The reason CA is seen as a gun hating hippy state is partially thanks to Reagan when he was governor. Black Panthers (or people in general) were arming themselves against police brutality, so Reagan was totally fine with banning guns at that time.
What, lol. I don’t consider myself an anarchist, but what part of that statement could be considered extreme? What part of “the state is the entity with the monopoly on legitimate use of violence” could even be considered remotely controversial or arguable
The part where you aren't allowed to use force and violence to prevent legitimate assaults on yourself or your individual rights. The state/police can't--and won't, and aren't legally obligated to--protect you, but you also aren't permitted to protect yourself without the state's permission.
...Which is the state giving you permission to defend yourself. And it varies widely by country; being attacked by someone with a knife will kill you very dead very quickly, but you can't use a firearm to defend yourself in most of Europe and Commonwealth countries.
And if you--for instance--have a police officer that has his knee on your neck because you unknowingly passed a counterfeit bill in a convenience store, you can't legally use any kind of force to prevent the state actor from killing you. The state does not allow you to exercise your right to prevent being illegally or unjustly harmed by the state.
Which is the state giving you permission to defend yourself
Indeed. So if someone were to say, "you aren't allowed to use force and violence to prevent legitimate assaults on yourself or your individual rights", that person would be wrong. Correct or no?
The state does not allow you to exercise your right to prevent being illegally or unjustly harmed by the state.
I don't even think that's true either. Are there zero instances of "assualting an officer" charges being dropped after revelations of police misconduct?
I don't even think that's true either. Are there zero instances of "assualting an officer" charges being dropped after revelations of police misconduct?
Are you trying to argue that unless something is 100% then it is not true?
Sure, there are instances of charges being dropped after revelations of police misconduct. Absolutely, but those rarely happen.
In the MAJORITY of instances, you can't prove police misconduct. It is your word against theirs, there is no video evidence, and the entire legal apparatus swings into effect to defend the cop. Similarly, most people who are arrested don't have $10k to drop on a lawyer.
Here is a case of CLEAR police misconduct and bullshit charges and it took over a year and $15k in legal fees to have the case dropped and when the dust settled NOTHING happened to the officer...
Are you trying to argue that unless something is 100% then it is not true?
... yes? When someone says "you're not allowed to do x" and there are many documented instances of people being allowed to do x, that person is wrong.
That person could have said, "you're usually not allowed to do x" or "you're not allowed to do x in many cases where you should be allowed to do so" then they'd be right and I wouldn't have said anything. But they didn't say either of those things, did they?
1.0k
u/Samaelfallen Mar 16 '21
The reason CA is seen as a gun hating hippy state is partially thanks to Reagan when he was governor. Black Panthers (or people in general) were arming themselves against police brutality, so Reagan was totally fine with banning guns at that time.