that.

Hence, "Random" crime has to be spun as a bigger problem than we are capable of fixing individually. If we conceed it is random, people would get the idea they could take care of it with a 12 gauge.

But, if we call it something else, such as gangs/drugs/hate crime/terroists, then it requires special funding, a task force, neighborhood programs, community leaders, bigger weapons, more officers and a whole bunch of other 5hit you and I get to pay for. But alas, the state has saved us again from the evil they created and we can all sleep peacefully another night. So what if you can no longer afford your property taxes, much better than the risk of having a gun in your house.

I guess if two guys in dark hoodies are knocking on my door at 2:30 am and they announce "We're with the govt, we are here to help" I just might beleive them...

I think that's it right there in a nutshell, and if you follow that a little farther, how many less police officers will be needed if EVERY home has a 12 gauge behind th door to blow the local scumbgs away? Uh, probably quite a few.

Plus if you cap the bastards that invade your home right away rather than allowing yourself to be killed and the bad guys running away to do it again, can you imagine how many THOUSANDS of hours of fruitless investigation WON'T be needed, at the cost of how many hundred of dollars per hour??

The only problem would be that the local governments would spend more on investigations to make sure the armed citizen did not in any way infringe on the civil rights of the scumbag breaking into the citizens home.

Well, the way around that is to blow away multiple scumbags without a bit of remorse, so you can build up your "street cred" and get coddled like the normal felons who are on a first name basis with most of the people in the LE system. They NEVER get prosecuted for infringing on people's rights.

edit, this was a dumb post of me and I deleted it


hrumph

There are no dumb posts, only dumb replies...

What is wrong with this picture? One “person of interest” has been previously charged with drug possession, obstructing police, giving a false name, has 3 robbery arrests, 2 weapon possessions, and is a member of the Emerson Murder Boys gang. So why was he out on the street to begin with?

http://www.startribune.com/local/west/14131052.html

Robbinsdale home invasion: 2 'persons of interest' identified
Police have been tracking two "persons of interest" in the Robbinsdale home invasion in which Jamis Marks, 28, was shot to death on New Year's day.

By JIM ADAMS, Star Tribune

Last update: January 23, 2008 - 10:17 PM

Police have identified two Minneapolis men as "persons of interest" in the Robbinsdale home invasion during which a 28-year-old man was shot to death on New Year's Day.

According to court documents, the two 22-year-old men, who have bragged about participating in violent robberies, have been under police surveillance, and police have obtained one man's cell phone records. The records show his phone was in the area of the home invasion shortly after the slaying, but no calls were made during the time of the forced entry and robbery.

Robbinsdale Police Chief Wayne Shellum said that the two men are "persons of interest" but that no arrests are imminent. "We are exploring all the angles on everyone we come up with," he said.

A police informant said the two men had worked together at a grocery store.

The killing shocked Robbinsdale and Shellum, who said he had never seen such a brutal crime in his career.

Two men armed with rifles forced their way into the home of Jamis and Heather Marks about 2:35 a.m. on Jan. 1, shortly after they and another couple returned after a night out for New Year's Eve. As the robbers took watches, jewelry, credit cards and cell phones and made threats, Marks grabbed for a rifle, and was shot in the ensuing struggle. The Markses' guests suffered minor injuries.

The surviving man dead-bolted the door as the robbers fled. Then the victims heard the door being kicked as the gunmen apparently tried to reenter before fleeing again. After they left, Heather Marks called police, and one of the visiting friends told the dispatcher Jamis Marks had been shot in the neck and chest.

A history of robbery

A police affidavit in a search warrant filed in Hennepin County District Court noted that two robbers shot Marks with .22-caliber slugs. The document also said:

One of the 22-year-olds was found last April to have .22-caliber ammunition in his pocket when police found him in an area where other aggravated robberies had occurred. He is also known to drive a Chrysler Sebring, similar to the car a neighbor's security camera recorded in the area and close to the time when the Markses' home in the 2700 block of York Avenue N. was invaded.

In late August, one man was stopped while driving the Sebring in Crystal with the other man as a passenger. In October, the driver was charged with drug possession, obstructing police and giving a false name. Minneapolis police records show he has been arrested for three robberies and twice for weapon possession.

Police identified the driver as a member of the Emerson Murder Boys Gang.

Jails are full and the courts are lame.