Your Wonkette has been following the long journey of gun-lovin’, Gandhi-quotin’ Adam Kokesh as he takes on the federal tyranny that will not leave him alone to smoke dope and fire off his shootin’ irons in complete freedom. Which is what Gandhi would have wanted for him, presumably because as his life ebbed away Gandhi’s final thought was “If only I had been openly carrying a gun…”
I'm having a little trouble with the helicopters, because why? Kinda blows the surprise. They might have subcontracted the SWAT team. (It's tough to understand why the US Park Police would need their own).
I read earlier that he was charged with Sched 1 and 2 drugs. I assumed the Sched 1 was weed, but are mushrooms Sched 1?
I kind of agree with you, but at the same time I'm a little disturbed by the tendency of the police forces to turn things into mini-military ops. I mean, admittedly this time they got the address right, but they don't always manage that.
Also, and admitting that Kokesh has turned into a loose cannon, all he actually <i>did</i> was have a video taken of him illegally loading a shotgun within the DC limits. I guess I think they could have tried something a little less overwhelming first.
Many years ago, like &#039;74 or &#039;75, I was having dinner in a restaurant in SF, and a couple of guys at the next table were discussing politics loudly enough that I could hear them. One of them advanced the idea that &quot;If we had to choose between anarchy and dictatorship, you know we&#039;d choose dictatorship&quot;, and his interlocutor eventually agreed.
This overheard conversation has bothered me for nearly forty years, because it exposes a false dichotomy -- that the choice is between anarchy and dictatorship. In the real world, the differences are not so abrupt -- they are more like relative instability versus relative stability. Or, if you prefer, insecurity versus security.
But, any time the question arises, it&#039;s worth remembering that a choice for security, or stability, is an incremental choice in the direction of dictatorship.
In this particular case, they nabbed a jackass, and didn&#039;t randomly kill anybody in the process, so that&#039;s good. And they got the address right.
My problem with the military-style assaults is when they don&#039;t get the address right, or when they end up killing bystanders. I&#039;m afraid that the law-enforcement folks have fallen completely into force-protection mode. That is, in all cases, the primary goal is to insure maximum safety to the LEOs. Damage to suspects or bystanders is of secondary importance. This trend worries me.
A few years ago we had some remodeling done in our basement. The carpenter used a &quot;powder activated&quot; nail gun to shoot nails through the 2x4s and into the concrete floor. I&#039;m no expert, but the &quot;powder&quot; cartridge looked about the size of a .22. So it&#039;s no surprise a bullet can go through wood, walls, aluminum, then on to bones, lungs, etc.
A few years ago a friend of mine had a boarder who turned out to be pretty creepy and a loser and was trying to entice an underaged girl into a relationship with him over the internetz. The house was surrounded by a full SWAT team at like 5AM, with assault rifles and grenades. A no-knock house invasion followed and if the dogs hadn&#039;t been chihuahuas, they&#039;d be dead for sure. All to arrest this pathetic loser.
As this is the uncorroborated testimony of a paranoid, delusional wingnut and shameless liar, possibly under the influence of mushrooms, I think I&#039;m gonna hold off on reaching any conclusions for the time being.
Point is it goes back a long way before 2009. If your point was that the Oakland shooting was merely indicative of the type of threat that police face that motivates their use of overwhelming force, I&#039;ll agree completely, before pointing out that a desire to avoid that kind of arms race is precisely why most UK cops do not routinely carry guns. Of course, the UK does not have as many guns as people, and I know if I was a cop over here I&#039;d certainly not be interested in unilaterally disarming.
They have simply had enough of his crap - and to other people&#039;s points, he probably has an arsenal in whatever house/bunker/compound he lives in. If I were law enforcement I think I would have made the same decision.
I&#039;m having a little trouble with the helicopters, because why? Kinda blows the surprise. They might have subcontracted the SWAT team. (It&#039;s tough to understand why the US Park Police would need their own).
I read earlier that he was charged with Sched 1 and 2 drugs. I assumed the Sched 1 was weed, but are mushrooms Sched 1?
I kind of agree with you, but at the same time I&#039;m a little disturbed by the tendency of the police forces to turn things into mini-military ops. I mean, admittedly this time they got the address right, but they don&#039;t always manage that.
Also, and admitting that Kokesh has turned into a loose cannon, all he actually <i>did</i> was have a video taken of him illegally loading a shotgun within the DC limits. I guess I think they could have tried something a little less overwhelming first.
Yes,
Many years ago, like &#039;74 or &#039;75, I was having dinner in a restaurant in SF, and a couple of guys at the next table were discussing politics loudly enough that I could hear them. One of them advanced the idea that &quot;If we had to choose between anarchy and dictatorship, you know we&#039;d choose dictatorship&quot;, and his interlocutor eventually agreed.
This overheard conversation has bothered me for nearly forty years, because it exposes a false dichotomy -- that the choice is between anarchy and dictatorship. In the real world, the differences are not so abrupt -- they are more like relative instability versus relative stability. Or, if you prefer, insecurity versus security.
But, any time the question arises, it&#039;s worth remembering that a choice for security, or stability, is an incremental choice in the direction of dictatorship.
In this particular case, they nabbed a jackass, and didn&#039;t randomly kill anybody in the process, so that&#039;s good. And they got the address right.
My problem with the military-style assaults is when they don&#039;t get the address right, or when they end up killing bystanders. I&#039;m afraid that the law-enforcement folks have fallen completely into force-protection mode. That is, in all cases, the primary goal is to insure maximum safety to the LEOs. Damage to suspects or bystanders is of secondary importance. This trend worries me.
Outside of movies, bullets go through cars too.
A few years ago we had some remodeling done in our basement. The carpenter used a &quot;powder activated&quot; nail gun to shoot nails through the 2x4s and into the concrete floor. I&#039;m no expert, but the &quot;powder&quot; cartridge looked about the size of a .22. So it&#039;s no surprise a bullet can go through wood, walls, aluminum, then on to bones, lungs, etc.
Not for a very long life, at any rate.
A few years ago a friend of mine had a boarder who turned out to be pretty creepy and a loser and was trying to entice an underaged girl into a relationship with him over the internetz. The house was surrounded by a full SWAT team at like 5AM, with assault rifles and grenades. A no-knock house invasion followed and if the dogs hadn&#039;t been chihuahuas, they&#039;d be dead for sure. All to arrest this pathetic loser.
As this is the uncorroborated testimony of a paranoid, delusional wingnut and shameless liar, possibly under the influence of mushrooms, I think I&#039;m gonna hold off on reaching any conclusions for the time being.
I&#039;d cram a potato into the tailpipe of his car (Hummer, likely as not), sit back, and wait. Vastly safer than entering the freaking house.
Certainly worked for Zimmerman.
Couple of Stinger missiles, anti-tank weapons, and heavy-caliber automatic weapons, minimum. A bit much for concealed carry.
Or a <a href="http:\/\/nextimpulsesports.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/06\/mike.png" target="_blank">Red Sox uniform. </a>
The very best part of this whole story, by far, is that with a drug conviction, he won&#039;t be allowed to own or carry any guns. At all.
The only thing that stops bad drug-addled, paranoid, heavily armed douchebags is...
Point is it goes back a long way before 2009. If your point was that the Oakland shooting was merely indicative of the type of threat that police face that motivates their use of overwhelming force, I&#039;ll agree completely, before pointing out that a desire to avoid that kind of arms race is precisely why most UK cops do not routinely carry guns. Of course, the UK does not have as many guns as people, and I know if I was a cop over here I&#039;d certainly not be interested in unilaterally disarming.
They have simply had enough of his crap - and to other people&#039;s points, he probably has an arsenal in whatever house/bunker/compound he lives in. If I were law enforcement I think I would have made the same decision.