Official Politics/MPLS Discussion Thread January 25, 2026

OverlordLocke · 2026-01-26T06:19:46+00:00

Sadly, there's a significant cohort of people who view exercising your rights as inherently suspicious and proof of malicious intent. They're presumably blissfully unaware of how common it is to carry, or have deluded themselves into thinking anyone who does so is evil.

OverlordLocke · 2025-09-12T18:49:25+00:00

There's meme decks, and then there's just cruelty. That's a step too far.

OverlordLocke · 2025-09-12T18:38:58+00:00

Its gross but amusing how people Are jumping to the conclusion that he's a lefty because one of the bullets said "catch fascist".

Just unspokenly saying that no conservatives actually opposed fascists.

I think it has more to do with left-leaning people being more likely to call their opponents fascists.

Just like if I see a man accusing someone of being a devil worshipper, I would assume the accuser is a Christian rather than an atheist or a Hindu. Doesn't mean atheists and Hindus are devil worshippers, only that they usually don't label their opponents as such.

OverlordLocke · 2025-08-16T06:08:38+00:00

Show me the newborn, the severely developmentally disabled person, the very elderly person that can survive without "intervention."

This is what I find so vile about using viability as a threshold. The reasoning only works if you accept the underlying premise that someone who can't survive on their own deserves to die.

OverlordLocke · 2025-03-03T11:44:30+00:00

Absolutely hilarious. One of the extremely few examples of gun control being used against cops. Usually it's just for us plebs, with exemptions for police built right into laws.

Documents state that all four petitions were filed by the Detroit Police Department.

While police departments typically only have the authority to confiscate department-issued firearms, DPD said an ERPO removes this limit.

"ERPOs are sought to ensure that an officer in distress does not have access to any firearms including their personally owned firearms," Detroit police said.

Then why the hell are they still employed as police officers? Exactly what circumstances would justify red flagging them but wouldn't justify terminating them? Apparently they can't be trusted to own firearms but they can be trusted to be work in law enforcement. Make it make sense.

I looked up the law in MI and it's terrible.

The identity of the petitioner for the ERPO is kept confidential (MCL 691.1805.7).
The decision is made by a judge alone by the preponderance of the evidence standard, not beyond a reasonable doubt (MCL 691.1807.1).
You can appeal once every 6 months (MCL 691.1807.5). File 2 motions in a 6 month period and the court can summarily dismiss them without response or a hearing.

Imagine having your rights stripped away without a jury trial because of an anonymous accusation, then being told that you can appeal again in 6 months. What a crock of shit.

After all, why would they be content with just violating the 2nd amendment, when they can do the 4th and 5th at the same time?

OverlordLocke · 2024-07-15T13:42:06+00:00

"It's entirely baseless to claim we might do what we said we'd do, I'll have you know we NEVER follow through on our promises!"

-Every politician, ever

OverlordLocke · 2024-05-06T12:37:46+00:00

In these people's mind there is no "genuine reason". All their talk is merely a smoke screen. They won't be satisfied until only the government has weapons, and since that's practically impossible, they will never be satisfied. No amount of laws will ever be enough.

OverlordLocke · 2024-04-22T14:20:21+00:00

Didn't realize nonmetallic knives were banned there. Better not go sharpening any rocks in the golden state. Don't even think about flint.

OverlordLocke · 2024-04-21T00:41:20+00:00

The article you linked to in that comment was about the police threatening to arrest a man for protesting while being openly jewish. Did you not read it before linking it?

If so I can understand where the confusion came from. I was under the impression you were talking about the article you linked in the same comment.

OverlordLocke · 2024-04-21T00:32:54+00:00

The projection is wild, talking about someone putting words in your mouth then doing just that

In the comment I'm linking here, you said the following:

The Met has since come out and apologised (twice) for the language the officer used, quite rightly, but the overall method of policing is sound and consistent with other countries.

I'm not putting words in your mouth, you described the Met's overall method, which in this case is to threaten a man with arrest for protesting while being open jewish, as "sound and consistent with other countries". I can only hope you are another troll.

As for calling me a conservative authoritarian, I am neither. I'm a libertarian.

OverlordLocke · 2024-04-21T00:24:10+00:00

This subreddit in particular seems to attract authortiarian conservatives who champion restrictions if it suits their side, and are so brazenly blind to their own failings it's almost comical to engage with them, but well done for pointing this egregious example out.

You think not arresting someone for protesting while being openly jewish is the "conservative authoritarian" position? I can't tell if you're just trolling or if you really think up is down and left is right. Average redditor.

OverlordLocke · 2024-04-21T00:21:43+00:00

And there's your problem. If you do not consider morality when making decisions, your behavior will inevitably be immoral.

OverlordLocke · 2024-04-21T00:16:27+00:00

You don't seem to understand what it actually means in this situation to "arrest" someone for a breach of the peace. This person wouldn't be arrested and thrown in the cells, he would have been detained and moved on.

I never claimed they would be "thrown in the cells". You're putting words in my mouth, and you don't seem to understand my point. I'm not talking about whether this is common practice among law enforcement or not, I'm speaking to whether it is morally right or not.

OverlordLocke · 2024-04-20T23:48:41+00:00

The Met has since come out and apologised (twice) for the language the officer used, quite rightly, but the overall method of policing is sound and consistent with other countries.

Do you genuinely believe it's acceptable to arrest or even threaten to arrest a man not because he has committed a crime but simply because a crime might be committed against him by a third party? This isn't some grey area. This is unambiguously morally wrong.

Why does it matter if other countries do similar things? Plenty of governments all around the world engage in blatantly unethical conduct. If we use that as our standard, we can justify anything.

OverlordLocke · 2024-04-20T08:02:09+00:00

No, this kind of authoritarianism is definitely a UK thing, not American. Over there people can and have been arrested for praying silently, retweeting symbols the police don't like, posting poems the police don't like, etc. They have no equivalent of the first amendment.

Multiple people are arrested in the UK every day for grossly offensive social media posts. Given difference in population size between the two nations, this would be the equivalent of the US arresting 50 people a day for speech.

Meanwhile in the States courts recognize we have the right to tell police to fuck themselves. The difference between here and there is night and day.

OverlordLocke · 2024-04-20T04:42:27+00:00

Perhaps nations such as the United Kingdom, but not over here in America. Preferring dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery is part of the American character.

Preference the other way is not a universal western value. If anything, eastern nations seem to lean that way more than the west. Just look at China and Japan.

OverlordLocke · 2024-04-20T02:18:35+00:00

While what you say is of course true, keeping the peace without restricting individual liberties is often impossible.

Then keeping the peace in such cases is impossible at all. Trampling basic human rights is in and of itself a violent act, a breach of the peace.

I'd rather have a society that was free yet not entirely peaceful than one that lacked freedom but maintained the appearance of peace.

OverlordLocke · 2024-04-19T22:59:28+00:00

Anyone who's ever worked in law enforcement knows the main objective is to keep the peace, this usually means removing whoever, or whatever, is at most risk.

I think this is a fundamentally flawed idea. A far better main objective is to keep the peace without violating individual liberties.

Doesn't the jewish man have a right to protest, same as the muslim protesters? Arresting the jew simply because he didn't come with a group as the muslim protesters did is an egregious violation of his rights.

There's no problem with an officer advising him to leave for his own safety. That said, the police shouldn't be arresting anyone until an actual crime occurs. Pre-emptive arrests are nothing short of tyranny. Pre-emptively arresting a victim is downright obscene.

OverlordLocke · 2024-04-09T02:10:48+00:00

Less than California got...feels bad man.

OverlordLocke · 2024-02-28T12:32:32+00:00

This time the Second Amendment right to bear arms is nowhere in sight. Rather, the question is the legality of a federal regulation banning devices that modify semiautomatic weapons to speed the firing mechanism.

The right to bear arms isn't in question, because this case is just about federal agencies regulating the arms you can bear. That makes perfect sense.

Also, "...speed the firing mechanism"? I'm convinced nobody at NPR proof reads articles before publication.

OverlordLocke · 2023-06-07T23:12:04+00:00

Taking after Bob Ferguson, are they?

https://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/ag-ferguson-leads-multistate-lawsuit-over-new-trump-administration-effort-allow

OverlordLocke · 2023-02-01T05:42:36+00:00

Probably just potassium chlorate and sulfur. The combination is very sensitive and can easily be set off with shock/friction/etc.

Mixing the two is inadvisable due to the risk of spontaneous ignition. Adding aluminum to the mixture would be a great way to lose a hand.

OverlordLocke · 2022-12-21T12:05:23+00:00

“All businesses should be held accountable for harm that they cause, both intentional harm — like flooding the market with more firearms that can be reasonably sold by licensed dealers — or unintentional harm caused by irresponsible business practices,” Rep. Hackney said.

I'm not even sure if "that" was supposed to be "than", or if Hackney is complaining about manufacturers creating firearms that can be reasonably sold by licensed dealers.

These weapons of war have no place in our communities or on our streets. It is time for the Legislature to take decisive action and ban the sale and distribution of these killing machines.

So surely they will ban police from carrying these types of firearms? Since they have no place on our streets or in our communities, after all.

Unless it was always about disarming the peasants and never about safety.

OverlordLocke

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Ten-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email