Illinois trying to force vigilantism on public so they can use the inevitable problems as "proof" citizens need to be disarmed.
Post Reply   Forum

Posted by: LateForLunch ®

10/25/2022, 13:08:30

Author Profile Mail author Edit

Because of the high level of ineptitude and stupidity in the ranks of the ACFs it's tempting to assume that is always the case. But when it comes to the plan of eliminating effective public law enforcement and compelling people to take the law into their own hands (forcing vigilantism on the public again), there is a very shrewd, well-thought-out telesis at work. 

See, before about 1850 in the USA, most daily law enforcement, especially outside large cities, was mostly the responsibility of "local jurisdictions" aka towns with a sheriff or marshal who mobilized the populations to serve as a posse or by hiring private armed security men. Governments finally started establishing public police forces when the public (businesses) got tired of having to perform their own law enforcement duties. 

The theory was that public law enforcement officers could be more impartial (less corrupt), more-readily available and more effective at enforcing the law because they did it for a living - leaving the rest of the public workforce to focus on whatever they did as their primary vocation. 

By eliminating/reducing public law enforcement officers, a situation will be created where we will all be taking a huge evolutionary step backward as a society/culture - i.e., we will be REGRESSING to a more-savage state. 

The reason why this is part of a larger Plan (anti-conservative fanaticism) is that forcing non-professionals to go back to protecting themselves creates a situation where there will inevitably be a large number of problems inherent to the fact that the ordinary people doing enforcement will not be able to do it as efficiently as trained, professional officers.

The reason the ACFs want to reduce/eliminate public law enforcement and compel non-professionals to protect themselves is to create serious problems which may then be used as a basis for political pressure from the population to BAN FIREARMS in the general public "for safety reasons". 

In essence, the plan is:
1) Stop public law enforcement
2) Force the public to protect themselves against criminals  
    (vigilantism)
3) ACF politicians then focus on the inevitable problems which arise (bad shootings, bystander casualties, etc) as pretext for large-scale firearms banning in the general public "for safety reasons". 

I can already hear the shrill whining from AFCs about "the rise of vigilantism" (caused by the 'Crats themselves denying adequate professional law enforcement to the public) and how "the public must be protected" from "irresponsible armed groups roaming the streets," by, "banning private gun ownership/use". Voila!! 



This is a cold, calculating effort to force the public into a situation where they feel they have no choice but to protect themselves, then using the problems which arise from that as pretext for demanding an end to the Second Amendment in order to "protect the public". Brilliant. 

A devious plan directly drawn from the mind of Satan and the pocketbook of George Soros, et al. 

This is why political officials cannot be permitted to continue to deprive the U.S. population of reliable, effective public law enforcement.

 In this scenario, vigilantism is the best friend 2A enemies have ever had. 






Modified by LateForLunch at Tue, Oct 25, 2022, 13:12:04


Post Reply | Recommend | Alert View All   Previous | Next | Current page
ACF? What's that.
Re: Illinois trying to force vigilantism on public so they can use the inevitable problems as "proof" citizens need to be disarmed. -- LateForLunch Post Reply Top of thread Forum

Posted by: DeeDee ®

10/28/2022, 17:04:25

Author Profile Mail author Edit








Post Reply | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
A.C.F. = Anti-Conservative Fanatic
Re: ACF? What's that. -- DeeDee Post Reply Top of thread Forum

Posted by: LateForLunch ®

10/28/2022, 21:54:42

Author Profile Mail author Edit
The only operative definition of self-described "liberals" these days. The only thing which remains consistent. 







Post Reply | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
You nailed it--exactly! That's the game plan
Re: Illinois trying to force vigilantism on public so they can use the inevitable problems as "proof" citizens need to be disarmed. -- LateForLunch Post Reply Top of thread Forum

Posted by: DeeDee ®

10/28/2022, 17:01:06

Author Profile Mail author Edit








Post Reply | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
"police won’t be able to remove someone for trespassing on private property"
Re: Illinois trying to force vigilantism on public so they can use the inevitable problems as "proof" citizens need to be disarmed. -- LateForLunch Post Reply Top of thread Forum

Posted by: Russ Walden ®

10/28/2022, 15:00:15

Author Profile Mail author Edit
LFL --

This is the item that gives weight to your concern.

" Keith Pekau, mayor of Orland Park and Republican nominee for Congress
in the 6th Congressional District, has specifically warned the measure
would forbid police from doing anything more than issuing a ticket to a
trespasser, even if the trespasser has gone so far as to take up
residence in a back yard shed and refuses to leave."

Yeah, but, what if it's my living room instead.  Are the police simply going to give him a ticket and depart?  Sounds like it to me.

Regards,
Russ







Post Reply | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Perfect example!! Thanks, Primo!
Re: "police won’t be able to remove someone for trespassing on private property" -- Russ Walden Post Reply Top of thread Forum

Posted by: LateForLunch ®

10/29/2022, 02:21:18

Author Profile Mail author Edit
Levity allowed in how laws are interpreted without narrow (definitive) rulings from judges/justices allows law enforcement officers on the ground to skew the law along their own personal preferences. There are lazy, ideological or otherwise biased LEOs out there who would not hesitate to inflict grievous problems on people for personal reasons (judge them to be "bad people" i.e., political adversaries) by allowing violent criminals to victimize them. 







Post Reply | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
They will end up taking away everything at this point
Re: Illinois trying to force vigilantism on public so they can use the inevitable problems as "proof" citizens need to be disarmed. -- LateForLunch Post Reply Top of thread Forum

Posted by: Ihavenoname ®

10/26/2022, 12:45:08

Author Profile Mail author Edit
So what’s next? They will outlaw utensils, crowbars, lawnmowers, blenders, soap, and other everyday items deemed “dangerous” all in the name of reducing murders. That’s extreme irrational nonsense. 

Criminals don’t care about the law; they’re just happy that it will make their jobs easier with law-abiding citizens chained by the rules. De-powering the police is a terrible idea. Who are you going to call besides 911? Superman? Wolverine? Chuck Norris?

And yes, George Soros (Hobbs’ partner-in-crime) is evil. Too bad he will get away with everything. Crime has been going up everywhere. And our right to defend ourselves has already been taken away.

One councilwoman in Seattle praised looters, saying that “we must help these people, they’re our friends!” I’ve never been so angry before after hearing that. 







Post Reply | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page


Forum     Back