We Need the Police Because...

[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?

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]

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]

"Ye Do Err, Not Knowing the Scriptures"

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]

What Lies Beneath Our Breaths

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