We live in a world where I can see someone doing this in an effort to poison a bunch of homeless people. Of course that's not what is happening here but it's been at yhe back of my mind lately.
Yeah, this definitely is one of the more ludicrous things Christians have done. The crusades and the child molestation I was okay with, the inquisition just sounds like an awesome time for everyone, and shoving your religion down the throat of everyone else is just what you do sometimes when you feel you're right. But making laws against feeding homeless people really makes me wonder if maybe Christians are a bit wrong sometimes.
It's an uncanny irony to me when I hear something like "not everything has to be about race" when, at least from the perspective of a non-white, everything in society really does have an unavoidable racial asterisk that we really wish wasn't there. Racism is a fixed worldwide phenomenon that we have no choice but to acknowledge at this point. It impacts everything.
When it stops being illegal to help vulnerable people, I'll stop cheering for folks who open carry firearms to deter cops that might otherwise try to stop them.
Of course most of us don't love it. A lot of us live in places where, due to concepts like gerrymandering, we have no political choice, so people have to resort to stuff like this. We love that people are fighting back, not that it has to be this way.
It isn't how reasonable society works. It is how OUR society works. Can't play by the rules of another game you wish you were playing, you will lose every time.
And it becomes even more viable when you consider that Popper’s idea is actually based off of a social contract.
Essentially, tolerance is based on a social contract to be tolerant to each other. If someone is being intolerant, they are explicitly and intentionally removing themselves from the contract. Ergo, they no longer fall under protections, and people can then be intolerant of their intolerance.
One that uses government funds to feed and house the homeless instead of using the police to punish them for being homeless and anyone who tries to help.
Its only crazy if you don't want to look at why they're doing it square in the eye. Please don't get me wrong, I wouldn't judge anyone doing it, presuming it does apply a little you yourself. I could be wrong of course. The truth is very, very ugly and not something anyone would want to be true.
Despite their claims, the problem was never the cost to the government of feeding the homeless, as can be seen. The reason the police do this is that wage slaves won't be forced back into the worst, most poorly paid jobs we can find if they're not facing death by starvation.
It was the same in the UK, back when they made feeding the homeless illegal and the penalty being being homeless OR without a job for 3 days was being sent to the workhouse where you might well be worked to death.
I had^1^ a friend in middle school who shared my name. We'd hang out together all the time and play Super Mario Bros 3 and ride our bikes all over and shit. Dude was chill. Then he went into the army, came out, and become a cop in Dallas PD.
It's food serving legislation being taken too far. The clothes I think are fine, but since they're not inspected by the health department like a restaurant the government can technically shut it down which is complete bullshit.
No, the Good Samaritan Act says free food doesn't have to be inspected as long as it's given "in good faith apparently wholesome food or apparently fit grocery products to a nonprofit organization for ultimate distribution to needy individuals"
All fifty states and the District of Columbia have additional food donation statues that limit food donor’s liability—these currently vary widely, such as by who (i.e., donors, nonprofit organizations), and what foods and food products are covered.
state laws may provide greater protection against liability, but not less
Anecdotally, I don't think so. I used to do some work with a place that did a lot of charity work and would get together bi-weekly to talk about travel and have a banquet. The banquet was always prepared and served in accordance with the law, and there were often tons of leftovers. So we would give the leftovers to the homeless. The health department fined us because we weren't allowed to serve food outside of our establishment.
When I was living on the streets of Boston, one day a random dude showed up giving out McDonalds cheeseburgers. Didn’t look very official. He just rolled up with a big bag and started giving them out.
Did you have some kind of serve safe license that was limited? I wonder why the rules were different than a restaurant letting people take leftovers home.
Were you guys handing out huge trays of food like after thanksgiving or a party, like “who wants this half a turkey in these ziplock bags”, or was it more like a bunch of to go containers handed out?
Seems like the seal of government approval on a person’s ability to handle food safety should apply equally to serving in the restaurant and to prepping food for serving outside that building. Right? Just too complex to have it separated out like that.
This article talks about the ordinance. Yes, you can feed them in specific situations and places. Still, you can’t tell me it isn’t making it intentionally hard to do.
Like the fact that that headline is sensational and wrong? Its not illegal to feed homeless people in those cities, the city governments just require people to get permits and do it in a safe way.
Congressional districts should have a perimiter-area ratio limit, and the largest district should not be allowed to contain 10% more people than the smallest district.
I like that and it would probably work better than suing over a gerrymandered map only for the courts to uphold the crazy district, exactly what happened with the Texas 2nd Congressional District map.
Honestly with our current level of technology, a more direct democracy approach like a popular vote representation based on stance alignment would probably work better. For example, Average Joe would optionally select a party and then vote on policies, and the representatives would have selected their policies to align with constituents. Policies and candidates on ballot would be chosen through a regular primary, so each party might have separate policies on the ballot. Independents could select a mix of each and get automatically assigned a politician.
I bet the GOP wouldn't even oppose it because they love forcing people to commit to a party.
It does. Armed peaceful protesters don't get hassled by the police. These are armed peaceful protesters and they were not hassled. It worked for the black panthers. Cops only brutalize the weak.
Armed peaceful protesters don't get hassled by the police.
There were quite a few shoot outs between panthers and cops, no? Some even argue that the increasing use of "swat" was, in part, because of black panthers.
Again, I'm not speaking out against armed groups, but it seems a bit romantized to say "armed protesters don't get hasseled"..
The INTENT of the second amendment was protect the states' militias from being disarmed by the feds. So that enslavers like Washington could rest assured that his slave state of Virginia wouldn't be liberated by the feds
No it wasn't. The second amendment was written to protect tyrannical bullshit. The slaveowners wanted to make sure the federal government couldn't disarm their state-owned militias
You just posted a federalist society goon. He's one of the people that worked on the great American project to make abortion illegal, and the president a king. I mean, you're trying to prove your point by posting the arguments of an extreme right wing lawyer https://fedsoc.org/contributors/stephen-halbrook
The text of the second amendment is pretty clearly talking about militias, and the history shows the same. The individualist interpretation is very recent, and Heller was a shitty decision written by the most corrupt supreme coirt justice. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2020/10/why-heller-is-such-bad-history
I'm not anti-gun. I respect the fuck out of the people in OP, who are doing what they can to stay safe. I wouldn't discourage them from doing so. but I hate right wing propaganda
To my knowledge, the link I provided wasn't a treatise on individual ownership or saying that it wasn't about militias. It was a direct rebuttal to the idea that the 2nd amendment was proposed to protect slavery.
I was unaware of Halbrook's associations, so thank you for bringing that to my attention. However, even a broken clock is right twice a day. If you'd like to change my mind about this, I'd like to see a direct rebuttal of the facts and arguments presented.
I'm arguing against the idea that the second amendment was designed to protect individuals against tyrannical government
I didn't say it was specifically/exclusively to protect slavery. I didn't say anything about slave rebellions. The constitution was all about balancing the power of wealthy landed slaveholders of the south with the wealthy landed urbanites of the north. Ensuring state militias was one element of that balancing act.
Pretending the second amendment was written to protect against tyrannical governments is ahistorical right wing propaganda. * Unless you view it as one sovereign being protected from the tyranny of another. Eg Virginia is protected from the tyranny of Pennsylvania or vis versa
If you want to read a rebuttal of halbrooks legal theory, read the Heller dissents
Okay. But, I didn't say anything about tyrannical governments, either. Only that the 2nd amendment didn't seem to be driven by any sort of slave related anything, per the history presented in the link I read.
Every single protest should have an armed contingent in America. That is the only way cops will take you seriously, but make sure you dot the i's and cross the t's, because your permits better be current.
My point exactly. If you're going to do something with weapons on display in France because of the police, the police are only going to take that as a provocation. There'd be a fire fight.
The police are an arm of the state formed specifically for the purpose of maintaining a societies class structure because the laws they enforce are dictated by that societies ruling class. French and Danish cops absolutely will do whatever the state tells them because its their job, they are law enforcers not law interpreters. One day shit will go down hill for the French and Danish ruling class and when that happens they will use their law enforcers to maintain their standard of living which is to say their positions of power and wealth. This is very normal and becomes quite clear when you learn the history of labor and civil rights movements all over the world.
It stopped the cops from entering a school while someone slaughtered 19 kids and 2 adults and that was just 1 person with a gun. So I'd say this would.
It's okay quality, but I did have to fix the rattle of the sheath. Just ripped one of the faces off a piece of cardboard, and then rolled it up and shoved it in the sheath. Now the cane doesn't rattle at all when you shake it, but it still draws smoothly.
Honestly, any of my solid canes would make a great weapon, but people never realize it, so the sword cane is mostly for the intimidation option.
Almost anyone can recognize a sword as a weapon, even if I could ruin your day just as much with a wooden hook cane.
To be fair, the difference between a hook cane and sword cane is one can cause bruising up to a concussion, with a low chance of broken bones. While the other creates a sequel to Highlander. So your day might be ruined by one; the other makes sure there is only one.
lol I'm not describing myself here, I'm just a fish with no meat.
It's just been (oddly, I think) a recurring thing that multiple friends have done at ren faires (and costume parties). I know at least 3 people who have done the concealed boob sword thing, and plenty of extras who opted for bottles of hard alcohol instead.
Here are the current Dallas ordinances on feeding the homeless. It looks like it's legal if you notify the city 24+ hours in advance and abide by certain food safety and hygiene measures. Still seems pretty onerous to me
ITT: people who don't understand that if the article takes place in a specific geographical region, then general comments about said article are also referring to the same geographical region.
There might be an issue with training, but the real problem is accountability. Cops in the USA can get away with a lot, up to and including murder. If police were punished for abusing their power, then it would happen much less often.
It is basic political science theory that the role of police is to do violence against members of a state on behalf of that state. That is their only fundamental role that can't be done by anyone else. Everything else that cops do is a mixture of PR on one hand and misappropriated power on the other. Whatever you think your cops are doing for you could be done better by an organization that doesn't exist to push your shit in.
It's a crime in Dallas to help homeless people?
Yeah, it's what Jesus would want, didn't you know?
Supply-side Jesus is the worst Jesus.
For the uninitiated: https://www.beliefnet.com/news/2003/09/the-gospel-of-supply-side-jesus.aspx
That last line is truly icing on the cake.
It's generally not allowed to create an ad hoc aid group. It's bullshit.
The "reasoning" is the are no permits/ food safety licenses, etc.
But obviously that's bullshit given the alternatives.
We live in a world where I can see someone doing this in an effort to poison a bunch of homeless people. Of course that's not what is happening here but it's been at yhe back of my mind lately.
You know you're on the wrong side of history when you make it illegal to give to those most in need.
And have to be visibly armed to stop the cops from harassing you for doing so.
And people are banning books.
No, those people are on the right side
And claiming to be a devout Christian while making these laws is ludicrous.
Yeah, this definitely is one of the more ludicrous things Christians have done. The crusades and the child molestation I was okay with, the inquisition just sounds like an awesome time for everyone, and shoving your religion down the throat of everyone else is just what you do sometimes when you feel you're right. But making laws against feeding homeless people really makes me wonder if maybe Christians are a bit wrong sometimes.
Srcastaball game is in session
The black panther method, 10 outta 10
Yep. This is it.
And that’s a factor in generating early gun control laws, black people exercising their rights.
As a 2A liberal, I LOVE this. Black Panthers did it right, don't change what works!
Fun fact: California's anti-gun culture was born out of racism and fear of the Black Panthers.
Ronald fucking Reagan started the anti-gun movement to disarm black people
And then continued it federally with bans on assault weapons and magazines over a certain capacity after someone tried to assassinate him.
I say we should bring back the Reagan approach on gun control.
You mean shooting presidents? That's kinda like a tradition in the one country. In other places it's more normal for US sponsored coups.
Sure, it can't be that some people are more reasonable and don't like in a western.
No. Sadly, it can't. It's the racism. It's always the racism.
It's an uncanny irony to me when I hear something like "not everything has to be about race" when, at least from the perspective of a non-white, everything in society really does have an unavoidable racial asterisk that we really wish wasn't there. Racism is a fixed worldwide phenomenon that we have no choice but to acknowledge at this point. It impacts everything.
Well, you have no choice but to acknowledge it. I'm perfectly capable of pretending it doesn't exist because it doesn't negatively affect me.
(That's sarcasm, if it wasn't clear. I hate that there are people genuinely living by that maxim.)
You love it? You don't look at this and think "This can't possibly be how a reasonable society works"?
When it stops being illegal to help vulnerable people, I'll stop cheering for folks who open carry firearms to deter cops that might otherwise try to stop them.
Of course most of us don't love it. A lot of us live in places where, due to concepts like gerrymandering, we have no political choice, so people have to resort to stuff like this. We love that people are fighting back, not that it has to be this way.
Yeah, moving somewhere else isn't an option, but pow pow bang bang shooty shooty sure is!
Nobody is gonna stop you if you want to help homeless people move to a state that doesnt actively hate them
It isn't how reasonable society works. It is how OUR society works. Can't play by the rules of another game you wish you were playing, you will lose every time.
Exactly how a gun nut would think.
Not everyone agrees the cops should do whatever they want and sorting it out in court later is the way
Not with cops in US from what i heard. No chance.
Well that guy stood on Floyd's neck is doing life, but someone really shoulda kicked that cop in the jaw.
But look at what it took. It was not the protests that did anything, that has been tried for decades, it was the riots.
The tools of oppressors can't be used to stop oppression. --pdf
That's like saying the tolerant can't be intolerant of the intolerant, when in fact they have to be.
And it becomes even more viable when you consider that Popper’s idea is actually based off of a social contract.
Essentially, tolerance is based on a social contract to be tolerant to each other. If someone is being intolerant, they are explicitly and intentionally removing themselves from the contract. Ergo, they no longer fall under protections, and people can then be intolerant of their intolerance.
How people don't understand this concept is incredible to me.
Pick One, possibly two.
There will of course be some who haven't considered this perspective and some who disagree.
I'd put money, however, on the vast majority arguing in favour of tolerating intolerance are the people this concept is talking about.
The actively intolerant using the tolerance of others to enact further intolerance.
Guns have been the tools of the revolutionary too.
Of course they can, that's dumb.
If we lived in a reasonable society, there'd be no need to deter the police.
And the key to getting to a reasonable society is for everybody to wear guns.
what reasonable society
One that uses government funds to feed and house the homeless instead of using the police to punish them for being homeless and anyone who tries to help.
so not this one
That is correct.
Where are you getting reasonable society from lmao
Its only crazy if you don't want to look at why they're doing it square in the eye. Please don't get me wrong, I wouldn't judge anyone doing it, presuming it does apply a little you yourself. I could be wrong of course. The truth is very, very ugly and not something anyone would want to be true.
Despite their claims, the problem was never the cost to the government of feeding the homeless, as can be seen. The reason the police do this is that wage slaves won't be forced back into the worst, most poorly paid jobs we can find if they're not facing death by starvation.
It was the same in the UK, back when they made feeding the homeless illegal and the penalty being being homeless OR without a job for 3 days was being sent to the workhouse where you might well be worked to death.
Its the same thing, centuries apart.
That is the role of the state and capitalists but that is not what is on the mind of an abusive cop. They believe the bullshit.
Oh for sure, I imagine cops are utterly oblivious to it all
I had^1^ a friend in middle school who shared my name. We'd hang out together all the time and play Super Mario Bros 3 and ride our bikes all over and shit. Dude was chill. Then he went into the army, came out, and become a cop in Dallas PD.
^1^Had.
Damn, giving food and clothes is a crime.
It's food serving legislation being taken too far. The clothes I think are fine, but since they're not inspected by the health department like a restaurant the government can technically shut it down which is complete bullshit.
No, the Good Samaritan Act says free food doesn't have to be inspected as long as it's given "in good faith apparently wholesome food or apparently fit grocery products to a nonprofit organization for ultimate distribution to needy individuals"
https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2020/08/13/good-samaritan-act-provides-liability-protection-food-donations
You better run and tell all the cities then, because they don't care.
So if I buy the food let's say 100 burgers from a fast food joint. That would be ok right?
Anecdotally, I don't think so. I used to do some work with a place that did a lot of charity work and would get together bi-weekly to talk about travel and have a banquet. The banquet was always prepared and served in accordance with the law, and there were often tons of leftovers. So we would give the leftovers to the homeless. The health department fined us because we weren't allowed to serve food outside of our establishment.
That’s what the to-go bags are for.
When I was living on the streets of Boston, one day a random dude showed up giving out McDonalds cheeseburgers. Didn’t look very official. He just rolled up with a big bag and started giving them out.
Maybe I'll go out and do this today in LA
The double cheeseburgers differ from the McDouble only in that the McDouble has one more slice of cheese.
The double cheeseburgers are also buy one, get one for $1. Here in denver that means $4.50 for two of them.
Probably the most bang for your buck if they’ve got the same deal going there.
Hell yeah, it's embarrassing but I did already know this, lol. Double cheese for life. Also, Denver for life, I'm from Colorado originally :)
Did you have some kind of serve safe license that was limited? I wonder why the rules were different than a restaurant letting people take leftovers home.
Were you guys handing out huge trays of food like after thanksgiving or a party, like “who wants this half a turkey in these ziplock bags”, or was it more like a bunch of to go containers handed out?
Seems like the seal of government approval on a person’s ability to handle food safety should apply equally to serving in the restaurant and to prepping food for serving outside that building. Right? Just too complex to have it separated out like that.
Package the leftovers into "meals" (perhaps "family meals"). Have your people order those "meals" through Doordash.
Your people can then (optionally) sign into their Dasher accounts to make those deliveries.
Pretty sure its not, this is just more bullshit lemmy propaganda.
Its not a crime to feed homeless people. They say that because they want to cause division in the US and anger against the government.
Look up how many times "Food Not Bombs" gets arrested for feeding the homeless.
More like look up what OP says and realize its bullshit. Lemmy has become so disappointing with all the blind acceptance of this kind of nonsense.
So this video is manufactured “bullshit”, I assume.
Show me the law saying feeding homeless people is a crime
This article talks about the ordinance. Yes, you can feed them in specific situations and places. Still, you can’t tell me it isn’t making it intentionally hard to do.
Pretty big assumption that all the governments in the many cities with laws like this are evil people coordinating efforts to starve homeless people.
Fact checking is free.
Like the fact that that headline is sensational and wrong? Its not illegal to feed homeless people in those cities, the city governments just require people to get permits and do it in a safe way.
Texas boggles my mind because it's such a blue state with some of the deepest red politicians running the place.
G-G-G-G-Gerrymandering!
Nice
Congressional districts should have a perimiter-area ratio limit, and the largest district should not be allowed to contain 10% more people than the smallest district.
I like that and it would probably work better than suing over a gerrymandered map only for the courts to uphold the crazy district, exactly what happened with the Texas 2nd Congressional District map.
Honestly with our current level of technology, a more direct democracy approach like a popular vote representation based on stance alignment would probably work better. For example, Average Joe would optionally select a party and then vote on policies, and the representatives would have selected their policies to align with constituents. Policies and candidates on ballot would be chosen through a regular primary, so each party might have separate policies on the ballot. Independents could select a mix of each and get automatically assigned a politician.
I bet the GOP wouldn't even oppose it because they love forcing people to commit to a party.
A whole lot of empty land seems to have really important votes, since theirs seems to count for more than mine.
They passed a law that every ceo gets an axtra vote for every ear of corn grown on Texas soil
The way americans look at texas is the way the world looks at amerikkka
Now I understand why americans need guns.
Too bad this is an extremely rare use case, but yes this is exactly the INTENT of the second amendment.
Does it actually work? Because I fear that it doesn't and just gives cops/the state even more excuses to further militarize police in the long teem.
I'm not antigun, but this seems like an arms race you can't win.
It does. Armed peaceful protesters don't get hassled by the police. These are armed peaceful protesters and they were not hassled. It worked for the black panthers. Cops only brutalize the weak.
Well I'm not sure it worked that well for Fred Hampton or the MOVE guys.
There's always a danger of escalation, and the boys in blue have no upper limit.
There were quite a few shoot outs between panthers and cops, no? Some even argue that the increasing use of "swat" was, in part, because of black panthers.
Again, I'm not speaking out against armed groups, but it seems a bit romantized to say "armed protesters don't get hasseled"..
I'm pretty sure there are some statistics on the mental profiles of cops the people who end up becoming them being people who enjoy power.
And this is a failure of the system. The failure to identify and reject these sick fucks.
Failure of the system, or working exactly how it was intended?
lol okay
Well if you think about it the population has the numbers, so do the math
The vast majority is not willing to die in armed struggle against the state..
More will be willing once they realize that the state will kill them whether they support it or not.
The INTENT of the second amendment was protect the states' militias from being disarmed by the feds. So that enslavers like Washington could rest assured that his slave state of Virginia wouldn't be liberated by the feds
I mean, that was always the point.
To fight tyrannical bullshit.
It's just that purist assholes don't want any regulation whatsoever - so that anyone, anyone can get a gun. And welp.... the tragic bullshit happens.
I'm not pro-gun or anti-gun. I'm pro-common-sense.
No it wasn't. The second amendment was written to protect tyrannical bullshit. The slaveowners wanted to make sure the federal government couldn't disarm their state-owned militias
Never heard the claim before. Looked into it, and I don't think that's the case.
https://www.law.georgetown.edu/public-policy-journal/wp-content/uploads/sites/23/2022/09/GT-GLPP220045.pdf#6
lol you fell for the obvious bait. look at post history
I took a look at their comment history. They don't seem like a troll to me. Maybe a bit further left than myself, but that's not always a bad thing.
You just posted a federalist society goon. He's one of the people that worked on the great American project to make abortion illegal, and the president a king. I mean, you're trying to prove your point by posting the arguments of an extreme right wing lawyer https://fedsoc.org/contributors/stephen-halbrook
The text of the second amendment is pretty clearly talking about militias, and the history shows the same. The individualist interpretation is very recent, and Heller was a shitty decision written by the most corrupt supreme coirt justice. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2020/10/why-heller-is-such-bad-history
I'm not anti-gun. I respect the fuck out of the people in OP, who are doing what they can to stay safe. I wouldn't discourage them from doing so. but I hate right wing propaganda
I'm unsure what you're arguing against.
To my knowledge, the link I provided wasn't a treatise on individual ownership or saying that it wasn't about militias. It was a direct rebuttal to the idea that the 2nd amendment was proposed to protect slavery.
I was unaware of Halbrook's associations, so thank you for bringing that to my attention. However, even a broken clock is right twice a day. If you'd like to change my mind about this, I'd like to see a direct rebuttal of the facts and arguments presented.
I'm arguing against the idea that the second amendment was designed to protect individuals against tyrannical government
I didn't say it was specifically/exclusively to protect slavery. I didn't say anything about slave rebellions. The constitution was all about balancing the power of wealthy landed slaveholders of the south with the wealthy landed urbanites of the north. Ensuring state militias was one element of that balancing act.
Pretending the second amendment was written to protect against tyrannical governments is ahistorical right wing propaganda. * Unless you view it as one sovereign being protected from the tyranny of another. Eg Virginia is protected from the tyranny of Pennsylvania or vis versa
If you want to read a rebuttal of halbrooks legal theory, read the Heller dissents
Okay. But, I didn't say anything about tyrannical governments, either. Only that the 2nd amendment didn't seem to be driven by any sort of slave related anything, per the history presented in the link I read.
lol! shut up.
Sorry to trigger you with history
lol ok trooller.
I hate that this is true.
Every single protest should have an armed contingent in America. That is the only way cops will take you seriously, but make sure you dot the i's and cross the t's, because your permits better be current.
as long as they're well regulated, I'm 100% for this.
If only that were a thing in this country.
This gives the cops license to start slaughtering protestors. They're allowed to kill if they have a reason to fear for their safety.
No, it doesn't.
But it does force them to reconsider their bullying instincts.
Nope. Cops are bullies and cowards by nature. They love to swing their dicks around unarmed, peaceful protesters.
Any sign of any possible resistance or discomfort and they'll suddenly turn into pillars of restraint and caution.
IE look at all the armed Nazi protests, or uvlade or any other of the myriad of examples.
There's a reason why cops are polite at the Nazi protests, and it isn't because the protesters are armed.
Are you ok over there? Do you need something? Like healthcare and a social state?
Does being armed actually deter cops in Texas? In my home country being armed is more likely to alert cops
*American cops.
Everything you just said would not be true of, for example, Danish cops. Or French cops, for that matter.
My point exactly. If you're going to do something with weapons on display in France because of the police, the police are only going to take that as a provocation. There'd be a fire fight.
If there was one or two, sure, but 200+?
Have you ever seen what a protest looks like in Paris?
Judging by another reply, ey meant that French cops will engage in a fight rather than chicken out. That doesn't make them the good guys, of course
less true, yes. not true? idk
The police are an arm of the state formed specifically for the purpose of maintaining a societies class structure because the laws they enforce are dictated by that societies ruling class. French and Danish cops absolutely will do whatever the state tells them because its their job, they are law enforcers not law interpreters. One day shit will go down hill for the French and Danish ruling class and when that happens they will use their law enforcers to maintain their standard of living which is to say their positions of power and wealth. This is very normal and becomes quite clear when you learn the history of labor and civil rights movements all over the world.
France maybe, but you clearly don't know the first thing about Denmark.
It stopped the cops from entering a school while someone slaughtered 19 kids and 2 adults and that was just 1 person with a gun. So I'd say this would.
Have you heard about Uvalde?
Cops much prefer to beat up their unarmed wife than an armed group.
Don't forget about the children.
But only unarmed ones
Cops only punch down
The thing is, those guns cause pain and injury by ejecting small pieces of metal so fast they go right through you.
That pain and injury is a deterrence, yes. Even in Texas.
A dozen armed people attract cops.
A couple hundred armed people repel cops.
A single armed guy in a Texas school will attract cops at a medium distance but repel them at a short distance.
And that's how you properly fuck, fuck, fuck the police.
Lol we are so fucked.
Yes I have. It's called a sword cane. I happen to have some knee damage, and if I play up my limp a bit, no one even looks twice at my cane.
You get it from Cold Steel?
I did, something like 15 years back.
It's okay quality, but I did have to fix the rattle of the sheath. Just ripped one of the faces off a piece of cardboard, and then rolled it up and shoved it in the sheath. Now the cane doesn't rattle at all when you shake it, but it still draws smoothly.
Honestly, any of my solid canes would make a great weapon, but people never realize it, so the sword cane is mostly for the intimidation option.
Almost anyone can recognize a sword as a weapon, even if I could ruin your day just as much with a wooden hook cane.
To be fair, the difference between a hook cane and sword cane is one can cause bruising up to a concussion, with a low chance of broken bones. While the other creates a sequel to Highlander. So your day might be ruined by one; the other makes sure there is only one.
What sort of permit is needed for a sword cane?
none, if nobody knows the sword is in there!
Big dresses and a lotta cleavage means you got no idea who's got a concealed sword at a ren faire.
lol I'm not describing myself here, I'm just a fish with no meat.
It's just been (oddly, I think) a recurring thing that multiple friends have done at ren faires (and costume parties). I know at least 3 people who have done the concealed boob sword thing, and plenty of extras who opted for bottles of hard alcohol instead.
Is that a sword in your pants, or are you just happy to see me?
Oh, no, that thing was six inches so it's definitely the sword you're seeing.
waves hand These aren't the droids you're looking for.
I have a very long butt-crack.
More of this, please
They could skip the middle step and just arm the homeless
Link to tweet: https://x.com/FordFischer/status/1203485521151959040
2019 sounds like so far in the past…
Texas must have fixed those stupids rules? Maybe they have fixed the houses crisis…
Please I really could use some hope right now
Here are the current Dallas ordinances on feeding the homeless. It looks like it's legal if you notify the city 24+ hours in advance and abide by certain food safety and hygiene measures. Still seems pretty onerous to me
Gotta love how it's illegal to help your community
Just wait to see what those ass clowns have planned if they win the presidency
A SWWOORD MY LIEGE?!!
Work with what you got
I got a fully loaded tree branch and pretty killer smile.
Ironically speaking to kings.
Armed to deter cops actually sounds like a viable plan in Texas after what we saw at Uvalde
SWORDS!!
♥️
Highlander homeless ppl ... I can kinda see that, yes
"Swords"
Dual-wielding for justice!
ITT: Americans generalizing about all cops, even in countries where they have to be trained properly. It's a form of 'False Consensus'
ITT: people who don't understand that if the article takes place in a specific geographical region, then general comments about said article are also referring to the same geographical region.
Cops are all the same. Source: I ain't American.
There might be an issue with training, but the real problem is accountability. Cops in the USA can get away with a lot, up to and including murder. If police were punished for abusing their power, then it would happen much less often.
police reflect the ideals of those in power 🐷 🐷 🐷
It is basic political science theory that the role of police is to do violence against members of a state on behalf of that state. That is their only fundamental role that can't be done by anyone else. Everything else that cops do is a mixture of PR on one hand and misappropriated power on the other. Whatever you think your cops are doing for you could be done better by an organization that doesn't exist to push your shit in.