Lord Ratner

I have yet to meet someone who uses the term "cuck" as a pejorative who can reliably make a woman cum. Your internet troll persona is weak and frightened, but now you're venturing into the 14-year-old with an internet connection territory. Relax a little.

I agree they should choose the least risky option. They did not do that here. But, the police absolutely assume guilt before a trial, and have to. Explain how you have an authority to arrest, under any circumstances, if the police must assume innocence. It falls apart. That doesn't mean they take on the role of sentencing, but it would be insane if the police weren't using an assumption of guilt as the filter by which they decide whether or not to arrest someone. Arrest everyone? The presumption of Innocence is a judicial concept. And it applies to the jury and the judge, not the officers investigating or the prosecutors. The officers and the prosecutor are not supposed to assume anything, they are supposed to gather all evidence and make a rational decision. That decision is whether there is enough evidence to believe in guilt, at which point it becomes their job to convince a jury of the same belief, up to whatever standard is required for that particular crime. Obviously you have prosecutors who are after a conviction record rather than the truth, and you have officers who are jaded, or racist, or otherwise mentally unfit for the job. But those are the outliers, and incidentally the ones we hear most about in the news. I agree with what you wrote after "aside" emphatically. It's been discussed elsewhere: But again, this case is not that. Still a problem, but not the same. Edit to add: If there is any evidence that someone or someones in the chain of command set up the raid with the desired outcome of the death of the suspect, they should spend forever in jail. Currently no such evidence exists.

By the way, separate of the gun-trafficking, this is why the second amendment is so important. Again, ignore the gun-running for a moment. This guy had guns, which allowed him to resist the ATF in a way that "forced" them to use deadly force. Same with Waco. Same with the Airman in Florida (not resisting at all, but 2A still escalated a situation). It is the police failing that is lighting a fire politically to rein in this type of behavior. Blood is almost always the price of freedom, and the 2A escalates government overreach to the level of bloodshed. Without guns, these types of raids would never garner enough attention to stoke public outrage.

This is hyper-libertarian fever-dream stuff. A background check is not asking permission because there is not an authority position that makes a subjective decision. It is to verify that you are not already precluded from exercising that right. Your example is more accurate if your are trying to get a CCW permit somewhere like CA, where the Sheriff can arbitrarily decide to deny the application. When you go the the DMV and they ask for proof of insurance, the deck-jockey doesn't then decide if you are qualified to drive. You either check the boxes or you don't. Verification vs Permission. If you buy a bunch of legal chemicals (your property), convert them into methamphetamine, then sell them to "whomever I want," then I wholeheartedly endorse your imprisonment. If you buy a gun for the purpose of bypassing the FFL system (your property) and sell it to a Mexican cartel member, same applies. If that's not what you meant, be more precise in your post. Externalities matter, and your claim is absurd to anyone who has any sort of grasp of human nature or experience with drug addicts, criminals, or other desperate demographics. He didn't need to assist anyone in a crime, because he committed the crime himself. You may not purchase firearms for the purpose of reselling them, thus bypassing the FFL process. He did that. Again if this was just a conversation about the method of arrest, I'm with you guys, but y'all are making some claims that are simply unrealistic. I have never once met a stupid libertarian. Every single one has been of above average intelligence, most of them substantially so. The biggest failing of the intelligent has been their complete unfamiliarity with, and thus complete inability to govern, below-average and psychopathic people. The Socialists always underestimate the human desire for choice. The Libertarians always underestimate the human capacity for self-destruction. I don't disagree with this, and I'm thrilled to see the Supreme Court unwinding a lot of the madness. But society does evolve, and changes are needed. The trick is always moderation. As an example, there wasn't much need for restrictions on speech in 1880. With social media causing the youth suicide rate to skyrocket, now there is for targeted restrictions. Similarly there wasn't much need for anti-trade restrictions in 1820. But with countries like China willing to exploit our social contract with the expressed purpose of destabilizing and eventually overcoming our society, now there is a need. These restrictions need to be clearly defined and strictly limited, something that our current crop of politicians can't seem to do. That doesn't diminish their need or utility.

The presumption of innocence is for the purposes of litigation. Not police arresting action. If the assumption of innocence was absolute then there would be no arrests in the first place. You are assuming, from the same data sources I have, that the ATF went there with the goal of killing him. Murder. That is a wild claim, especially considering the conversation we are having about the presumption of innocence. He fired first. Whether the ATF should have chosen this method of arrest is secondary unless you can prove they did so for the expressed purpose of goading him into a shootout. You obviously can't do that, so lets apply the same presumption of innocence to the non-criminal ATF agents who raided his house. He was the bad guy, by his own actions and by conscious choice. Does that merit execution? Nope. But there is no such thing as an accidental execution or unintentional, so this was not that. I agree with this. He absolutely should have been taken in his office. However, equating what happened to him to "many instances of these no knock warrants being served to the wrong address," is false equivalence. It was the right address. He was (allegedly) the criminal they were after. But all of these permutations are different things with different moral implications: Raiding the wrong house and killing an innocent defending their home Raiding the correct house, but doing it instead of a less-risky arrest option resulting in a dead criminal Raiding the correct house, but accidentally killing a bystander you didn't know was there Raiding the correct house, but some cops are killed in the shootout when they could have chosen a better arrest method All of those are tragic, but they are not all immoral or murder. Proportional force is not binary. It's literally a ratio. And his ratio was shittier because he was (allegedly) a criminal gun trafficker. Your right to do a lot of things vanishes when you break the social contract. Depending on how badly you break it determines how much you lose. Losing the right to credibly defend your home against unannounced invaders when your actions set the stage for having your home invaded is not a travesty of constitutional magnitude.

Victimless? There are plenty of instances of Americans buying guns and selling them to criminals. Those criminals then kill people. It's hyperbole, and frankly just stupid, to say that. It's like when gun supporters use the well knives kill people, why not ban knives argument. It's intentionally ignorant. Of course the irony is that the ATF Fast and Furious boondoggle also created victims from their gun-running. Turns out gun trafficking is bad no matter who does it. But the government screwing up is not an argument for lawlessness. Y'all are trying too hard on this one. Sometimes someone breaks the law and finds out it doesn't matter that you disagree with it, it's still the law. We have mechanisms to fix that, including the Supreme Court. If you don't feel those mechanisms are sufficient, you can roll the dice and put your life as the wager. Whether you were right or wrong will be determined by the public response. Waco and the Bundy standoff are good examples. But so far it looks like a guy who was buying guns and knowingly selling them to people who otherwise wouldn't have been allowed to have them. Some were even used in actual crimes. This is like the left using Michael Brown as a martyr. Pick a better mascot.

Was this no-knock improper? I don't know. Are many of them improper? Absolutely. They are certainly not always improper. When I say "the no-knock shit" I mean the indiscriminate use of no-knocks for non-time-sensitive crimes. Very useful for kidnappings, known armed gangs, etc. Ridiculous for raiding the homes of Trump associates or non-violent criminals. His reaction is colored by his status as a law-abiding citizen. If you are a drug-runner, murderer, gun-trafficker, etc, then you have a reasonable expectation of having your door beat down, announced or otherwise. Your participation in certain crimes removes your moral authority to respond to a police breach with deadly force. There is a reason we have the term "law-abiding citizen." The distinction matters. He was not one, if the above evidence is substantiated. If you are illegally selling firearms, and you know you are doing it, then you have a reasonable expectation of having your door kicked in. Is that the best choice for the ATF to make? I don't think so. But that doesn't make it wrong, or the same as other cases. The crimes alleged and the evidence supporting the allegation determine if the risk is justified. As an example, in the Florida Airman incident, there was no evidence and the alleged crime was "loud domestic disturbances." In that instance, law enforcement should do everything to avoid a potentially fatal encounter, to include calling the apartment first, staying in clear view of the door peephole, loudly announcing your status as police, or simply leaving the scene. This was not that. All well and good, but the SCOTUS has very intentionally not struck down background checks, limitations on felons, the NFA, and FFL regulations. Some of those should be changed, but they aren't at the moment. I'm very familiar with the new ATF rule, and it is sloppy and improperly sourced. This should come from congress. But unless you believe someone should be allowed to buy guns using their legal status and sell them to someone without a legal right to own the firearm (I do not), some variation of this rule will have to exist. Or, we can just mandate background checks for all private firearms purchases, make the check free, and then private sales are good to go. If you are law-abiding, it is reasonable to assume a gang attack. If you are a gun-runner, it is unreasonable to be surprised by a police raid. Not literally surprised, that's the point obviously. But confused as to why police, as opposed to gang bangers, are busting down your door? No. Nonsense. Dealers have to do background checks. They have to verify the legal right to a firearm. He was intentionally subverting that process. He was acting exactly as a gun-runner.

This is all well and good, right up until the point that he was illegally dealing in firearms. If that turns out to be an unfounded allegation, then this is all relevant. But if it's not, we're now operating under the assumption that he had was an illegal arms dealer who had no idea why his house was being raided. That's bridge too far. Agree completely with the argument that he should have been apprehended at his place of work. And I also agree that the no-knock shit has to end. "According to the warrant, Malinowski purchased more than 150 guns between May 2021 and Feb. 27, 2024, which he then resold. " "He would then resell the just-purchased guns in as little as 24 hours through gun shows where he maintained a table or through private sales." If that's true, and I'll bet anyone here (limit one bet) a bottle that it is, then the entire situation tilts against him. There is a huge difference between this and the dead airman.

Hang on. A hit? This dude was (allegedly) operating an illegal gun trafficking operation, with some pretty damning evidence. Jail forever type of crimes. He got caught, and when the world was collapsing in on him, he committed suicide by cop. That's not even remotely hard to believe. If he took a shot at the ATF agents, he 100% earned his death. What am I missing here? Did he not shoot at the police? Was he not an illegal gun-runner? Anyone got an article that supports any evidence of innocence?

Leave it to the Jack-of-all-trades Marine Corp to design an MWS that is a plane, a helicopter, and a JDAM all in one unaffordable package. They really are the America's Swiss army knife!

His Article 32 hearing didn't go well for the prosecution. This is just a general who doesn't want to be the one to "prevent justice."

Yikes. Dude seems like a sycophant more than a mastermind, but Jesus how much more proof do people need? One thing that stands out after having read the entire document, these people all seem to have believed their bullshit. I don't suspect Peter dashek and fauci believed their lies about the issue, but the leadership rarely does. However I suspect all of these underling scientists that were involved in letter campaigns, the actual research, testimony, news interviews, and all the other ways they were employed, really truly were so enamored with their scientific heroes that they believed anything they were told to believe, and thus believed they were justified in plainly absurd things such as overtly avoiding the foia requests, or promoting the natural origins theory. It goes to show how we are in an era of incompetence, with narcissistic clowns at the top of nearly every organization: Corporate America, academia, the government.

What is this from?

I'm not rationalizing it dude, I'm explaining it. I'm also not sensationalizing it like you are. January 6th sucked, but it was not an insurrection. End of story. I'm not voting for any of them because I will never vote for someone over 65 again, however, the entire root of the problem and why Donald Trump is going to win again is specifically because his opposition insists on treating him as a unique threat when in fact he is the exact same product with an uglier label slapped on. The regular people out there see right through this now, they don't know what the crimes are, the sins, the comparisons, or any of the other details. They just know that Washington has been lying to them for a long time and funneling a tremendous amount of wealth and prosperity from the middle class directly to their family and associates. They wanted a hero, but they are settling for a villain who at least validates their experience. Go look up the stats for how many Democrats thought the election was stolen when a Republican president won, and specifically Trump. The numbers are functionally identical to 2020, just reversed. It is unfounded sanctimony.

Yawn. It was a riot incited by a liar. It was not an insurrection incited by a would-be tyrant. If it was, why did they give up once they had successfully taken the capitol? Trump thought the election was stolen from him. Just like Hillary thought the election was stolen from her. Just like Gore thought the election was stolen from him. No one gave a shit when all of those people questioned the Democratic process by blaming the Russians, or the Supreme Court, or voting fraud. I quoted you because of all people you should be keenly aware of why Trump "gets away" with everything he does, since you were projecting it on to Hilary at the time. It's because he is not remotely the first person to do it, he's just the trashiest. In all of the hyper liberal and vehemently anti-trump jurisdictions that are currently prosecuting him for various crimes, isn't it strange that none of those crimes are insurrection or any other violation of the Constitution. And the only remotely legitimate charge against him, the Florida case pertaining to the classified information, is the one most obviously violated by hundreds of politicians, including presidents and vice presidents, over decades preceding the Trump presidency. I've said it time and time again. The law doesn't matter to the people, they just care about the law being applied fairly. The Trump supporters don't care about anything he does because he's not the first to do it, just the first to be dragged into court for it. - Cheating on his wife - Using campaign funds to hide an affair (Why isn't John Edwards in jail 🤔) - Questioning the results of an election - Passively condoning rioting - Using his position to enrich family members - Lying about his past - Golfing when he should be presidenting - Accusing other candidates falsely - Taking drugs to maintain performance - Abusing executive authority - blah blah blah I wish Trump was uniquely odious. He's not, he just looks on the outside the way Washington has always been on the inside.

We've royally fucked up policing if a citizen exercising their constitutional rights can be considered probable cause, or a reasonable threat. Like I said before, cops need to understand that they are expected to be at a higher risk. This isn't Australia; the presence of a gun is not enough to deem a situation threatening.

Is it possible you just expect too much? What did he do that you're so upset about. You believe in a bunch of Russian conspiracy theories that the entire DOJ was unable to prove, despite very much wanting to. Is it just January 6th?

Some episodes from the "last show" that I enjoyed: - The Abraham accords giving us the first glimpse of real peace in the Middle East in my lifetime - illegal immigration plummeting to levels that now seem like a fucking dream today - The Republican party finally moving away from the gay marriage fight - regulatory rollback - massive energy production - someone finally treating China as an adversary, not the benevolent trading partner - A Supreme Court that does not view the Constitution as a Fixer-Upper - A president willing to call NATO/EU out on their hypocritical bullshit So if that's going to get cranked up to 11, I'm not seeing a huge problem. Now, if you are referring to the social unrest and rioting that surrounded January 6th, I have a hard time understanding how that was any better or worse than the BLM rioting. Hell, I wish BLM rioting was what we were dealing with now. If I have to choose between Americans rioting over their fears over Democratic institutions, or rioting where thousands of Americans are literally supporting terrorists and the Democratic party is bending over backwards to appease them, I think I choose the Trump riots, even cranked up to 11.

And, despite the fact we've literally already seen what a Trump presidency looks like, *this time* it's going to be way worse and democracy is at risk because he's going to be a king! Yawn.

There are hundreds of crazy rounds that guy tests. One of my favorite channels to run in the background while I'm cleaning the kitchen.

I've got to disagree with you on this one. Look, my leadership was dog shit when I was court martialed, they basically trusted one misquoted OSI statement and assumed I was guilty for 6 months. But one thing they did well was keep silent publicly. And I wouldn't have expected any sort of public vocalization of support. They had no idea if I was innocent or guilty. You don't back a potential criminal; you quietly provide support to an innocent-until-proven-guilty person until the process is played out. But when you have a video that shows, at a bare minimum, a very uncertain situation that probably didn't go the way you would hope it would, then you should not be making any statements that imply your subordinate did the right thing. Because how can we trust in the process when one of the people who is a literal avatar for the process, the police chief, is not acting in accordance with the concept of blind Justice? I don't think a police chief should be fired because one of his guys fucked up, unless and until the process shows a leadership failure. But part of the police chief's job is public relations, and reflexively supporting an officer who, to my eyes, looks to have murdered an innocent man, is a failure of his position. The tragedy in all of this is that policing very much does need an overhaul in the US, which is an argument from the left. Unfortunately the left has only bad and completely misdiagnosed solutions, whereas the right, I believe as a result of the left's unfair crusade, is reflexively supporting the police to the detriment of potential reforms.

Yeah, I mean when someone's callsign is FAAC, you can't exactly expect them to keep it in a public position. 🤣😂

Because it demonstrates how you are ignoring the many historical examples of asymmetric victory to support a simple and somewhat childish argument of Russia is bigger and is pressing forward, so they must be winning. Did the North Vietnamese win against the US? Did the DRA win against the Soviets in Afghanistan? Did the Taliban win against the US? Did we win against the British? I will not argue the fecklessness of our political class. But we still have an incredible military with incredible weaponry ands intelligence to offer an ally. The very fact Russia hasn't won already, especially after a six month pause in support, is proof that this is not a simple matter of Russia capturing 86 km² of terrain. It's one thing to not want to spend the money. That's simply a fiscal priority. But the "side" arguing against this doesn't seem comfortable with their fiscal position, so they have to twist the conversation into the "impossibility" of success. That's now a military argument that you don't seem able to make effectively. There is a huge difference between "should we" and "can we."

Highly, highly unlikely for the territory. "Win" has to be defined in your question. If regaining all territory is victory, then no.

I didn't think you do this intentionally, but you just hear what you want to hear. Everything you just said was a mischaracterization of his post, or just truly unimaginative thinking. If a hundred soldiers advance on my position 10km away, and I kill 10 per kilometer of advance, who wins? Similarly the French were quite effective in advancing into Russian territory, but that didn't work out great for Napoleon. Or Hitler. Did the Americans win Vietnam? We were quite effective at advancing, and we had an overwhelming munitions advantage. That may or may not be what's happening here, but that you can't recognize the concept is... Questionable.