How are the police different from doctors?

[NewUser]

Hi all, I've read a lot of Ron Paul's material and I really love how he's a historian and economist and how he thoroughly addresses his points.

My question is: Why must the police be run by the government and why can't doctors be employed by the government? How are they different? We need the police to be able to preserve life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as the Constitution states, but we also need doctors for these three things as well.

I just see this as a contradiction and it confuses me a great deal.

I've been searching for a while and I haven't been able to find an answer.

So what makes the police and the doctors so different as I know Ron Paul wants to see the health care industry be left to the free market, but he wants to keep the police in the hands of the government.

If Ron Paul was president would these be the only things the government would be in charge of:

- The police and other domestic authorities like the fire department for domestic defense. (What about ambulance services?)
- The military for international defense
- The court system

- A small bureaucracy to administer the above.

Am I missing anything? Where does Dr. Ron Paul address these?

Thanks, I'd really appreciate any help!

[RJB]

How are the police different from doctors?

I don't believe that Sting ever received a medical degree.

A concise answer to your question on Ron Paul's views is that he wants to follow the constitution. Any authority not given to feds goes to the states.

After that you'll get a lot of different opinions.

[FrankRep]

State governments control the police.

State governments are allowed to employ doctors.


NewUser, I think you're confusing the State Government with the Federal Government.

[Cleaner44]

Hi all, I've read a lot of Ron Paul's material and I really love how he's a historian and economist and how he thoroughly addresses his points.

My question is: Why must the police be run by the government and why can't doctors be employed by the government? How are they different? We need the police to be able to preserve life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as the Constitution states, but we also need doctors for these three things as well.

I just see this as a contradiction and it confuses me a great deal.

I've been searching for a while and I haven't been able to find an answer.

So what makes the police and the doctors so different as I know Ron Paul wants to see the health care industry be left to the free market, but he wants to keep the police in the hands of the government.

If Ron Paul was president would these be the only things the government would be in charge of:

- The police and other domestic authorities like the fire department for domestic defense. (What about ambulance services?)
- The military for international defense
- The court system

- A small bureaucracy to administer the above.

Am I missing anything? Where does Dr. Ron Paul address these?

Thanks, I'd really appreciate any help!

Can you list any books you have read from Ron Paul?

Liberty Defined is a great place to start if you haven't already.

[Icymudpuppy]

New User is a troll. Every thread he has started has asked questions that show he definitely does not have any clue about liberty or RPs positions. He is just wasting your time.

[Barrex]

New User is a troll. Every thread he has started has asked questions that show he definitely does not have any clue about liberty or RPs positions. He is just wasting your time.

Not knowing things doesnt make people trolls. If it does then: I know more than you and you are a troll.

[Christian Liberty]

Ron believes that police, courts, and defense should be government run. He's inconsistent with his principles in that regard. I agree that there's no more reason that police can't be privatized than doctors. They can both be privatized.

[Cleaner44]

Not knowing things doesnt make people trolls. If it does then: I know more than you and you are a troll.

You are right that ignorance does not make someone a troll. In this case the OP seems very disingenuous. He pretends to have enjoyed consuming much info from Ron Paul and yet he supports big governments.

[pcosmar]

Hi all,

We need the police to be able to preserve life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as the Constitution states,


Thanks, I'd really appreciate any help!

NO.. We Don't.

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm


professional police were unknown to the United States in 1789, and first appeared in America almost a half-century after the Constitution's ratification. The Framers contemplated law enforcement as the duty of mostly private citizens, along with a few constables and sheriffs who could be called upon when necessary. This article marshals extensive historical and legal evidence to show that modern policing is in many ways inconsistent with the original intent of America's founding documents. The author argues that the growth of modern policing has substantially empowered the state in a way the Framers would regard as abhorrent to their foremost principles.


The Constitution contains no explicit provisions for criminal law enforcement. Nor did the constitutions of any of the several states contain such provisions at the time of the Founding. Early constitutions enunciated the intention that law enforcement was a universal duty that each person owed to the community, rather than a power of the government. Founding-era constitutions addressed law enforcement from the standpoint of individual liberties and placed explicit barriers upon the state.

[Root]

We need the police to be able to preserve life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as the Constitution states,


The police are not required for, and do not preserve life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If anything the police destroy these things.

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

[RickyJ]

How are the police different from doctors?

One is paid to help you get better, the other is paid to hurt you.

[erowe1]

I know Ron Paul wants to see the health care industry be left to the free market, but he wants to keep the police in the hands of the government.

Could you point to your source for this claim? Especially the part about Ron Paul's wanting to keep the police in the hands of the government?

[Barrex]

You are right that ignorance does not make someone a troll. In this case the OP seems very disingenuous. He pretends to have enjoyed consuming much info from Ron Paul and yet he supports big governments.

Ron Paul supports police and does not understand how competing private police would work. He said that is why he is minarchist.
A lot of people around me cant even comprehend or even dont want to think about ideas like: liberty, self ownership, non-aggression principle etc. They just ignore it or wave their hands saying "yea yea". I am not going around calling them trolls. OP-er asked question very politely:

Thanks, I'd really appreciate any help!

I told few people about this site and I wouldnt that they experience same "welcoming message" if they dont get it completely or at all.

[pcosmar]

Ron Paul supports police and does not understand how competing private police would work. He said that is why he is minarchist.


Can you provide a direct Quote , or a link to that complete fabrication?

I have heard him describe himself as a Constitutionalist,, and as a Voluntaryist ,, never as any flavor of anarchist.

[fisharmor]

Can you provide a direct Quote , or a link to that complete fabrication?

I have heard him describe himself as a Constitutionalist,, and as a Voluntaryist ,, never as any flavor of anarchist.

It's in the Tom Woods interview featured in LibertyEagle's shit-chucking thread. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?431831-Ron-Paul-is-very-clear-He-is-NOT-an-Anarcho-Capitalist)

He never says that he supports police explicitly: but he does say he doesn't understand how competing police would work.

[erowe1]

He never says that he supports police explicitly: but he does say he doesn't understand how competing police would work.

That's a pretty huge caveat.

Any honest person who understands free market economics as well as Ron Paul does would have to say they don't understand how competing police would work. Nor can we even be sure that they would exist at all in a free market after the elimination of government police. Nor can any of us understand how any other product that the government now provides would be provided in a free market.

All we know is that, however the free market might end up providing anything, it's going to be better than how the government does.

[jbauer]

Not knowing things doesnt make people trolls. If it does then: I know more than you and you are a troll.

What if I know more than both of you. Do you become a unicorn or something? :p

As for police vs doctors. The states rights issue is where this begins.

My answer would be a police force is hired by the city/town/county to defend the property rights of its inhabitants. As far as I'm concerned it could be done with or without public officials.

Doctors however, are interviewed and hired by the individual (with the exception of an emergency ER) Prior to Obamacare, I have the right to choose to see a doctor or not. He/she has the right to accept my cash or insurance or not. I can choose to have no health insurance. I can have one with a large or small deductible. I can choose to not go see a normal doctor if I want. If I believe in home remedies I can go that route.

Now I'm forced to have government insurance. I might not be able to keep my doctor. Soon the government will tell me what/when and where I'll see my doctor. What tests they'll require. How many of them and at what age. Long and short of it, this whole thing is a big Fing mess.

[pcosmar]

It's in the Tom Woods interview featured in LibertyEagle's shit-chucking thread. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?431831-Ron-Paul-is-very-clear-He-is-NOT-an-Anarcho-Capitalist)

He never says that he supports police explicitly: but he does say he doesn't understand how competing police would work.
I do not either.

I do not favor private Police (Control Enforcers).
I oppose the very concept of police (Control Enforcers)

The very concept of such is anti-Liberty..
If you wish to have private security,, that is fine. Private security are not Police (Control Enforcers)

Police are an Authoritarian concept,, it comes from the idea that people NEED to be Controlled.

I reject this Idea,, and from what I have heard from Ron,, in speeches and personally,, he does as well.

[Dr.3D]

One is paid to help you get better, the other is paid to hurt you.

There is a huge difference in IQ as well.

[Barrex]

Can you provide a direct Quote , or a link to that complete fabrication?

I have heard him describe himself as a Constitutionalist,, and as a Voluntaryist ,, never as any flavor of anarchist.

Lol. Walter Block (youtube video od Block debating someone in a bar) and Tom Woods called him minarchist. I consider him minarchist. Ron Paul said recently that he wasnt been able to figure out competing police force.

What is minarchism?

Minarchism (also known as minimal statism) is a political philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_philosophy). It is variously defined by sources. In the strictest sense, it holds that states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_%28polity%29) ought to exist (as opposed to anarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy)), that their only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggression), theft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft), breach of contract (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_contract), and fraud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud), and that the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military), police (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police), and courts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courts).

It's in the Tom Woods interview featured in LibertyEagle's shit-chucking thread. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?431831-Ron-Paul-is-very-clear-He-is-NOT-an-Anarcho-Capitalist)

He never says that he supports police explicitly: but he does say he doesn't understand how competing police would work.
I heard him say that government got role to play and would categorize him like Walter as minarchist. If minimal government is needed then government needs to have something to play that role. To enforce contracts, preserve liberty organ that we call police. Maybe not in this form but in some form.


What if I know more than both of you. Do you become a unicorn or something? http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

Cthulhu is that you?


There is a huge difference in IQ as well.

Ha ha...


P.s.

Can someone ask Ron Paul about this before we kill each other over it? :toady:

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

It's in the Tom Woods interview featured in LibertyEagle's shit-chucking thread. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?431831-Ron-Paul-is-very-clear-He-is-NOT-an-Anarcho-Capitalist)

He never says that he supports police explicitly: but he does say he doesn't understand how competing police would work.


He probably doesn't understand many, many other things. The smartest people are most aware of the things they don't know.

[surf]

doctors are smarter

that's how they are different

[Dr.3D]

doctors are smarter

that's how they are different

Please see post #19 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?431959-How-are-the-police-different-from-doctors&p=5288581&viewfull=1#post5288581).

[IDefendThePlatform]

My question is: Why must the police be run by the government and why can't doctors be employed by the government? How are they different? I just see this as a contradiction


Congratulations you're an anarchist!

[heavenlyboy34]

Congratulations you're an anarchist!
http://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/see-what-you-did-there-12.jpg?w=500

[Ender]

Hi all, I've read a lot of Ron Paul's material and I really love how he's a historian and economist and how he thoroughly addresses his points.

My question is: Why must the police be run by the government and why can't doctors be employed by the government? How are they different? We need the police to be able to preserve life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as the Constitution states, but we also need doctors for these three things as well.

I just see this as a contradiction and it confuses me a great deal.

I've been searching for a while and I haven't been able to find an answer.

So what makes the police and the doctors so different as I know Ron Paul wants to see the health care industry be left to the free market, but he wants to keep the police in the hands of the government.

If Ron Paul was president would these be the only things the government would be in charge of:

- The police and other domestic authorities like the fire department for domestic defense. (What about ambulance services?)
- The military for international defense
- The court system

- A small bureaucracy to administer the above.

Am I missing anything? Where does Dr. Ron Paul address these?

Thanks, I'd really appreciate any help!

First of all it is the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE that speaks of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that is no where in the Constitution.

Second of all RP is a constitutionalist, as the Constitution was originally intended. The role of the government was to protect commerce between states and foreign entities and to provide for the COMMON DEFENSE. The fed gov is NOT supposed to be engaged in police OR doctors OR anything else. The rest is supposed to be up to the individual states which means the people that live there. The states were never supposed to be all-controlling in personal or local situations either.

In a true Republic, each local community should be the ones to decide how to handle community affairs- whether it is a sheriffs dept, schools, or charity.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

OP NewLoser is also member Donnie Darko. He didn't even bother to hide the obvious signs.

NewLoser, you really need to go to troll school. You need to study up a bit on trolling. Go to Glocktalk and look up a guy named Two Black Belts. Study the masters. Practice techniques on other websites. Come back when you're more interesting.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

...and it confuses me a great deal.



Good trolling is your confusion.

[heavenlyboy34]

First of all it is the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE that speaks of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that is no where in the Constitution.

Second of all RP is a constitutionalist, as the Constitution was originally intended. The role of the government was to protect commerce between states and foreign entities and to provide for the COMMON DEFENSE. The fed gov is NOT supposed to be engaged in police OR doctors OR anything else. The rest is supposed to be up to the individual states which means the people that live there. The states were never supposed to be all-controlling in personal or local situations either.

In a true Republic, each local community should be the ones to decide how to handle community affairs- whether it is a sheriffs dept, schools, or charity.That's the key phrase-and the difference between lofty Constittutionalist opining (it's not even good enough to be called "theory") and practice.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Neg rep to OP for having two user names.

[pcosmar]

How are the police different from doctors?


Get a Rectal Exam from each,, and report back with your findings.

[PaulConventionWV]

Hi all, I've read a lot of Ron Paul's material and I really love how he's a historian and economist and how he thoroughly addresses his points.

My question is: Why must the police be run by the government and why can't doctors be employed by the government? How are they different? We need the police to be able to preserve life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as the Constitution states, but we also need doctors for these three things as well.

I just see this as a contradiction and it confuses me a great deal.

I've been searching for a while and I haven't been able to find an answer.

So what makes the police and the doctors so different as I know Ron Paul wants to see the health care industry be left to the free market, but he wants to keep the police in the hands of the government.

If Ron Paul was president would these be the only things the government would be in charge of:

- The police and other domestic authorities like the fire department for domestic defense. (What about ambulance services?)
- The military for international defense
- The court system

- A small bureaucracy to administer the above.

Am I missing anything? Where does Dr. Ron Paul address these?

Thanks, I'd really appreciate any help!

Your first mistake was believing that there is any such thing as a "small bureaucracy."

[AnarchoCapitalist]

RP probably doesn't care that government runs things, but he always advocated competition. Have a right to "opt out" of government controlled sectors if you will.


FWIW, I agree, keep all the socialist policies you want, just give people the choice to opt out of them.

[angelatc]

Hi all, I've read a lot of Ron Paul's material and I really love how he's a historian and economist and how he thoroughly addresses his points.

My question is: Why must the police be run by the government and why can't doctors be employed by the government?

How are they different? We need the police to be able to preserve life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as the Constitution states, but we also need doctors for these three things as well.!

I don't think you've ever read anything RP has written.

I am guessing Ron Paul would answer that the states have a right to provide socialized medicine if they choose, but not the federal government.

[NewUser]

Jesus. Why do people keep saying I'm trolling when I'm just asking real questions I'd like to know the answer to...?

[Ender]

Jesus. Why do people keep saying I'm trolling when I'm just asking real questions I'd like to know the answer to...?

And, I gave the answer on Post #26:


First of all it is the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE that speaks of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that is no where in the Constitution.

Second of all RP is a constitutionalist, as the Constitution was originally intended. The role of the government was to protect commerce between states and foreign entities and to provide for the COMMON DEFENSE. The fed gov is NOT supposed to be engaged in police OR doctors OR anything else. The rest is supposed to be up to the individual states which means the people that live there. The states were never supposed to be all-controlling in personal or local situations either.

In a true Republic, each local community should be the ones to decide how to handle community affairs- whether it is a sheriffs dept, schools, or charity.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Lol. Walter Block (youtube video od Block debating someone in a bar) and Tom Woods called him minarchist. I consider him minarchist. Ron Paul said recently that he wasnt been able to figure out competing police force.

What is minarchism?


I heard him say that government got role to play and would categorize him like Walter as minarchist. If minimal government is needed then government needs to have something to play that role. To enforce contracts, preserve liberty organ that we call police. Maybe not in this form but in some form.


Cthulhu is that you?



Ha ha...


P.s.

Can someone ask Ron Paul about this before we kill each other over it? :toady:

Walter Block is ancap.

For the OP:

Nothing. The more necessary a thing is for life, the more essential it becomes that it be provided by voluntary interaction and exchange.

[fisharmor]

Jesus. Why do people keep saying I'm trolling when I'm just asking real questions I'd like to know the answer to...?

Because you're sending mixed signals here.
People are, I suspect, largely reacting to the fact that you repeatedly talk about having read Dr. Paul's books, and then never follow through when questioned about which ones.

The United States is a hoarder house right now, and the majority of people living in it have a serious mental problem.
It's full of garbage and useless shit that the people living in it have some kind of emotional attachment to. All this garbage is making it so the people living in the house can't move and can't earn a living. And it's abundantly clear that this situation is seriously affecting the residents' relationships with people living in other houses.

But they can't part with any of it. If you've ever known a hoarder, it's a perfect analogy. They literally can't see that the piles of shit constantly falling on their heads and trapping their feet is the problem.

Then there's a minority of people living in the house that realize that there's a problem. And they fall into two categories.

One group believes that living in this style of house is still a viable proposition. They firmly believe that with seven or eight trips to the dump, we can all live in the house in happiness. The original idea to them is sound, as long as we get back to the way things were.

The other group realizes that things never were the way they were. They look at history and realize that the style of house doesn't matter - it always, always, always gets cluttered. They realize that the first thing that happens whenever someone builds a new house is the head of the household chains everyone to the radiator and somehow convinces them this is a good idea. They firmly believe that the only long-term solution is to douse it in gasoline, light a match, and walk away.

The first position is not viable because it's as inevitable as the morning and evening that it's eventually going to turn out the same way.
The second position is also not viable, because once burned to the ground, hoards of Stockholm Syndrome sufferers, those who lack either the mental health or intellectual alacrity to see the situation for what it is, will immediately start picking through the ashes and attempting to rebuild their own cage.

You, sir, do not demonstrate that you are either of these. Your posts leave me with the impression that you are oblivious to the eight-foot piles of 1970's newspapers stacked around the radiator you're chained to.

If you have truly read Dr. Paul's books, then you have missed the overarching point of all of them - the state is the problem.

Once you accept that, everything else falls into place. You obviously don't accept that, because if you did your question would be worded differently. It would instead be phrased like this:
If the government screws up policing so badly, why do we tolerate them totally controlling physicians?

And we would answer "Because nobody has taken that pile of crap to the dump yet."

[erowe1]

Jesus. Why do people keep saying I'm trolling when I'm just asking real questions I'd like to know the answer to...?

I'm not saying you are. But you did come across looking like someone who pretended to know more about Ron Paul than you do.

Why didn't you just start out with the more basic question of what Ron Paul's position was regarding government police?

[Barrex]

Walter Block is ancap.
Yes he is.


I'm not saying you are. But you did come across looking like someone who pretended to know more about Ron Paul than you do.

Why didn't you just start out with the more basic question of what Ron Paul's position was regarding government police?

Reading doesnt imply understanding :)

[Cleaner44]

Ron Paul supports police and does not understand how competing private police would work. He said that is why he is minarchist.
A lot of people around me cant even comprehend or even dont want to think about ideas like: liberty, self ownership, non-aggression principle etc. They just ignore it or wave their hands saying "yea yea". I am not going around calling them trolls. OP-er asked question very politely:


I told few people about this site and I wouldnt that they experience same "welcoming message" if they dont get it completely or at all.

Have you noticed yet that the OP doesn't engage in conversation on the subject that supposedly interests him?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Jesus. Why do people keep saying I'm trolling when I'm just asking real questions I'd like to know the answer to...?

I'm not sure what to tell you, Mr. Cheswick.


https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRdrwYOH6O5vazfNYxwozqDboycMmGiL 6Dxo-Zj1H_mmUsysuPI

[Barrex]

Have you noticed yet that the OP doesn't engage in conversation on the subject that supposedly interests him?

Yea. For some reason calling people trolls tends to do that. I have no idea why.
http://ryanensminger.com/gallery/d/3187-1/whargarbl.jpg
P.s.
wanted to post sacrasm meme picture but this one made me laugh.

[Henry Rogue]

Yea. For some reason calling people trolls tends to do that. I have no idea why.
http://ryanensminger.com/gallery/d/3187-1/whargarbl.jpg
P.s.
wanted to post sacrasm meme picture but this one made me laugh.
You're more trusting of others than I. I like to trust my instincts and my instincts tell me the op is disingenuous.

[Henry Rogue]

Get a Rectal Exam from each,, and report back with your findings.
That is the perfect post for this thread. Thread winner by far. I was going to say both give shots. One shot heals and the other kills, but I didn't want to confuse the op. S/he seems to have severe comprehension problems.

[NewUser]

Can you list any books you have read from Ron Paul?

Liberty Defined is a great place to start if you haven't already.

Right, I've read about 80% of Liberty Defined and I haven't found an answer as yet. I've seen a TONNE of his lectures on youtube as well.

By the way, I'm really getting tired of seeing 'troll' under my username whenever I create a new thread. I'm just asking legitimate questions here...

[NewUser]

Ron believes that police, courts, and defense should be government run. He's inconsistent with his principles in that regard. I agree that there's no more reason that police can't be privatized than doctors. They can both be privatized.

Oh, alright, but I'm pretty sure there's an answer that'll tell us what we're looking for.

[NewUser]

One is paid to help you get better, the other is paid to hurt you.

This may be true, but the police also do a lot to help people as well. The police help protect people from criminals, community education programs, and the police are on the front-line all year round.

[NewUser]

NO.. We Don't.

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm


Thanks a lot for that quote. I've never come across this before as even strict-constitutionalists say policing is necessarily run by the government.

Who are you quoting in those two paragraphs? It's not Ron Paul, is it?

[NewUser]

Could you point to your source for this claim? Especially the part about Ron Paul's wanting to keep the police in the hands of the government?

Well, I always assumed that Ron Paul followed Ayn Rand.

Ayn Rand was the person I was directly quoting in original post. She said the police, military and courts should be run by the government plus a small bureaucratic layer to administer it.

[pcosmar]

Thanks a lot for that quote. I've never come across this before as even strict-constitutionalists say policing is necessarily run by the government.

Who are you quoting in those two paragraphs? It's not Ron Paul, is it?

Read the link provided,, Read the whole thing.
The quotes were selected from it. Read it. read it slowly,, and then,, read it again.

There are footnotes,, if you are inclined to research further.

[erowe1]

Well, I always assumed that Ron Paul followed Ayn Rand.


No, he definitely is not a follower of Rand.

Also, I don't see a the quote in the OP that you mention.

[jclay2]

Can someone help me out with this clear troll:


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to NewUser again.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

This may be true, but the police also do a lot to help people as well. The police help protect people from criminals, community education programs, and the police are on the front-line all year round.

Maybe it's a matter of perspective, but I'd say the police fall short of so much of this.

The police are not really front line. They mostly react to crime, getting to a crime scene after the fact. Police have no obligation to protect you from anything. Community education programs are mostly geared toward helpless people. The content is usually a lot of common sense stuff that people don't want to think about because they're too busy shoveling in pizza while watching TV.

Plenty of real life examples where the police are basically worthless. All the research, for example, shows that roadblocks neither result in substantial apprehensions or deterrence. Those criminals from which police protect us are actually created by aggressive and nonsensical enforcement of drug laws and hassling prostitutes and johns.

My own experience bears this out too. My car was once stolen when I lived in a college neighborhoods. Called the police and those imbeciles could not even be bothered to come out. Yeah, talk about community education. They could have learned something about neighborhood crime, but basically they were telling me to screw off.

Also had a neighbor shoot his gun around my feet when we got into an argument. My wife called the police and they didn't even go over to the guy's house. He's lives perched on a hill and I think they were actually afraid of him. She called later for the outcome and why they did not investigate. They told her, "We got busy."

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Can someone help me out with this clear troll:

Yeah, I ran out myself. He probably created an account the give himself +rep.