# Austin Police Chief: Turn In Gun Owners Who Are Upset At The Government.......



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

Austin Police Chief: Turn In Gun Owners Who Are Upset At The Government | Truth And Action


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

People like this, in my opinion, do not belong in law enforcement. This is sickening. Not surprised to see a chief of police with this stance, however. Most seem to be influenced and the mouth piece for idiot politicians. I like the high Sheriff more for protecting rights. More of them seem to be spokesmen for the people rather than another politician.


----------



## PT111Pro (Nov 15, 2014)

WOW!!
Well - but the police chef in a city is a politician and not really a LEO. Austin is a Liberal owned city and so are the politicians. What do you expect? Politicians are the mirror of the society that have elected them. Not more not less.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

PT111Pro said:


> WOW!!
> Well - but the police chef in a city is a politician and not really a LEO. Austin is a Liberal owned city and so are the politicians. What do you expect? Politicians are the mirror of the society that have elected them. Not more not less.


Actually, in most cases, the Chief of Police is a police officer who rose through the ranks and was appointed by the Mayor. The Sheriff is an elected position, and is more often filled by non-law enforcement officers than the CoP. This is why you see more CoPs being the mouth piece for the Mayor than you see Sheriffs.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

Even an out-and-out liberal type like myself feels this is just plain wrong...


----------



## PT111Pro (Nov 15, 2014)

GCBHM said:


> Actually, in most cases, the Chief of Police is a police officer who rose through the ranks and was appointed by the Mayor. The Sheriff is an elected position, and is more often filled by non-law enforcement officers than the CoP. This is why you see more CoPs being the mouth piece for the Mayor than you see Sheriffs.


Well - than should I say "selected". Doesn't matter on the end of the day is my statement true. It is the mirror of the society in a certain area. If e- or se-lected makes no difference. If democrats get elected, democrats will place police-leaders, DA, Judges, School Principals etc wherever they can denunciate and kick people out of the jobs and as soon they can in place. Its liberalism after all.

My statement is true.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

Easy Solution: Don't be upset at the government. Instead, be upset at the Austin Police Chief.


----------



## shootbrownelk (May 18, 2014)

Sounds to me like the Police chief is a boot-licker who has some higher political aspirations. He's trying to say what his political party higher-ups want to hear, to advance his career goals. What a"Hole"!


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

Austin is the magnet for liberalism in the state of Texas. The governor, Rick Perry, was indicted, fingerprinted, and had his mug shot taken for threatening a veto of certain legislation, if the District Attorney didn't resign after being convicted of drunk driving and disorderly conduct. You will be seeing this soon in campaign hit pieces if Perry runs for president.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Look at his name. Want to bet he's probably from Mexico and brought his Mexican ideas with him when he moved to Texas? I would bet he didn't adopt traditional Texas ways as his own but rather kept what he knew in Mexico. Just a guess but I would wager this to be true.

I saw this yesterday and a question arose today when rereading it. Who's going to come and take people's guns if their names are turned into the police? Who is going to do that? On which statute can or will they claim they have the authority to do this?


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

SouthernBoy said:


> Look at his name. Want to bet he's probably from Mexico and brought his Mexican ideas with him when he moved to Texas? I would bet he didn't adopt traditional Texas ways as his own but rather kept what he knew in Mexico. Just a guess but I would wager this to be true.
> 
> I saw this yesterday and a question arose today when rereading it. Who's going to come and take people's guns if their names are turned into the police? Who is going to do that? On which statute can or will they claim they have the authority to do this?


Just a note, but Texas USED to be part of Mexico, so it is the Anglos who "brought their ideas with them" to thast part of the country.

Just sayin'. And what is wrong with "Mexican ideas" anyway. Are we a liiiiitle bit prejudiced here?


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

SailDesign said:


> Just a note, but Texas USED to be part of Mexico, so it is the Anglos who "brought their ideas with them" to thast part of the country.
> 
> Just sayin'. And what is wrong with "Mexican ideas" anyway. Are we a liiiiitle bit prejudiced here?


Yes it was and no I'm not. I am not a fan of multiculturalism at all or the concept of diversity as it is preached in the political arena. I don't want traditional values in my country watered down anymore by foreigners who come here and do not adapt to our ways and adopt that which is American. I have seen too much in the negative in this movement and do not wish to have any more of it within our shores. Clearly you and I differ on this.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Most people are prejudice to something, and it is what it is regardless of whether we accept our own and criticize other's. This concept of "multicultralism" is a lie from progressives looking to divide the people to keep them dependent upon gov. But groups do not count. Groups have no rights! Only individuals do.


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

SailDesign said:


> Just a note, but Texas USED to be part of Mexico, so it is the Anglos who "brought their ideas with them" to thast part of the country.
> 
> Just sayin'. And what is wrong with "Mexican ideas" anyway. Are we a liiiiitle bit prejudiced here?


Texas also used to be a sovereign nation, that joined the USA under its own terms. Unlike the Mexicans, the Texicans refused to live under tyranny, and did something about it. Mexicans are fleeing Mexico, now, because their government has been continuously corrupt since they won their independence from Spain, circa 1821.

Most Mexicans are fine people, but their track record for governing is nothing anyone should want to emulate.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

SouthernBoy said:


> <snippage!>Clearly you and I differ on this.


We would appear to.


----------



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

GCBHM said:


> Most people are prejudice to something, and it is what it is regardless of whether we accept our own and criticize others. This concept of "multiculturalism" is a lie from progressives looking to divide the people to keep them dependent upon gov. But groups do not count. Groups have no rights! Only individuals do.


Call it whatever you like but its naive to think everyone and everything can be equal......

Who and what gets picked on or talked about:
* Skinny people
* Fat people
* Ugly people
* Good looking people
* Clothes people wear
* Deformed people
* People of a different color/race
* Disabled people
* Homeless people
* Wealthy people
* Those on welfare
* Those of a different political party
* Those that want firearms and those that do not
* Religions 
* Cats and dogs
I am sure most of you can come up with many more.....

Reality is there are families(blood) that can not get along with each other so how do those that talk racism/discrimnation expect everyone to get along equally??


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Cait43 said:


> Call it whatever you like but its naive to think everyone and everything can be equal......
> 
> Who and what gets picked on or talked about:
> * Skinny people
> ...


I don't understand. You said "Call it whatever you want but its naive to think everyone and everything can be equal...... " Call what whatever I want? And everyone and everything equal according to what?

And you asked "...how does anyone expect everyone to get along equally??" I don't, but I don't understand how that applies to what I said. Were you agreeing with what I said, or opposing it? I'm lost.


----------



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

GCBHM said:


> I don't understand. You said "Call it whatever you want but its naive to think everyone and everything can be equal...... " Call what whatever I want? And everyone and everything equal according to what?
> 
> I did a minor edit of my original post......
> 
> ...


Call it whatever you like=multiculturalism, racism, discrimination.........

And everyone and everything equal according to what?=According to those that preach multiculturalism, racism, discrimination.........

Yes, I agree with your post.........


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

GCBHM said:


> <snip> But groups do not count. Groups have no rights! Only individuals do.


Unless said groups are corporations, in which case according to the Republicans they DO have rights. See "Citizens United" in case you missed it.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Cait43 said:


> Call it whatever you like=multiculturalism, racism, discrimination.........
> 
> And everyone and everything equal according to what?=According to those that preach multiculturalism, racism, discrimination.........
> 
> Yes, I agree with your post.........


OK, thank you for clearing that up. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't misunderstanding you.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

SailDesign said:


> Unless said groups are corporations, in which case according to the Republicans they DO have rights. See "Citizens United" in case you missed it.


I'd rather not argue, if it's all the same.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

GCBHM said:


> I'd rather not argue, if it's all the same.


Fine by me.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

SailDesign said:


> Unless said groups are corporations, in which case according to the Republicans they DO have rights. See "Citizens United" in case you missed it.


Did you ever study law; business law? Corporations do have rights and are treated as such by the courts. That is law and has nothing to do with any political party. Why must you try to make this into something that it's not?


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

SouthernBoy said:


> Did you ever study law; business law? Corporations do have rights and are treated as such by the courts. That is law and has nothing to do with any political party. Why must you try to make this into something that it's not?


Take it up with GCBHM - he thinks groups don't have rights... Definition for "corporation?" The first one out of the box?:

a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law.

Just pointing out to GCBHM that groups DO have rights. We agree.

I mention Republicans because the SCOTUS is predominantly right-wing, and was so in 2010 when they decided the "Citizens Untied vs FEC" case, allowing corporations to effectively become individuals with rights.

The statement that law has nothing to do with any political parties is extremely short-sighted, since the party in power at the time gets to make the laws... Have you not studied the way the US works?


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

SouthernBoy said:


> Look at his name. Want to bet he's probably from Mexico and brought his Mexican ideas with him when he moved to Texas?...


Within my personal memory, Mexican gun laws were much less onerous than any found in any part of the US. Almost non-existent, in fact.
It is only relatively very recently, that Mexican gun laws became restrictive and draconian in response to the many, powerful narco-gangs, home-grown in Mexico.

And look how well those restrictive gun laws have worked! [/snark]


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

SailDesign said:


> Take it up with GCBHM - he thinks groups don't have rights... Definition for "corporation?" The first one out of the box?:
> 
> a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law.
> 
> ...


Again, something you have taken completely out of context just to start an argument that you'll only cry about not wanting to do later.

Corporations are not groups as defined. They are defined under different laws as individuals. However, what I was referring to was groups such as gays, women, men, mothers against people with guns, etc. SouthernBoy posed a very valid question. Why must you insist on turning it into something it is b/c we all know you're going to pitch a fit about not winning in just a moment.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

Here's what you actually wrote:


GCBHM said:


> Most people are prejudice to something, and it is what it is regardless of whether we accept our own and criticize other's. This concept of "multicultralism" is a lie from progressives looking to divide the people to keep them dependent upon gov. But groups do not count. *Groups have no rights! Only individuals do.* [emphasis added]


When you make a very general statement like that, you must expect that someone-especially someone who thinks critically-will object to it and will provide an oppositional example to prove your general case wrong.
When I read your statement, I was already preparing an oppositional statement in my mind. And then I noticed that SailDesign had beaten me to it.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Here's what you actually wrote:
> 
> When you make a very general statement like that, you must expect that someone-especially someone who thinks critically-will object to it and will provide an oppositional example to prove your general case wrong.
> When I read your statement, I was already preparing an oppositional statement in my mind. And then I noticed that SailDesign had beaten me to it.


Again, corporations are not defined as groups. They are defined as individuals under different laws...but again, that is completely out of the context of the conversation. Can we just keep things in context, or must we all knit-pick each other to death over something totally irrelevant to prove how smart we are?


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

SailDesign said:


> Take it up with GCBHM - *he thinks groups don't have rights*... Definition for "corporation?" The first one out of the box?:
> 
> a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law.
> 
> ...


And he's right. Individuals have rights. When a group has what on the surface appears to be a right, what it really has are privileges, authority, or power granted or extended to it by some controlling power. So when we say that blacks or women or homosexuals have certain rights, we are wrong if we are referring to them as a group. As individuals, they are supposed to have the same rights as do any other American; not more. So does a black man or a woman or a homosexual have the same rights as do I? Of course... as an individual.

There is a very real danger in thinking that group rights are not only real but deserved and necessary.

Please think in the individual context.


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

SailDesign said:


> We would appear to.


Didn't you read about the slaves swimming across the ocean just to pick cotton


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

The foreigners who came by sea to work for the capitalistic idealism ( cheap labor ).
That's capitalism in its finest hour
:smt033


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

pic said:


> The foreigners who came by sea to work for the capitalistic idealism ( cheap labor ).
> That's capitalism in its finest hour
> :smt033


I'm not seeing the relevance.


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

GCBHM said:


> I'm not seeing the relevance.


Oops , Sorry wrong thread.


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

GCBHM said:


> Can we just keep things in context, *or must we all knit-pick each other to death over something totally irrelevant *to prove how smart we are?


Steve doesn't have to prove how smart he is, because it is self-evident in the way he expresses his opinions.

If you enter into a public debate, in person, you need to be able to say exactly what you mean, and nothing you don't mean. This particular forum happens to be about expressing yourself in writing.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

I think it would be a good idea if everyone took the time to ask themselves "is what I'm about to post going to contribute to the actual conversation, or cause problems". We're all smart people. We all tend to get carried away at times. We all owe it to the forum and ourselves to be a credit, not a discredit. My endeavor is to avoid senseless bickering/contentions from now on.


----------



## TAPnRACK (Jan 30, 2013)

Where's the fun in that?


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

I don't mind cutting up with anyone...but when it turns violent, don't come crying to me! LOL


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

GCBHM said:


> I think it would be a good idea if everyone took the time to ask themselves "is what I'm about to post going to contribute to the actual conversation, or cause problems". We're all smart people. We all tend to get carried away at times. We all owe it to the forum and ourselves to be a credit, not a discredit. My endeavor is to avoid senseless bickering/contentions from now on.


My problem with this thread has been that you brought up something in defense of your point that was wrong - so I called it.
If you don't want want people arguing off-topic, then don't bring up points that are incorrect and cry because someone calls you on it.

EDIT: It is frequently me who gets called on this, so please do not think I'm holding you up as the only one.


----------



## Goldwing (Nov 5, 2014)

Congrats on your 1000th post, Sail. You are now a SENIOR member. It is funny when a thread like this goes into 35 or 40 posts I can predict that it is way off topic and has degraded into a pissing contest. My prediction came to fruition, thanks for making me right guys!:smt014
GW


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

I didn't say anything off topic. You just started something Bc that is what you do. And it was pointed out, so let's just call it what it is and crack on. I'm really sick of this type of debate and banter. It is totally senseless.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

Well, I'll let you have the last word.


----------



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

Sorry, I am having the last word.........


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

No you're not! :yawinkle: :anim_lol:


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

No...me!


----------



## BigCityChief (Jan 2, 2013)

OK - back on track. The Chief's comments border on the juvenile and are nothing less than preposterous. Where are all the self-proclaimed defenders of civil and constitutional rights now? I have a "right" to expect them to at least distance themselves from Acevedo for his ridiculous remarks, but so far, their silence is deafening.


----------

