Ban hammers!

[AZRedhawk44]

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2013/07/29/oakland-city-council-considering-ban-on-destructive-items-during-protests/

Yeah.  OK.

So, a blanket ban on inanimate objects is far better than defending life and property, I guess.

I can just see this going horribly wrong... some shopkeeper boarding up his windows the morning of some race-baiting agitating protest, gets arrested for having a hammer at a site of a protest.

And the police still lack the bawlz to actually stop the real criminals.

Where is this room of monkeys banging away at keyboards, making laws that you can drive 18-wheeler sized problems through them and see how their intent will be abused?  They need to be euthanized.



Oakland:  Decapitate groups that don't adhere to the NAP.  Sniper fire works wonders.  Unless you'd rather use your SWAT teams to plant evidence and murder puppies, instead of doing the hard work they're supposed to do.

Some rabble-leader extols people to burn down buildings?  The CA legal code says use of firearms to prevent arson is legitimate.  Even for a schmuck like me.  Let alone for a supercop.

[Regolith]

But if they ban hammers how will the mods wield their ban hammers to ban spammers? 

[lupinus]

Damnit, we were JOKING you fools.

JOKING.

[MechAg94]

Why don't they ban rioting? 

[French G.]

Wait, wat? You want the man to use the force of state on some local anarchists? The mind boggles.

[AZRedhawk44]

Wait, wat? You want the man to use the force of state on some local anarchists? The mind boggles.

These aren't anarchists.

They're domestic terrorists.

Anarchists do not violate the Non-Aggression Principle.  Don't be the first to initiate aggression, and everything is A-OK.  The respondent/defender is then always justified.

Someone with a hammer in a crowd of protesters has not yet violated the NAP.

Someone with a torch in a crowd of protesters has not yet violated the NAP.

Someone using that hammer or torch to destroy a structure, and that action has been unprovoked by the property owner, has violated the NAP.  Apply force.  Increase force until the NAP violation is resolved.

[HankB]

. . . Someone using that hammer or torch to destroy a structure, and that action has been unprovoked by the property owner, has violated the NAP.  Apply force.  Increase force until the NAP violation is resolved.

Reminds me of a quote from the late Jeff Cooper:

"One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not agree that 'violence begets violence.' I told him that it is my earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure — and in some cases I have — that any man who offers violence to his fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy."