~~Who, white people?~~

it is diffent bcuz there are regulation and "color of law" in place that privilegs police to extra rights they just magically give themselves out of thin air

Also, it's not trolling

I'm taking your argument at face value and showing you the generalizations.

If it looked like trolling, I'd suggest that it's because there was an uncomfortable truth to it.

What are those privilege?

Police don't have extra rights.

They have duties.

Duties put upon them by the municipalities they serve.

If you're advocating for private security firms

i already went over this ... police in CA for example are allowed to open carry... us plebians are not

It will end no different than the police.

they have a duty to enforce that only THEY are allowed to open carry and make sure that other citizens than themselves are not?

just one example

Gross misrepresentation

another example is consequences of assault.... police are allowed to threaten assualt on non-violent ppl who pose no threat just for the sake of compliance

gross misrepresentation? how so? am i wrong?

You can be correct on facts, and incorrect in how you portray the situation at the same time.

seems like youre very triggered .... its okay.... relax man... lol

Projecting, much?

Not sure whether this analogy works, but the consequences of assault reminds me of the privilege that tenured professors have on their work/speeches

you touch a police in a unwanted or welcoming way, they can body slam you, arrest you, and throw you in a cage.... but they can do the same to you for NO GOOD reason against ppl non-violent who pose no danger or threat merely for the sake of forced compliance

So an argument in favor of chaos then.

Let me address that.

Duty to enforce open carry

Yes. That is the law that was voted upon in California

It's the law that the people of California choose to live under. The police will enforce it.

you are actually misunderstanding me though.... i dont have a problem with them going after actual violent criminals

But open carrying despite the fact that agreed-upon law says no?

a *minority* of ppl who voted to impose their will over a majority of ppl

majority of ppl dont even vote

Not voting is a choice

So you're speaking out against a representative government, too.

Then whose fault is it for not participating in voting?

```if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice!``` - Rush

but the whole idea is CONSENT of the governed

Apathy is consent technically

thats a weak argument because some ppl just magically give themselves the right to impose their will over others

I mean....

doesnt make it legitimate

Oh, what's that concept that goes around in SJW circles?