We Need the Police Because...

[acptulsa]

Hat tip to Suzanimal for the following:


Did a delay in response give the gunman more time? Cops face questions over why it took three hours for SWAT teams to storm Orlando nightclub as police chief admits officers may have shot some of the VICTIMS

...Police Chief John Mina has also admitted that some of the victims may have been hit by officers' gun fire.

However he insisted it is a part of the investigation into the horrific attack.

He said: 'I will say that is all part of the investigation. But I will say when our SWAT officers, about eight or nine officers, opened fire, their backdrop was a concrete wall. And they were being fired upon, so that is all part of the investigation.'

The decisions made by Orlando police made them targets for scrutiny among experts in police tactics.

They said the lessons learned from other mass shootings show that officers must get inside swiftly — even at great risk — to stop the threat and save lives.
'We live in a different world. And action beats inaction 100 per cent of the time,' said Chris Grollnek, an expert on active-shooter tactics and a retired police officer and SWAT team member.

Authorities in Orlando say the situation changed from an active-shooter scenario to a hostage situation once gunman Mateen made it into one of the bathrooms where club-goers were hiding.

He first had a shootout with the off-duty officer at the club's entrance.

Then two other officers arrived and the firing continued.

Experts say there's a big difference between responding to a lone gunman and a shooter who has hostages.

In active-shooter situations, police are now trained to respond immediately, even if only one or two officers are available to confront the suspect.
In a hostage crisis, law enforcement generally tries to negotiate.

Once in the restroom, Mateen called 911 and made statements pledging allegiance to the Islamic State, Orlando Police Chief John Mina said Monday.
That's when the shooting stopped and hostage negotiators began talking with him, the chief said.

'We had a team of crisis negotiators that talked to the suspect, trying to get as much information as possible, what we could do to help resolve the situation... He wasn't asking a whole lot, and we were doing most of the asking,' Mina said.

But Mateen soon began talking about explosives and bombs, leading Mina to decide about 5am to detonate an explosive on an exterior wall to prevent potentially greater loss of life.

The explosives did not penetrate the wall completely, so an armored vehicle was used to punch a two-foot-by-three-foot hole in the wall about two feet from the ground.
'We knew there would be an imminent loss of life,' Mina said.

Hostages started running out, as did Mateen, who was killed in a shootout with SWAT team members.
It turned out there were no explosives.

...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz4BaJ0Hz7h

Well, now. The cops had Mateen outnumbered three to one before he got inside, yet these three trained, experienced officers could not stop him.

They had Mateen on the telephone and seem to have known he was in a restroom, yet they did not send someone in to evacuate, they did not call the bartender and tell him to set off the fire alarm, they did not suggest that someone--anyone--inside yell, "FIRE!" Why not? Because yelling fire in a crowded public building is illegal, and it's entrapment for cops to advise someone to do an illegal thing?

There were innocents on the patio. They had a fire ladder truck, they had helicopters, and the wall surrounding the patio could not have been soundproof. A plumber with two ladders on his truck could have evacuated that patio. One guy with a sawzall could have evacuated that patio. Anyone with a car could have shouted, 'stay away from this wall' and knocked a hole in it with his or her car, and evacuated the patio. Apparently the people on the patio had the door barricaded. If that barricade had been torn down, some of the people inside could have been evacuated. But the plumber, or the guy with the sawzall, or the person with a car, was not allowed into the area by the cops. And the cops did not do these things either, or ask the firemen to do it. Why? Because their superiors had declared it a hostage situation, and regulations do not allow any breach of the perimeter during a hostage negotiation--even if there's no possible way the shooter can know it's happening?

If they had gained access to the patio door, they would have had a silent way in which was not the front door. Instead, they blew holes in the wall, or tried to, and then used a battering ram. Why? What is the purpose of using shock and awe tactics if you aren't competent to pull them off? What is the point of battering the hole you failed to create with your explosives, when the point of using explosives was to gain the element of surprise?

And why won't they say how many of the victims were shot not by the perp, but by the police?

If three cops are manning the door, but a guy carrying an unconcealed AR-freaking-15 cannot be denied entrance to the building, if the cops are just going to putz around for three hours and then do everything wrong, if the cops are so hamstrung by their own regulations and chain of command that they can't even pull hostages out of a patio, and in the end they are going to shoot innocents with as much abandon as the perpetrator himself, then why are we banning handguns in bars and talking about banning them everywhere else too?

One competent civilian could have ended this thing in the first two minutes. Which would not only have saved dozens of lives, but would have saved the Orlando Police Department the embarrassment of making complete asses of themselves. If only there had not been a law against carrying firearms in a bar. And all because the police are professionals, and we have to let them handle it.

Well. So much for that theory. Now. Can we do the sane thing yet?

[phill4paul]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?228509-The-Myth-of-Police-Protection

[acptulsa]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?228509-The-Myth-of-Police-Protection

Good idea.

[DamianTV]

The best defense against a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

When good guys are no longer allowed to have guns, who do you think is gonna win? This story is going to have many many repeats and continue to repeat in various forms as long as idiots in government think that criminals obey gun laws. Those gun laws only serve to disarm the good guys, criminals do not pay any attention to laws to begin with.

---

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-14/most-dangerous-part-terrorists-brain
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2016/06/13/20160614_brain_0.jpg

[mrsat_98]

To keep us safe on the roads.

[tod evans]

We Need the Police Because...

For the children!

[asurfaholic]

Because

http://i57.tinypic.com/23qyrg7.jpg

[Jamesiv1]

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2016/06/13/20160614_brain_0.jpg
What is that between the gun and "ISIS" ?

looks like a canteen with a duck's head sticking out of it lol

[tod evans]

What is that between the gun and "ISIS" ?

looks like a canteen with a duck's head sticking out of it lol

A pressure cooker.

[timosman]

This horrible incident will have its own chapter in the crisis management manual under clusterfuck.

[DamianTV]

Remember Rule #1 of establishing a tyrannical government: NEVER let a good crisis go to waste!

[pcosmar]

Remember Rule #1 of establishing a tyrannical government: NEVER let a good crisis go to waste!

^^THIS IS PLAYBOOK^^

[pcosmar]

This horrible incident will have its own chapter in the crisis management manual under cluster$#@!.

I would hope it is investigated. Thoroughly and openly. an absolute accounting for every bullet fired.. By who , at who.
How many injured in the blast?

Cuz what we are being told is gutter slime.

[Slave Mentality]

I would hope it is investigated. Thoroughly and openly. an absolute accounting for every bullet fired.. By who , at who.
How many injured in the blast?

Cuz what we are being told is gutter slime.

Not likely. The will be investigating themselves.

[acptulsa]

The fact that this fiasco is being used as an excuse to once again push for gun control is asinine. Not only does it demonstrate yet how vulnerable a disarmed populace is, by being yet another example of a psycho specifically choosing a 'gun-free zone' as the logical place to wreak his havoc, and by demonstrating in no uncertain terms just how foolish relying on 'trained professionals' for our security truly is, it brings a whole new element into the discussion.

This guy was investigated by the FBI twice, yet still, through Wackenhut, had a license to carry. Which means even if we had full-on gun control before this happened, HE WOULD STILL HAVE BEEN ARMED!

[acptulsa]

Because it's just a coincidence that all the high body counts come in gun-free zones, right?

http://stories.avvo.com/crime/8-horrible-crimes-stopped-by-legal-gun-owners.html

So let's make the whole country one big gun-free zone--except for those nice, sane people cleared by the FBI and employed by Wackenhut, of course...

[acptulsa]

"Not one of Donald Trump's reckless ideas would have saved a single life in Orlando," Clinton said

Are you admitting that your own calls for gun bans wouldn't have saved a single life in Orlando, old woman?

[DamianTV]

Police serve pretty much one purpose: allow the rich to continue to stealing from the poor.

Monopoly of Violence.

[brushfire]

^^THIS IS PLAYBOOK^^

Aaaaactually. Its a rulebook.

Better call Saul (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiG6P6Ih6vNAhVVSlIKHdtbCc0QFggeMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FSaul_A linsky&usg=AFQjCNHEaavZnUgyXK9SVrnVBXLvEqyvSw&sig2=B6gqNqFE_rFhBdJypeIf8g).

[TheTexan]

They said the lessons learned from other mass shootings show that officers must get inside swiftly — even at great risk — to stop the threat and save lives.

At great risk - to who? If its the Officers, thats just unacceptable

[acptulsa]

The police department spokesman announced he cannot say if the police killed any of the victims. But police pathologists have had the technology to determine just that for about eighty years now.

What can we infer from this?

[Anti Federalist]

Police Chief John Mina has also admitted that some of the victims may have been hit by officers' gun fire.

Shocked, shocked I am.

[Anti Federalist]

Police Chief John Mina has also admitted that some of the victims may have been hit by officers' gun fire.

Shocked, shocked I am.

[Anti Federalist]

Police Chief John Mina has also admitted that some of the victims may have been hit by officers' gun fire.

Shocked, shocked I am.

[Brian4Liberty]

Authorities in Orlando say the situation changed from an active-shooter scenario to a hostage situation once gunman Mateen made it into one of the bathrooms where club-goers were hiding.

He first had a shootout with the off-duty officer at the club's entrance.

Then two other officers arrived and the firing continued.

Experts say there's a big difference between responding to a lone gunman and a shooter who has hostages.

In active-shooter situations, police are now trained to respond immediately, even if only one or two officers are available to confront the suspect.
In a hostage crisis, law enforcement generally tries to negotiate.

Once in the restroom, Mateen called 911 and made statements pledging allegiance to the Islamic State, Orlando Police Chief John Mina said Monday.
That's when the shooting stopped and hostage negotiators began talking with him, the chief said.

We aren't going to get the exact truth from stories on the internet. And this story doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

When did the shooter have time to shoot 100 people if he was also in a firefight with 3 cops the whole time (until the bathroom)?

Apparently the cops were outside having a firefight with the outside of the building while the shooter was inside killing everyone?

[Brian4Liberty]

Authorities in Orlando say the situation changed from an active-shooter scenario to a hostage situation once gunman Mateen made it into one of the bathrooms where club-goers were hiding.

He first had a shootout with the off-duty officer at the club's entrance.

Then two other officers arrived and the firing continued.

Experts say there's a big difference between responding to a lone gunman and a shooter who has hostages.

In active-shooter situations, police are now trained to respond immediately, even if only one or two officers are available to confront the suspect.
In a hostage crisis, law enforcement generally tries to negotiate.

Once in the restroom, Mateen called 911 and made statements pledging allegiance to the Islamic State, Orlando Police Chief John Mina said Monday.
That's when the shooting stopped and hostage negotiators began talking with him, the chief said.

We aren't going to get the exact truth from stories on the internet. And this story doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

When did the shooter have time to shoot 100 people if he was also in a firefight with 3 cops the whole time (until the bathroom)?

Apparently the cops were outside having a firefight with the outside of the building while the shooter was inside killing everyone?

[Suzanimal]

Love, Leftist Style
Becky Akers

I am no fan of Geraldo Rivera—in fact, since I avoid the sewer that is popular culture, I have only a vague and unpleasant notion of his notoriety. But he’s apparently in hot water with the mindless masses for this innocuous and even sensible analysis of the shootings in Orlando (presuming they happened as Our Rulers claim, despite mounting evidence that the whole thing may be yet another false flag):

When you’re in that situation and you have no weapons you have two choices. If you can’t hide and you can’t run there’s only two choices – you stay and die or you fight…For God’s sake, fight back. Fight back. There’s a hundred [sic] people that he murdered with one weapon that he reloaded.

Ah, but then what use would the State’s “first responders” be? And think of the independence and autonomy if Americans reverted to the formerly universal reflex of defending themselves! Why, they’d invalidate much of the premise for Leviathan. And we can’t have that.

With their god threatened even this remotely, Progressives are unleashing all the hatred-sorry, love in their benighted little souls:

Actor, painter and musician John Lurie posted a series of tweets about Rivera’s comments. ‘Someone slap Geraldo Rivera in the face,’ wrote Lurie.

Aaaaccckkkk! I need a “safe space,” quick, before this incitement to violence triggers my anxieties!

He then added: ‘I believe the only solution to save this world is love towards one another, except toward Geraldo Rivera. No love for Geraldo. If all of the hate groups focused their hate on one man – the world would be a safer, better place – let that man be Geraldo Rivera.’

You’d think poor Rivera had bombed innocent folks in Afghanistan or lied about a private server for official emails instead of urging men to act like men. Oh, wait… Hmmm…

Then there’s this from “Media Matters for America, a left-leaning media watchdog. ‘The appalling notion that the victims of senseless violence bear the responsibility of preventing crimes committed against them has long lurked in the US conservative media,’ said Tim Johnson the organization’s guns and public safety program director.”

Yeah, far better to wait for “first responders,” even if it costs 50 people their lives.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/love-leftist-style/

[Anti Federalist]

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/love-leftist-style/

I don't get it...we were told what great heroes the people that fought back on Flight 93 on 9/11 were.

Has that much changed in 15 years?

[acptulsa]

Gary Johnson: "Gun Restrictions Make Us Less Safe". (http://reason.com/blog/2016/06/14/theres-just-no-evidence-whatsoever-to-su)


"I understand how so many people can believe that if you restrict this kind of weapon you can prevent this kind of incident," said Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson in reaction to the murders in Orlando and the political calls to further restrict access to certain guns that arose after the shooting.

"But there's just no evidence whatsoever to suggest that it makes us any safer, and in fact restricting guns makes things less safe, that's the camp that I'm in," he said in a phone interview this morning.

At-least one of the candidates got it right.
..

[asurfaholic]

Why we need police?

http://m.quickmeme.com/img/ab/ab942c0bee614fa7d9e5cb3563bc4a11c9dd795bff9eb58ba5 7fb0033ef76a6e.jpg

[pcosmar]

Default ,, We Need the Police Because...


My default, Police should not exist in a free society.
Police are an authoritarian concept,, that is wholly incomparable with liberty.

Both government and polite society thrived in this land before the concept of "Police" was imported.

Police are not needed,, they are a hindrance.

[RJ Liberty]

What is that between the gun and "ISIS" ?

looks like a canteen with a duck's head sticking out of it lol

Heh.

I think it's an old-timey coffee pot. The kind our grandparents used to use, hearkening back to old times, when the police spent their days drinking coffee at the local donut shop, rather than shooting up clubs in combat gear.

[Jamesiv1]

A pressure cooker.
+rep

[Theocrat]

...I can't spend all day patrolling my property, defending it from would-be civil dissidents, when I need to provide for the needs of my loved ones and myself.

[acptulsa]

...I can't spend all day patrolling my property, defending it from would-be civil dissidents, when I need to provide for the needs of my loved ones and myself.

We are quickly reaching the point where your home is more likely to be broken into by a SWAT team that can't read the address on their warrant than a burglar.

Maybe we do need police, maybe, if we don't have good neighbors. But we don't need this police state. We don't need governments so jealous of their power that they don't allow us to defend ourselves, our property and our loved ones when they aren't around. We don't need to be forced to pay people to do more harm than good. And we sure don't need DHS taking our tax dollars and only giving them back to our communities if our local governments pass ridiculous laws and our police departments militarize themselves.

[pcosmar]

...I can't spend all day patrolling my property, defending it from would-be civil dissidents, when I need to provide for the needs of my loved ones and myself.

Hire private security.

If you are unable to trust God for your security.

[phill4paul]

...I can't spend all day patrolling my property, defending it from would-be civil dissidents, when I need to provide for the needs of my loved ones and myself.

The police patrol your property all day?

[Theocrat]

We are quickly reaching the point where your home is more likely to be broken into by a SWAT team that can't read the address on their warrant than a burglar.

Maybe we do need police, maybe, if we don't have good neighbors. But we don't need this police state. We don't need governments so jealous of their power that they don't allow us to defend ourselves, our property and our loved ones when they aren't around. We don't need to be forced to pay people to do more harm than good. And we sure don't need DHS taking our tax dollars and only giving them back to our communities if our local governments pass ridiculous laws and our police departments militarize themselves.

Yes, I agree that our current law enforcement system is in shambles, and I also agree that we do not need to become a police state, especially because our law enforcement has done things like broken into incorrect homes. My point is that I support having police, in principle, because we can't spend all of 24 hours of a day on guard against perpetrators to our families and our homes. That brings me to pcosmar's point:


Hire private security.

If you are unable to trust God for your security.

Yes, it's an option to hire private security, if we didn't have all of the complicated tax structures from our local and county governments. But if citizens within a local or county municipality agreed to pay (when I say "pay" I actually mean "voluntary payment," as for a service, not automatic deduction of wages from a government authority) for law enforcement to protect their loved ones and property, then that, in effect, is like having private security.


The police patrol your property all day?

With having a local or county law enforcement system, patrol systems can be discussed, analyzed, and then adopted to ensure the best routes for patrolling within local communities. Yes, I know that police today do not patrol someone's property all day, but that wasn't the point of my original quote, either.

[pcosmar]

Yes, it's an option to hire private security, if we didn't have all of the complicated tax structures from our local and county governments. But if citizens within a local or county municipality agreed to pay (when I say "pay" I actually mean "voluntary payment," as for a service, not automatic deduction of wages from a government authority) for law enforcement to protect their loved ones and property, then that, in effect, is like having private security.



i would be fine with that,, provided your private security did not interfere with my travel, business, or person in any way.

Are you afraid of anything enough to pay men for protection? Really?

and a Theocrat? you must have a weak god.

[Theocrat]

i would be fine with that,, provided your private security did not interfere with my travel, business, or person in any way.

Are you afraid of anything enough to pay men for protection? Really?

and a Theocrat? you must have a weak god.

Well, that's an interesting line of reasoning. Do you own a gun, pcosmar? If you do, then let me ask you, "Are you afraid of anything enough to pay men for protection? Really?"

And, no, God is not weak, but He's also sovereign enough to use ordinary means (like weapons) as instruments for deterring evil, provided that we keep our faith in Him and not the object, itself. That's what God reminds us to do in Scriptures like:


Some trust in chariots, and some in horses, but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. [Psalm 20:7]


Woe to them that go down to Egypt for help and stay on horses and trust in chariots because they are many, and in horsemen because they are very strong, but they look not unto the Holy One of Israel, neither seek the LORD! [Isaiah 31:1]

[pcosmar]

Well, that's an interesting line of reasoning. Do you own a gun, pcosmar? If you do, then let me ask you, "Are you afraid of anything enough to pay men for protection? Really?"

I do not own a gun.

I am a Prohibited Person. I am something that should not exist in a free society.. and yet i am.

care to discuss that further,,? with someone that understands the nature of authority.

I do not serve the Prince of this World.. therefor I reject that authority over me.. Would you care to discuss that proposition?

I know what is unseen around me and do not fear death,, No I don't own a gun.
And though I appreciate the aid of other men, I neither need nor require it.

[Theocrat]

I do not own a gun.

I am a Prohibited Person. I am something that should not exist in a free society.. and yet i am.

care to discuss that further,,? with someone that understands the nature of authority.

I do not serve the Prince of this World.. therefor I reject that authority over me.. Would you care to discuss that proposition?

I know what is unseen around me and do not fear death,, No I don't own a gun.
And though I appreciate the aid of other men, I neither need nor require it.

Okay. It's fine that you don't own a gun, but don't think that because I believe in paying for protection through certain means (like owning a gun or having police) that it means my God is weak or that I'm afraid of anything. Because we live in a sinful world, we have to arm ourselves for protection against people who have no moral nor civil restraints on their own behavior. So, it's wise to have those means of protection.

[pcosmar]

Okay. It's fine that you don't own a gun, but don't think that because I believe in paying for protection through certain means (like owning a gun or having police) that it means my God is weak or that I'm afraid of anything. Because we live in a sinful world, we have to arm ourselves for protection against people who have no moral nor civil restraints on their own behavior. So, it's wise to have those means of protection.
I am not opposed to such. (self defense, defense of others),and scripture supports such done of good intent. (God looks on the heart).

I am opposed to armed enforcers of someone else's will. And That is by definition what Police are.

They are enforcers of control.
in this world,, the authority is the prince of this world.

I await an end to it.

[pcosmar]

Why do I need to be protected?


who would I fear? why would i fear?

Is fear a spiritual Being? is the spirit of fear something I should fear?

[pcosmar]

Protect Yourself Before You Wreck Yourself

LOL,,

you haven't been keeping up.

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/629/23708271062_49694abefd_h.jpg

I know where i am. and who put me here.


Then Elisha prayed and said, "O LORD, I pray, open his eyes that he may see." And the LORD opened the servant's eyes and he saw; and behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha.

[pcosmar]

I know where i am. and who put me here.

now tell me Theocrat , Why do I need Police?

[Theocrat]

I am not opposed to such. (self defense, defense of others),and scripture supports such done of good intent. (God looks on the heart).

I am opposed to armed enforcers of someone else's will. And That is by definition what Police are.

They are enforcers of control.
in this world,, the authority is the prince of this world.

I await an end to it.

Pcosmar, you're just stating the obvious when you say, "I am opposed to armed enforcers of someone else's will. And That is by definition what Police are." Of course, any law enforcement agency (whether it's private or public) enforces laws that did not originate from inside itself. Therefore, one important issue is whether those laws (or the people who produced them, perhaps), are just, right, proper, etc. or not. Another important issue is whether the law enforcement agency, itself, is enforcing laws in a righteous manner or not (which begs the question, "By what authority," of course).

So, you can't say that policing, as an institution (or means of protection and preservation), is evil in and of itself. That's committing the fallacy of reification. But, also important is to realize that policing is an inevitability. We all do it, in some area of our lives. It can be through (though not limited to) parenting or conscientious moral restraint.

But I agree that in civics, we should focus on how policing is taking place, as well as why policing is taking place.

[pcosmar]

Pcosmar, you're just stating the obvious when you say, "I am opposed to armed enforcers of someone else's will. And That is by definition what Police are." Of course, any law enforcement agency (whether it's private or public) enforces laws that did not originate from inside itself. Therefore, one important issue is whether those laws (or the people who produced them, perhaps), are just, right, proper, etc. or not. Another important issue is whether the law enforcement agency, itself, is enforcing laws in a righteous manner or not (which begs the question, "By what authority," of course).

So, you can't say that policing, as an institution (or means of protection and preservation), is evil in and of itself. That's committing the fallacy of reification. But, also important is to realize that policing is an inevitability. We all do it, in some area of our lives. It can be through (though not limited to) parenting or conscientious moral restraint.

But I agree that in civics, we should focus on how policing is taking place, as well as why policing is taking place.

Controlling people is evil.

what do you mean I can't say it.

Government is evil. It is controlled by satan. it is totally evil from inception. The founders knew this.
They also understood that government was reality. a necessity. but that it must be limited.
They placed limits on government (not enough apparently)

There were NO Police.

That was not a concept present at the time. it was imported from Europe along with democracy and socialism. It was a remnant of aristocracy and authoritarianism..

The idea that people NEED to be controlled,,and that some people are worthy of doing so.

[Theocrat]

Controlling people is evil.

what do you mean I can't say it.

Government is evil. It is controlled by satan. it is totally evil from inception. The founders knew this.
They also understood that government was reality. a necessity. but that it must be limited.
They placed limits on government (not enough apparently)

There were NO Police.

That was not a concept present at the time. it was imported from Europe along with democracy and socialism. It was a remnant of aristocracy and authoritarianism..

The idea that people NEED to be controlled,,and that some people are worthy of doing so.

Lest I be misunderstood, let me say that I don't agree that police have the authority to control people, when those people are acting righteously in society. The role of law enforcement is to control the behavior of those who choose to live in society without moral and civil restraints towards other people.

When the police begins to treat civilly innocent people the same as civilly guilty people by controlling their behavior though invasion of property or by inadvertent loss of life, then I would say that the police agents are acting unjustly and need to be held accountable. But that doesn't mean that the institution of police, itself, is evil.

"Government is evil," "It's controlled by Satan," blah, blah, blah, the same talking points that have been proven false over and over again, I'm not even going to have an argument about. It's not germane to the topic at hand, anyway.

[pcosmar]

"Government is evil," "It's controlled by Satan," blah, blah, blah,


The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. And he said to him, “I will give you all their authority and splendor; it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. If you worship me, it will all be yours.”

Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.



Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world; if it were, My servants would fight to prevent My arrest by the Jews. But now, My kingdom is not of this realm.” “Then You are a king?” Pilate said. “You say that I am a king,” Jesus answered. “For this reason I was born and have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to My voice.”…

yeah ,, bla bla

let him who has ears

[pcosmar]

And to keep it out of another sub forum,, and on subject.

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

Still good after all these years.

[Natural Citizen]

He's also sovereign enough to use ordinary means (like weapons) as instruments for deterring evil, provided that we keep our faith in Him and not the object, itself. That's what God reminds us to do in Scriptures like:


Some trust in chariots, and some in horses, but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. [Psalm 20:7]


I don't think that means what you think it does. The part I boldened there, I mean. That's just me talking, though, Theo.

Here is what I would do. If it were me. Which it isn't. But if it were, I'd read that scripture and compare it to what you led into it with (again, what I boldened there). Think about it, man. I mean reaaaaaally think about what you say here in context with the actual scripture.

It seems to me that "some" and "we" are mutually exclusive to one another in the context of the scripture itself. And for good reason.

If I recall right, God wouldn't even let Israel have horses. Or am I wrong about that? Am I wrong, Theo?

Let's review. Maybe I'm wrong.

"But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the Lord hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way" (Deut. 17:16).


"When thou goest out to battle against thine enemies, and seest horses, and chariots, and a people more than thou, be not afraid of them: for the Lord thy God is with thee, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. ... For the Lord your God is he that goeth with you, to fight for you against your enemies, to save you" (Deut. 20:1, 4).

So, then, it seems to me that God is saying to have faith in Him alone. I mean, sht, Theo, He specifically took their danged horses and weapons away. Right? Or naw? Did he let em have their horses and whatnot and maybe I missed that part? You just got done quoting that..."Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the Lord our God. (Ps. 20:7-8)...which actually continues...although, you stopped prior to..."They are brought down and fallen: but we are risen, and stand upright."

But God forbid the Israelites from having horses. God wanted Israel to trust in Him, not horses and chariots.

So, yeah. I think that your thought leading into the scripture that you referenced actually contradicts the scripture itself, Theo. It seems to me that if people put their faith in their chariots, then, they are effectively placing their faith in man. In man's enginuity. Not God.

“Some trust in chariots” (Ps. 20:7). Right?

Ultimately, and with all of that said, the discussion (per the topic specifically and particularly the context of your question to pcosmar about if he has a gun or not when you were making a case for moral judgment to be made by the police/government) should move in the direction of just who is the moral authority. Is it Man-over-God or God-over-Man? The way you led into that scripture that you referenced would tend to stimulate a Man-over-God scenario. God doesn't use worldly weapons. Man does. Man builds them. And man is confident in his weapons. Now, God did breath life into the horse. I'll grant you that. But God didn't saddle the feller up and hop on it with a sword and a flag or whatever. Man did that. These are specifically made mutually exclusive in the scripture you posted to support your claim.


If I'm wrong, then, please educate me. I like to learn. It's one of my favorite things to do. But...when you mention that...


He's also sovereign enough to use ordinary means (like weapons) as instruments for deterring evil, provided that we keep our faith in Him and not the object, itself it doesn't make sense with the specific scripture you posted in order to support your claim since God told them that they couldn't have any horses at all. Nope. No weapons. Only faith in God alone. So, it seems like you'vr produced a logical fallacy to me.

[Theocrat]

I don't think that means what you think it does. The part I boldened there, I mean. That's just me talking, though, Theo.

Here is what I would do. If it were me. Which it isn't. But if it were, I'd read that scripture and compare it to what you led into it with (again, what I boldened there). Think about it, man. I mean reaaaaaally think about what you say here in context with the actual scripture.

It seems to me that "some" and "we" are mutually exclusive to one another in the context of the scripture itself. And for good reason.

If I recall right, God wouldn't even let Israel have horses. Or am I wrong about that? Am I wrong, Theo?

Let's review. Maybe I'm wrong.

"But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the Lord hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way" (Deut. 17:16).



So, then, it seems to me that God is saying to have faith in Him alone. I mean, sht, Theo, He specifically took their danged horses and weapons away. Right? Or naw? Did he let em have their horses and whatnot and maybe I missed that part? You just got done quoting that..."Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the Lord our God. (Ps. 20:7-8)...which actually continues...although, you stopped prior to..."They are brought down and fallen: but we are risen, and stand upright."

But God forbid the Israelites from having horses. God wanted Israel to trust in Him, not horses and chariots.

So, yeah. I think that your thought leading into the scripture that you referenced actually contradicts the scripture itself, Theo. It seems to me that if people put their faith in their chariots, then, they are effectively placing their faith in man. In man's enginuity. Not God.

“Some trust in chariots” (Ps. 20:7). Right?

Ultimately, and with all of that said, the discussion (per the topic specifically and particularly the context of your question to pcosmar about if he has a gun or not when you were making a case for moral judgment to be made by the police/government) should move in the direction of just who is the moral authority. Is it Man-over-God or God-over-Man? The way you led into that scripture that you referenced would tend to stimulate a Man-over-God scenario. God doesn't use worldly weapons. Man does. Man builds them. And man is confident in his weapons. Now, God did breath life into the horse. I'll grant you that. But God didn't saddle the feller up and hop on it with a sword and a flag or whatever. Man did that. These are specifically made mutually exclusive in the scripture you posted to support your claim.


If I'm wrong, then, please educate me. I like to learn. It's one of my favorite things to do, man. Thanks!

Where did I say that because we should have weapons and police that, therefore, we should have faith in man rather than faith in God?

Also, I hope you're not trying to argue that the Bible teaches against having armies and defense because, if you are, I would invite you to reread the books of Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Joshua (for starters) to see that God clearly commanded His people to build armies so that His purpose in giving them the "Promised Land" would be fulfilled. That was my point. God uses ordinary means to accomplish His goals in this world (in this case, the need for enforcement of law and personal protection), and that characteristic simply reflects the transcendent and imminent nature of God towards His creation.

[acptulsa]

But I agree that in civics, we should focus on how policing is taking place, as well as why policing is taking place.


"Government is evil," "It's controlled by Satan," blah, blah, blah, the same talking points that have been proven false over and over again, I'm not even going to have an argument about. It's not germane to the topic at hand, anyway.

Well, you two almost made it back on topic, but then you veered away again.

I asked the question I did in the thread title, because I was wondering just who it was that decided we need police to disarm us, completely fail to disarm or stop the bad guys, leave us at the mercy of the bad guys for three hours, and then come in throwing lead and killing or wounding all the innocent bystanders that the bad guy had not yet managed to get around to. And I think you both know this.

Just thought I'd clarify that.


Where did I say that because we should have weapons and police that, therefore, we should have faith in man rather than faith in God?

You said that God acts through men. Pete pointed out that the devil does, too.

If you arm a man, you are demonstrating faith in him. If you arm him and disarm yourself, you are demonstrating total faith in him. Or in God to act through him, which to a free will believer like myself, is the same thing.

The more the federal government takes our money and doles it back out to our local agencies for jumping through their hoops, the worse things get and the less our communities can do to fix their own departments.

There's nothing Godly about this federal government.

[pcosmar]

There's nothing Godly about this federal government.

Truth.

[Theocrat]

Well, you two almost made it back on topic, but then you veered away again.

I asked the question I did in the thread title, because I was wondering just who it was that decided we need police to disarm us, completely fail to disarm or stop the bad guys, leave us at the mercy of the bad guys for three hours, and then come in throwing lead and killing or wounding all the innocent bystanders that the bad guy had not yet managed to get around to. And I think you both know this.

Just thought I'd clarify that.

Well, I don't agree that any law enforcement agency has the right to disarm law-abiding citizens for any reason. We have a God-given right to self-defense and security. That means that no person can take that right away when people are living righteously in society. Our dependency should be in the God Who graciously gives us our rights, not in the people who believe that our security is exclusively their responsibility.


You said that God acts through men. Pete pointed out that the devil does, too.

If you arm a man, you are demonstrating faith in him. If you arm him and disarm yourself, you are demonstrating total faith in him. Or in God to act through him, which to a free will believer like myself, is the same thing.

The more the federal government takes our money and doles it back out to our local agencies for jumping through their hoops, the worse things get and the less our communities can do to fix their own departments.

There's nothing Godly about this federal government.

Once again, I don't agree that police should be solely armed at the expense of disarming citizens. That is a recipe for tyranny. Nowhere in the Bible does God ever call for kings and civil magistrates to have possession of all weapons while their citizens have none. In fact, Jesus even allowed His disciples to carry swords in Luke 22:35-38.

We also have to be careful about arguing for normative cases from the positive cases. In other words, just because our current law enforcement has performed duties to the detriment of individuals and communities does not mean that we should never have law enforcement agencies. Such reasoning then opens the door for other proposals, as well. For instance, someone could argue that rape laws have not stopped people from raping others; therefore, we should get rid of laws against rape because they don't keep all women safe. But such reasoning really misses the point of having rape laws, in the first place.

That same reasoning applies to those wanting to eradicate all law enforcement because of the actions of law enforcement agents who have abused their authority. No, I don't think that law enforcers have the right to do whatever they want just because they wear a badge. Yes, I do believe that citizens ought to be armed just as well as our current law enforcement agencies and military. But having a police system does not cancel out having the right to protect oneself by any means necessary, nor does advocating for the existence of police mean that the person has more faith in men than in God. You all need to realize that because, quite frankly, your arguments are absurd.

[osan]

Can we do the sane thing yet?

Um... No.

[pcosmar]

I wonder how Theocrat will feel about Police when they start arresting Christians? again

[osan]

This guy was investigated by the FBI twice, yet still, through Wackenhut, had a license to carry. Which means even if we had full-on gun control before this happened, HE WOULD STILL HAVE BEEN ARMED!

BUT... BUT... DAMN YOU!

Gay dolphins... gay dolphins... gay... dolphins...

Gay...

Dolphins...



Gay...







Dolphins...









Gay........

[Theocrat]

I wonder how Theocrat will feel about Police when they start arresting Christians? again

Unlike yourself, I am able to make the distinction between an institution and those who are members of the institution. Therefore, if Christians are arrested for their beliefs, let's say, then that would be a reason to appeal to other venues (like social/mainstream media, government representatives, churches, etc.) for exposing and condemning the actions of the arresting officers, in hopes that the officers will be held accountable and the law(s) in which they are enforcing may be repealed. But it would not be a sufficient reason to call for eliminating all police.

[osan]

We aren't going to get the exact truth from stories on the internet. And this story doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

When did the shooter have time to shoot 100 people if he was also in a firefight with 3 cops the whole time (until the bathroom)?

Apparently the cops were outside having a firefight with the outside of the building while the shooter was inside killing everyone?

This obliquely brings to mind another great hazard we face at the hands of the typically good-for-nothing police: Imagine my fabulous self just happening to be walking past as the deranged closet-chromosexual Muslim starts shooting and I, being the aforementioned fabulous me, enter and engage him, not in chromosexualistic acts, but gunfire. If this takes any more than the three hours required for the SQUAT TEAM to show, chances are at least even that those dullards would end up shooting me as well, or perhaps even in preference to the actual criminal.

The police are by far a greater cost to "society" than they are a benefit.

[osan]

Has that much changed in 15 years?

Is that a serious question?

[osan]

Why we need police?

http://m.quickmeme.com/img/ab/ab942c0bee614fa7d9e5cb3563bc4a11c9dd795bff9eb58ba5 7fb0033ef76a6e.jpg

Thread winner.

Pony up, assholes.

[pcosmar]

The police are by far a greater cost to "society" than they are a benefit.

cost and threat.

They are the greatest threat to life and liberty every day.

You could be sitting doing nothing but having a drink when they open fire on something.

[Natural Citizen]

Where did I say that because we should have weapons and police that, therefore, we should have faith in man rather than faith in God?

A logical fallacy was stimulated by referencing that particular scripture, I think. Which was deceptive.


Also, I hope you're not trying to argue that the Bible teaches against having armies and defense...

Heh. No, Theo. I don;t want to argue the Bible with you. I was just pointing out the fallacy in that particular scripture that you posted there to support your claim that..."He's also sovereign enough to use ordinary means (like weapons) as instruments."

With regard to that particular scripture, God told Israel that they couldn't have any horses. Much less chariots there with that specific incident. Did he not? And, again..."Some..."..."We...."...mutually exclusive in that particular scripture. Naw?

Anyway. If your point was that God clearly commanded His people to build armies so that His purpose in giving them the "Promised Land" would be fulfilled, then, your point would better have been served if you'd referenced the books of Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Joshua and any other supporting scripture.

Of course, thebn, as far as armies go, we should look at it from the perspective that what we're dealing with is a spiritual war, too.

That particular one that you referenced won't work, though. As I'd mentioned, God said nope...no horses, boys...not today.

[Anti Federalist]

Is that a serious question?

Sometimes it takes me by surprise.

[DamianTV]

http://static.infowars.com/politicalsidebarimage/massshootings_large.jpg

We need police to protect the law abiding disarmed citizens.

Well, that is what they want so they can validate the existence of their jobs when their real purpose is to make the law abiding citizen hopelessly dependent on the controllers. Disarmed, dumbed down, and flat broke. Dependency = Control.

[alucard13mm]

A police pulled me over because i didnt have my headlights on at night. It was a new car and i assumed wrong that the headlights would come on automatically.

Just gave me a warning and that was it.

[pcosmar]

A police pulled me over because i didnt have my headlights on at night. It was a new car and i assumed wrong that the headlights would come on automatically.

Just gave me a warning and that was it.


and you needed that?

[tod evans]

and you needed that?

And we needed to pay for that?

[acptulsa]

I'd've flashed my lights at you for free.

[alucard13mm]

And we needed to pay for that?


I'd've flashed my lights at you for free.


and you needed that?

You should be thanking me for it because I took up the police officer's time. During that time he could be out bashing people's heads in

[Anti Federalist]

and you needed that?


And we needed to pay for that?

Proper Master/Slave relationship established.

Nothing could be more important in a police state.

[tod evans]

You should be thanking me for it because I took up the police officer's time. During that time he could be out bashing people's heads in

The mere utterance of that term 'triggers' me.........

"Fucking kop" "Pig" "Heat" or even "Tax-tick" is appropriate...;)

[Anti Federalist]

You should be thanking me for it because I took up the police officer's time. During that time he could be out bashing people's heads in

LOL

[Theocrat]

A logical fallacy was stimulated by referencing that particular scripture, I think. Which was deceptive.



Heh. No, Theo. I don;t want to argue the Bible with you. I was just pointing out the fallacy in that particular scripture that you posted there to support your claim that..."He's also sovereign enough to use ordinary means (like weapons) as instruments."

With regard to that particular scripture, God told Israel that they couldn't have any horses. Much less chariots there with that specific incident. Did he not? And, again..."Some..."..."We...."...mutually exclusive in that particular scripture. Naw?

Anyway. If your point was that God clearly commanded His people to build armies so that His purpose in giving them the "Promised Land" would be fulfilled, then, your point would better have been served if you'd referenced the books of Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Joshua and any other supporting scripture.

Of course, thebn, as far as armies go, we should look at it from the perspective that what we're dealing with is a spiritual war, too.

That particular one that you referenced won't work, though. As I'd mentioned, God said nope...no horses, boys...not today.

There is no logical fallacy. The reason that I cited the Psalm 20 and Isaiah 31 passages was to back up the clause where I said, "...provided that we keep our faith in Him and not the object, itself." Those passages have nothing to do with God teaching that we shouldn't have armies. They clearly teach that we shouldn't put our faith in armies when it is God Who gives the power to be victorious. Also, those 2 passages were written after God had already commanded Israel to form armies, as I said was mentioned was recorded in the books of Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, etc.

To your point about Deuteronomy 17:16 teaching that kings weren't suppose to have armies because it says, "But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses, forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, 'Ye shall henceforth return no more that way,'" you're taking it way out of context. The reason why the king wasn't supposed to multiply horses was to the purpose of trying to return to Egypt, as the text clearly says. Better commentators than you and me have even pointed that out, like the famous Matthew Henry:


(1.) He must not gratify the love of honour by multiplying horses, v. 16. He that rode upon a horse (a stately creature) in a country where asses and mules were generally used looked very great; and therefore though he might have horses for his own saddle, and chariots, yet he must not set servants on horseback (Eccl. 10:7) nor have many horses for his officers and guards (when God was their King, his judges rode on asses, Jdg. 5:10; 12:14), nor must he multiply horses for war, lest he should trust too much to them, Ps. 20:7; 33:17; Hos. 14:3. The reason here given against his multiplying horses is because it would produce a greater correspondence with Egypt (which furnished Canaan with horses, 1 Ki. 10:28, 29) than it was fit the Israel of God should have, who were brought thence with such a high hand: You shall return no more that way, for fear of being infected with the idolatries of Egypt (Lev. 18:3), to which they were very prone. Note, We should take heed of that commerce or conversation by which we are in danger of being drawn into sin. If Israel must not return to Egypt, they must not trade with Egypt; Solomon got no good by it.

So, you're totally wrong about the Deuteronomy 17 passage. But the application of all of this still remains that God nowhere condemns having armies or security institutions, per se, nor does He command kings to own all weapons at the expense of his people not having any. In fact, the closest incident to something like that in Israel's history was when they were subdued by the Philistines for a time under King Saul in 1 Samuel 13. But it was always the norm for Israel to have weapons and armies, particularly when it came to possessing the "Promised Land." In fact, if Israel had no army nor was led into battles by Joshua (Joshua, of course, being a type of "Christ"), they would have never inherited the land promised to them by God. So, don't sit there and tell me that God never wanted His people to have horses for war because it's taught all over the place in Scripture.

[Natural Citizen]

There is no logical fallacy. The reason that I cited the Psalm 20 and Isaiah 31 passages was to back up the clause where I said, "...provided that we keep our faith in Him and not the object, itself." Those passages have nothing to do with God teaching that we shouldn't have armies. They clearly teach that we shouldn't put our faith in armies when it is God Who gives the power to be victorious. Also, those 2 passages were written after God had already commanded Israel to form armies, as I said was mentioned was recorded in the books of Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, etc.

To your point about Deuteronomy 17:16 teaching that kings weren't suppose to have armies because it says, "But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses, forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, 'Ye shall henceforth return no more that way,'" you're taking it way out of context. The reason why the king wasn't supposed to multiply horses was to the purpose of trying to return to Egypt, as the text clearly says. Better commentators than you and me have even pointed that out, like the famous Matthew Henry:



So, you're totally wrong about the Deuteronomy 17 passage. But the application of all of this still remains that God nowhere condemns having armies or security institutions, per se, nor does He command kings to own all weapons at the expense of his people not having any. In fact, the closest incident to something like that in Israel's history was when they were subdued by the Philistines for a time under King Saul in 1 Samuel 13. But it was always the norm for Israel to have weapons and armies, particularly when it came to possessing the "Promised Land." In fact, if Israel had no army nor was led into battles by Joshua (Joshua, of course, being a type of "Christ"), they would have never inherited the land promised to them by God. So, don't sit there and tell me that God never wanted His people to have horses for war because it's taught all over the place in Scripture.

You just went into a big circle, Theo. And you're dick waving. I'm not waving dicks with you over the Bible. I'm just not doing it. I was specific to tell you that I didn't want to debate the Bible with you. I don't think that you understand the argument I'm making with you given the nature of the thread itself and your specific question to pcosmar about his theoretical gun. Nor do I believe that you want to. I'm arguing the premise of your comparison to that specific scripture in context with the nature of the topic at hand..."We Need the Police Because..."

And it's the reason I opened my mouth when I did, the second that you inserted that particular scripture in the specific context that you did. It seems like you're using scripture to justify the need for wordly police as some kind of moral authority. And, yes, those scriptures were written afterward. I know that. I don't need you to tell me that. Just as the police happened after government. Just like there were no horses after Egypt. Israel remembered Egypt. So, then, they had faith in the Lord. You're equating that with relying on police for the purpose of remembering to have faith in government. There's your false dichotomy. Or logical fallacy, I think I called it.

I'll tell you something, Theo. And I say it respecfully. Your response here is exactly why I didn't want to debate the Bible. With anyone, for that matter. Debating it tends to become the goal. The purpose. And it's always just bunch of dick waving. Every single time. Without fail. Friends who seek to debate the Bible tend to want to spend too much time talking instead of listening. And friends who talk too much instead of listening is the reason why, I, for one, don't go to "church" anymore. I imagine it's likely why the pews are generally thinning out, too. In fact, the very last time I left church and never went back was on the Sunday that the pastor named off every branch of the military and any police in the pews as they stood up to be acknowledged by the congregation. The Organ player was keying off The Battle Hymn of the Republic while the choir sang it from the top of their lungs. It was one of those "praise the Lord and pass the ammunition" kind of deals. I haven't been back since. Of course, I will talk about that kind of thing with people whom I know adhere to the true Gospel. That's something different. And not such a miserable bit of company, frankly.

[Theocrat]

You just went into a big circle, Theo. And you're dick waving. I'm not waving dicks with you over the Bible. I'm just not doing it. I was specific to tell you that I didn't want to debate the Bible with you. I don't think that you understand the argument I'm making with you given the nature of the thread itself and your specific question to pcosmar about his theoretical gun. Nor do I believe that you want to. I'm arguing the premise of your comparison to that specific scripture in context with the nature of the topic at hand..."We Need the Police Because..."

And it's the reason I opened my mouth when I did, the second that you inserted that particular scripture in the specific context that you did. It seems like you're using scripture to justify the need for wordly police as some kind of moral authority. And, yes, those scriptures were written afterward. I know that. I don't need you to tell me that. Just as the police happened after government. Just like there were no horses after Egypt. Israel remembered Egypt. So, then, they had faith in the Lord. You're equating that with relying on police for the purpose of remembering to have faith in government. There's your false dichotomy. Or logical fallacy, I think I called it.

I'll tell you something, Theo. And I say it respecfully. Your response here is exactly why I didn't want to debate the Bible. With anyone, for that matter. Debating it tends to become the goal. The purpose. And it's always just bunch of dick waving. Every single time. Without fail. Friends who seek to debate the Bible tend to want to spend too much time talking instead of listening. And friends who talk too much instead of listening is the reason why, I, for one, don't go to "church" anymore. I imagine it's likely why the pews are generally thinning out, too. In fact, the very last time I left church and never went back was on the Sunday that the pastor named off every branch of the military and any police in the pews as they stood up to be acknowledged by the congregation. The Organ player was keying off The Battle Hymn of the Republic while the choir sang it from the top of their lungs. It was one of those "praise the Lord and pass the ammunition" kind of deals. I haven't been back since. Of course, I will talk about that kind of thing with people whom I know adhere to the true Gospel. That's something different. And not such a miserable bit of company, frankly.

Once again, you're putting words into my mouth. Where did I say equate reliance on police (or government) with faith in God, especially given the fact that I've already claimed that we should arm ourselves for our own protection in addition to having law enforcement?

There is no "dick waving" going on here. We need to be honest about what flows from our philosophical beliefs during these types of discussions. I'm simply speaking from my worldview, as a Christian, so naturally, the Scriptures will be brought up because the word of God is the ultimate standard for my beliefs on police, guns, government, or anything else.

Since the Bible is not your ultimate standard for truth, then, you, too, will speak from your own authority just as religiously as I do from mine. So don't try to make this into some "Religion vs. Reason" type of debate. It's clearly "Religion vs. Religion," and if you consider yourself an atheist, then you're just as religious about your beliefs as I am about mine, except your gods are the random electrochemical processes inside your brain that you rely on for reason. As always, we are debating worldviews here about, in this case, the need for police. If you don't understand that, then you're just going to be arguing arbitrarily.

[Natural Citizen]

Dang, Theo. You're killing me, man. You're freaking killing me here. Why I gotta be a atheist all of a sudden? Hm? Why, Theo?

[presence]

You should be thanking me for it because I took up the police officer's time. During that time he could be out bashing people's heads in

that would be cool crowd funding campaign.... fund people to eat up cop time on camera

:D

[osan]

Dependency = Control.

The Romans discovered this late in their game and translated it into religion when they established the church. The strategy has worked very well for at least 2000 years now and has been expanded greatly, with more to come. Far more.