caretaker

The guy went straight to Subway to buy a drink after the shooting, and after shooting Kennedy, Oswald went straight to the Coke machine and bought a drink.
Earlier I noticed that this thread was all about gun control since page 2 and thought I'd colour it up a little.

Octang Frye

Why? That's the single most ridiculous statement I've ever seen on these forums. If it's good enough for the goose...

Octang Frye

Oswald didn't shoot Kennedy.

BenK91

What duties? Shooting unarmed people of color?

When I got pulled over in Wyoming for speeding, the officer had an AR15 in the back of the car along with a shotgun and a Glock strapped to his waist.

What's he expecting to encounter? World War 3? Zombie Apocalypse?

Octang Frye is right. The definition of what an AR15 is cannot be chopped and changed just because the person holding it isn't a civilian.

dakota44

Keep your conspiracy theories off this thread

Octang Frye

It doesn't end well when the state has a monopoly on force. Look at Waco or Ruby Ridge.
Or Watertown.

"Weapons of war" have no place in a police force.

dakota44

Trolling are you? Yeah...police should never be adequately equipped to respond to any threat. They should all just have a billyclub and a whistle. The irony is that if it were not for the massive proliferation of highly lethal weapons in the U.S., the police would not need them quite so much.

dakota44

Again..you are derailing the topic of this thread. I will not participate

BenK91

You've missed the point - what adequate threat requires three (as you're trying to portray) "non-deadly weapons" (because they're in the hands of a 5ft 6 man who got bullied at school)?

kimilseung

Not sure a monopoly of weapons on one side was the issue in these cases, rather the opposite.

Octang Frye

You made the distinction between police and civilians.
I'm saying that that is not a good idea.

If you are for gun control, then you are not against guns, because the guns will be needed to disarm people. So it’s not that you are anti-gun. You’ll need the police’s guns to take away other people’s guns. So you’re very pro-gun; you just believe that only the Government (which is, of course, so reliable, honest, moral and virtuous…) should be allowed to have guns. There is no such thing as gun control. There is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small political elite and their minions.

SultanOfSwing

Hold up though, since when does gun control automatically mean disarmament? I don't think anybody either wants, or expects that.

The above is a really weird way of looking at things, but not entirely unentertaining.

Octang Frye

It's interesting that Boiler, Ben and myself all live in Colorado.
Are we libertarians or just goofy due to lack of oxygen?

SultanOfSwing

The two are not mutually exclusive, dear boy.

BenK91

Very interesting documentary on Netflix at the moment called The Force.

Follows Oakland Police Department through the last few years with the accusations ranging from sexual assault, trafficking, excessive force, abuse of power etc etc.

Sure, you can say it's just one police force... but is it?

Much like the Oakland commissioner has decided - police should by the people, for the people and have a civilian judiciary board capable of holding police accountable for actions. If a patrol officer can't get the job done with a Glock with a minimum of 10+1 then what makes them such a trained expert that they should be carrying an AR15 which is probably 30+1...