Push to disarm police officers gains steam in New York

Thanks for sharing.

From that article, I found this:

But a third challenger with 25 years of police experience, Sammy Ravelo, disagreed, calling Bowman’s support for disarmament "outrageous and irresponsible."

"I believe that the recent call by my opponent to disarm the police is both outrageous and irresponsible," said Ravelo. "The suggestion of disarming our men and women in blue disqualifies Mr. Bowman from seeking to become an elected official."

What are your thoughts on the suggestion that Bowman be disqualified from seeking office?

 

Sammy - obviously has no respect for free speech - or freedom in general. The minute we start "disqualifying" people from running for political office - on the basis of some personal belief - is a sad day for fair and free democratic process.

Believe in freedom of speech - is not belief in freedom "only for ideas one agrees with" - everyone believes in that. Belief in freedom of speech is belief in freedom for speech and ideas that one disagrees with.

Perhaps being on the far religious right should disqualify one from being in political office ? Why not ? - if we are disqualifying people on the basis of ideas and/or ideology that one disagrees with ... Why not ?

 

Disqualified under the law? No.
Disqualified to voters? I would hope.

What are YOUR thoughts on the matter?

 

Depends on what you mean by "disqualify", under the law or voter opinion? I think Warren has disqualified herself FROM MY VOTE because of her economic positions, she is still qualified to run under the law.

 

Disqualified - in the context I was using and what Sammy was using - means disqualified from running for public office

 

I've already stated that it is ridiculous to disarm a police force. It's like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. And while I think it was silly of him to retweet the suggestion, it certainly isn't grounds for disqualification from running. Let the voters decide...

 

Totally

Being a cop is dangerous and hard. They need more guns and stuff, not less.

 

Does it disqualify him from YOUR vote if you could vote for him? It is certainly "grounds" for him to lose mine if I could. It depends on the context of the "disqualifying".

 

I don't know that he meant under the law or merely by the voting public. As I said listening to Warren's fallacious, IMO, statements about the economy disqualifies her IMO from ever serving as President.

 

He said what he said - disqualified from "Running" for public office. A statement which has nothing to do with what you are trying to make it mean.

 

Would it in your opinion disqualify people from holding office if their platform was to blow up one apartment building at random with out any warning every month?

 

Your example is nonsense - but nope. It is called "the will of the people"

I understand that most citizens these days - do not understand what this means. Through 12 years of school we manage not to teach the founding principles - which is unfortunate. So I understand why you would bring up such an example.

You many not understand that "blowing up a building" is not part of essential liberty. The legitimate purview of Gov't is "protection from harm" - one person on another. What is not the legitimate purview of Gov't is to mess with individual liberty - of its own volition.

The people however, have the ability to change that legitimate purview - to what ever they like - on the basis of an overwhelming majority.

If an overwhelming majority (at least 2/3rds) want a building to be randomly blown up every month - it is what it is.

 

It disqualifies him from running for office TO ME. Why are you bickering about this?
WaPo
Donald Trump is not qualified to be president. And the American people know it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...be-president-and-the-american-people-know-it/

 

Sorry the initiation of force against innocent civilians without either warning or due process is an illigitamate use of government power however many people vote that was the essential conclusion of the Nuremburg war trials. Running on Such a platform would be a designated crime against humanity and therefore disqualifying.

 

great idea.

will they bring back choking as a means to subdue?

 

I guess they are going to have to increase the donut budget. They took away kosher hot dogs. What are they going to take away next?

 

I have hit a wall - one that only you can break. What defines what is legitimate authority - and what is not ?

 

Initiation of force without due process is always illegal. As well as unconstitutional.

 

The question being addressed is not what is illegal and what is illegal... so why are you talking about what is illegal or bringing up the constitution ?

Go back .. read the question - and if you don't understand the question .. I can explain. As I said .. the founding principles are not taught - so it is no surprise that folks do not know what the term "legitimacy of authority" means.

If you wanted to change the constitution - what authority would do this - and what defines whether or not that authority is legitimate ?

I am not asking you "what is the law" I am asking "who gets decide what is in the constitution and what is not - and by what authority" as per the founding principles.

 

Hurr durr no gunz cuz teh racecizms durrrr.

 

Here's more:

 

Why are guns the only force the police have? Or rather, why is it the fear of guns the officer has that keep "criminals" from fighting back?

 

It's not the only force they have.

 

This is the exact kind of insanity that drives people into the arms of despicable men like Trump.

 

Disarming police in NY or anywhere else in the US will never happen. It's silly to think such could ever happen.