Friday, May 6, 2016

Josh Israel — Nevada Lawmaker: It’s Okay To Aim Guns At Cops If They Aim At You First

Nevada Assemblywoman Michele Fiore (R), who is currently seeking her party’s nomination for an open U.S. House seat, said last week that she believes the right to self defense includes the right to aim your gun anyone who aims a gun at you, even if they are a law enforcement officer.
In an interview with a local TV station last Sunday, Fiore attacked the federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) as “a bureaucrat agency of terrorism.” Pressed by KLAS-8 host Steve Sebelius about whether she believes the Second Amendment grants citizens the right to point a weapon at a “duly authorized law enforcement officer who is just out there doing his job,” she said that self-defense includes the right to aim back at anyone who points a gun at you first — and to put your own life ahead of theirs.
“I would never ever point my firearm at anyone, including an officer of the law, unless they pointed their firearm at me,” Fiore explained. But, the assemblywoman continued, “once you point your firearm at me, I’m sorry, then it becomes self-defense. Whether you’re a stranger, a bad guy, or an officer, and you point your gun at me and you’re gonna shoot me and I have to decide whether it’s my life or your life, I choose my life.”
Think Progress
Nevada Lawmaker: It’s Okay To Aim Guns At Cops If They Aim At You First
Josh Israel


Seve141 said...

Definitely Presidential timber these days.

She should do very well.

Bob said...

At long last, John Dillinger can rest in peace.

Ryan Harris said...

I understand why people think this is a problem, but also notice how it implies there is no longer any authority or trust in government's agents, especially in the Western states where trust has been battered by racist agencies who target non whites and also bad immigration policy universally hated, and corruption in the land use decisions (which are dominated by Democrat party conservationists). The solution according to Demo/Repub voters is to tighten the screws and mock the people they are oppressing for being poor and oppressed. It's going to end up tearing apart the country, but we're not there...yet.

Bob said...

Don't forget militarization of the police, use of SWAT teams for routine searches, use of excessive force, and torture (e.g. Chicago PD).

Michael Norman said...

Wait, what's wrong with "conservationists?"

Ryan Harris said...

Well, if you live in the West, where the government owns ALL the land surrounding these small towns the decisions are complicated. In the old days, when pork-barrel politics was allowed and government partisans compromised, land use decisions were made by balancing interests. They would set aside parts for wildlife, limit destructive uses and other things but still allow economic use for republican areas and democrat areas. Now if you live or work in a republican industry, the Dems shutdown your use while they are in power.
Imagine if the government "owned" all of the Burroughs of NYC besides Manhattan and only leased the others to people to use, then a new president is elected with alot of support from the Sierra club and kicked everyone out of all the other Burroughs that are living and working there because a tortoise breeds there? They'd be pissed off, not because they are stupid, or illiterate but because the system of governance had been corrupted and cost them their livelihood. Mid-lease on the brooklyn apartment, the government just says, we're kicking you out. Emergency. There is no compromise, no setting aside fragile habitats, or certain areas during certain times. No compensation, nothing, They just decide that the bird or tortoise is part of a complex chain of life and that no people can use the land.
These people depend on the lands, their lives cease to exist when a new administration comes in and shuts all use off to make their conservationist donors happy. And with each new administration, a new policy. So they become faced with a choice, live and rot in place, or become economic refugees and move. Cities and towns don't exist in a vacuum. Water, food, resources are collected from the lands around any city. Because the government controls the surrounding land, doesn't change economics.

Tom Hickey said...

Um, those are public lands, not "government" lands.

There is actually a cabinet level Department of the Interior, and a Bureau of Land Management under it, and well as the Environmental Protection Agency (proposed by President Nixon).

Tom Hickey said...

BTW, I've have lived rurally in the West. If there were not strong regulation and enforcement, things would be a mess and people would very likely be shooting at each other over disputes. Folks do carry guns out there, you know.

Ryan Harris said...

I agree, they are public lands, but government doesn't always act like a steward anymore but as an autocratic owner.

Government needs to pay for university educations and possibly make it compulsory. In a democracy, the biggest problem is that when people don't have great communication skills, reasoning skills, getting coherent policies from voters is near impossible. It is essential for citizens to be able to work together effectively without threat of violence. I just don't know if it is possible anymore, citizens taking up guns works to force compromise when civility fails.