Nah ED-209. You have 10 seconds to comply!!!
edit - didn’t realize how much more gory the remastered version of the scene is
NSFW
Last edited:
Nah ED-209. You have 10 seconds to comply!!!A lethal robocop in every school might be what's needed..
Except the fact that the "Wild West" is mostly a myth, first created by pulp fiction writers and then reinforced by Hollywood. The real history of the west doesn't jibe with our collective John Wayne sense of self-aggrandizement, which is completely entangled in the whole gun fetish thing.Wild west y'all. Best of luck.
You missed the point. It doesn't matter if the "Wild West' is/was mostly a myth. It doesn't mean it can't become a reality, even in today's modern times. The Recent ruling by the Scotus brings us one step closer to just that. If you step back and look at the "pro gun" nutters, that is exactly what they are working towards. It's actually already started.Except the fact that the "Wild West" is mostly a myth, first created by pulp fiction writers and then reinforced by Hollywood. The real history of the west doesn't jibe with our collective John Wayne sense of self-aggrandizement, which is completely entangled in the whole gun fetish thing.
How wild was the Wild West? | Live Science
In reality, the West was a lot tamer than it's often portrayed in popular culture,...
The Wild West of Myth and Reality - Historyplex
In spite of these specific incidents of violence, the lawlessness of the Wild West has been blown out of proportion. Ironically, the myth of the lawless West began before the period was over. Dime novels written in the East in the latter part of the 19th century exaggerated, or simply made up, stories about the crimes and criminals of the West. Hollywood later perpetuated the myth, feeding the public’s desire for excitement and adventure with stories of gunfights in the street and stagecoach robberies. The true story of the Old West is boring by comparison.
Even the whole "big iron on your hip" is completely blown out of propostion:
However, fans of Hollywood westerns may be surprised to learn that many western towns had strict gun ordinances, making it illegal to carry guns in town. People entering the town were required to surrender their firearms to the sheriff. In fact, a story that has come to epitomize the violence of the Wild West involved a conflict over such a law. When Virgil Earp, along with his brothers Morgan and Wyatt and their friend Doc Holliday, confronted five cowboys in the city of Tombstone over carrying firearms in town, violence erupted. This incident became known as the gunfight at the OK corral. Yet it’s interesting to note that even in this most famous gunfight of the violent West, only three people were killed.
Gun Control Is as Old as the Old West | History| Smithsonian Magazine
“People were allowed to own guns, and everyone did own guns [in the West], for the most part,” says Winkler. “Having a firearm to protect yourself in the lawless wilderness from wild animals, hostile native tribes, and outlaws was a wise idea. But when you came into town, you had to either check your guns if you were a visitor or keep your guns at home if you were a resident.”
Could the "Wild West" be a rough and dangerous place and time to exist? Yes, definitely, especially if happened to be where there was either something like the gold rush happening or near the territories where the Native Americans were being pushed off of. But was it anything like the myths and legends portray it? No, definitely not.
I understood the point. I also wanted to point out that the myth of the "Wild West" that so idolized by the gun nutters is actually that, a myth. Unfortunately they're so wrapped up in that false mythos of how guns were treated and used in the past, it rules how they think today. If at no point in US history did the plurality, never mind majority, of Americans walk around armed, why did we just have a ruling saying that based on "history" there shouldn't be any restrictions on anyone walking around armed today? It's because of our distorted view of history based on these false notions.You missed the point. It doesn't matter if the "Wild West' is/was mostly a myth. It doesn't mean it can't become a reality, even in today's modern times. The Recent ruling by the Scotus brings us one step closer to just that. If you step back and look at the "pro gun" nutters, that is exactly what they are working towards. It's actually already started.
I'd say otherwise. To serve and protect. Their job is (among other things) to get shot at before other people do. They're supposed to be our sheepdogs, not wolves.
A thought that almost always crosses my mind whenever I read about police related troubles:
Why can't the police be a branch of the military?
Why not have the same guys willing to lay down lives for the country be the same ones maintaining law and order? A country not only needs protection from external threats but also domestic ones too.
I would argue that domestic threats are more serious in their potential to destabilize a country. All an enemy needs to do is get the different groups in a country fighting each other and while they are busy destroying their own country from the inside out, the enemy enjoys the show and has less planning to do in taking that country down.
I understood the point. I also wanted to point out that the myth of the "Wild West" that so idolized by the gun nutters is actually that, a myth. Unfortunately they're so wrapped up in that false mythos of how guns were treated and used in the past, it rules how they think today. If at no point in US history did the plurality, never mind majority, of Americans walk around armed, why did we just have a ruling saying that based on "history" there shouldn't be any restrictions on anyone walking around armed today? It's because of our distorted view of history based on these false notions.
I'm not talking about martial law. Why keep the police civilian and give them enough power to act like privileged pricks? Why not give the domestic policing to the military who ARE privileged anyway?Because there are very strict rules about deploying military on your general population.
I'm not talking about martial law. Why keep the police civilian and give them enough power to act like privileged pricks? Why not give the domestic policing to the military who ARE privileged anyway?
Historically speaking, has the military abused their power enough for the public to distrust them and not want them around them in their daily lives? Or is it just politicians who don't want to share their power with the military elite?the moment you put the police force under military, it is martial law. if you say you are only going to hire ex military, everyone will say you are militarizing the police.
The military fights enemies abroad, or defends the home from enemies abroad if necessary. The police force protects citizens at home. Two different jobs, two ways to go about it, and ne'er the two shall meet.Historically speaking, has the military abused their power enough for the public to distrust them and not want them around them in their daily lives? Or is it just politicians who don't want to share their power with the military elite?
Historically speaking, has the military abused their power enough for the public to distrust them and not want them around them in their daily lives? Or is it just politicians who don't want to share their power with the military elite?
The military fights enemies abroad, or defends the home from enemies abroad if necessary. The police force protects citizens at home. Two different jobs, two ways to go about it, and ne'er the two shall meet.
Sorry, to clarify, that's the job description. In reality our police force has become militarized, and they see the citizenry as the enemy. This is literally why you do not want a military as your police force.You sure about that?
The role of the police force is to protect property not people.Sorry, to clarify, that's the job description. In reality our police force has become militarized, and they see the citizenry as the enemy. This is literally why you do not want a military as your police force.
Ironically our police forces would do better in most circumstances because they're more disciplined for the most part. It's still the wrong tool for the job, though.
Not the original purpose. It has become that way though, yes.The role of the police force is to protect property not people.
What’s the percentage of active police that are former military? I’d bet quite high. Sure you get the high school bully that gets a badge to further stroke their ego and act like a bigger bully but is really just a sissy like these Uvalde cops.My original intention in mentioning the military for the police job was to propose a solution to the "police is too afraid" problem because I would hope the military has fewer cowards.
Historically speaking, has the military abused their power enough for the public to distrust them and not want them around them in their daily lives? Or is it just politicians who don't want to share their power with the military elite?
Good old Death Valley Days. Narrated by St. Regan.I understood the point. I also wanted to point out that the myth of the "Wild West" that so idolized by the gun nutters is actually that, a myth. Unfortunately they're so wrapped up in that false mythos of how guns were treated and used in the past, it rules how they think today. If at no point in US history did the plurality, never mind majority, of Americans walk around armed, why did we just have a ruling saying that based on "history" there shouldn't be any restrictions on anyone walking around armed today? It's because of our distorted view of history based on these false notions.
Just wait till SCOTUS rules any restrictions unconstitutional.Gun bill passed
"I think that there has always been a fear that women will make things up, that women will try to take revenge on their dating partners through lying about abuse and trying to get these firearm restrictions on them," she says. "And that fear is unfounded. In fact ... a large proportion of people who experience abuse never report it to the courts or law enforcement."