I just love coach 2.

Who first picks coach 1's clothes, and tries to physically restrain.

Only to conclude seconds later: "Coach 1 is right, damnit"

When I got mine, I had to get 2 passport photos, submit a fingerprint, take a day long class, take a written test, and pass a range test with my preferred CCW handgun. There are a bunch of other restrictions which I'll list below; not all states have these but Texas is one of the easiest states to get licensed in, so this should give you an idea for a baseline. When it comes to 'may issue' states like the ones I listed earlier, they have the same hoops to jump through generally, but the main one is you have to prove good cause to a police entity to carry. In many cases, those entities are either 'suggested' or blatantly told "Do not give out any permits". I suppose power or money could get around that, but you would still have to pass the other requirements.

Texas CCW pre-reqs:

A person is eligible for a license to carry a concealed handgun if the person:

is a legal resident of this state for the six month period preceding the date of application,

is at least 21 years of age (military 18 - 21 years of age now eligible - 2005 Texas CHL Law change),

has not been convicted of a felony,

is not currently charged with the commission of a felony, Class A or Class B misdemeanor, or equivalent offense, or an offense under Sec. 42.01 of the penal Code (Disorderly Conduct) or equivalent offense,

is not a fugitive from justice for a felony, Class A or Class B misdemeanor, or equivalent offense,

is not a chemically dependant person (a person with two convictions within the ten year period preceding the date of application for offenses (Class B or greater) involving the use of alcohol or a controlled substance is ineligible as a chemically dependant person. Other evidence of chemical dependency may also make an individual ineligible for a CHL),

is not incapable of exercizing sound judgement with respect to the proper use and storage of a handgun,

has not, in the five years preceding the application, been convicted of a Class A or Class B misdemeanor, or equivalent offense, or an offense under Section 42.01 of the Penal Code (Disorderly Conduct) or equivalent offense,

is fully qualified under applicable federal and state law to purchase a handgun,

has not been finally determined to be delinquent in making child support administered or collected by the attorney general,
has not been finally determined to be delinquent in the payment of a tax or other money collected by the comptroller, state treasurer, tax collector of a policital subdivision, Alcohol Beverage Commission or any other agency or subdivision,

is not currently restricted under a court protective order subject to a restraining order affecting a spousal relationship,

has not, in the 10 years preceding the date of application, been adjudicated as having engaged in delinquent conduct violating a penal law in the grade of felony,

has not made any material misrepresentation, or failed to disclose any material fact, in an application submitted pursuant to Section 411.174 or in a request for application submitted pursuant to Section 411.175.

P.S. if you screw up on any of the above 'after' you get your ccw, it gets suspended until you go before a board for review. My instructor said when I took the class, almost every single review case is denied.

On a funny aside, a Muslim tried to murder me in real life. Oh he hit hard as a bull, I can say that much. But fucker had no idea who I was. I was born with murder around me. I grew up waiting to die by a sociopath. Beaten, broken, the cycle never ending. Motherfucker didn't hit near hard enough even though everyone thought I might die.

And about ten "moderate" Muslims stood by while he tried to break my skull open. But after he broke his fists on my face I just stood up like a badass and dropped him on his face. I showed restrain to this would-be murderer, lol. I let him live and didn't even retaliate.

I actually applaud that psychopath, but the others that should have felt empathy that someone was being "killed" in front of their eyes, them I blame. And one had the audacity, the fucking audacity, to partially blame me for not calling the police...haha, silly Muslims, tricks are for kids. Guess my children don't need a father, eh? Guess my wife doesn't need a husband, eh. Because the moderates know what is in the Book.

For those who consider the biker's actions excessively aggressive in some way, I offer the story of my father's actual excessively aggressive reaction to the same vehicular slight.
In the 70's, my dad drove a Lincoln Continental....not just a boat but a cruise ship and tank of a car. He also drank heavily and thought nothing of driving drunk...which likely explains (but does not excuse) his actions in this story.

Driving in Houston one night, at a merge a woman refused to let him in when it was his turn. This enraged him, so he followed her for miles until she stopped at a red light. He then crept up to her bumper and shoved her car into the middle of the busy intersection, stalling her car and leaving her panicked. Satisfied with his revenge, he just turned right and left. THAT is what I consider overly aggressive. I thought the biker here was incredibly restrained and handled the situation perfectly.

How DARE you block Margot Robbie from me? HOW DARRRRRE YOU?
Do you have any idea how much money I spent knocking down the restraining order?

I'LL SUE!!

I'm from Manitoba myself and the juxtaposition of the video showing great restraint by the officer with this quote from the article is my main reason for posting:
Leah Gazan, an Indigenous activist and University of Winnipeg professor, said the officer could've used less forceful tactics to restrain Kokopenace

I don't want to downplay the obstacles faced in the US by African Americans, but I feel really strongly that race relations in Canada between Aboriginals and the country is in a MUCH worse place.

In Canada the past and history between aboriginals and Canada still has been ignored more often than it has been met head on. For both good and ill reasons over our history, we've had a two tiered system of laws that treat separately with you based on whether you are native or not. Originally this was oppressive of native communities, but now it's often the other way around:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/judges-must-weigh-cultural-factors-in-native-sentencing-court-rules/article535585/

The greater problem to try and solve is Canada's native reserve system. Native people living on reserves are more often than not growing up in 3rd world conditions. The worst part is, proposing changes to that system is itself 'racist' against aboriginals. Our reserve system is systematically destroying generations of people based upon their race, and nobody seems to be able to fix the thing .

What excessive force? I saw no punches or kicks FROM the officers, only directed AT them. They seemed to be properly restraining the girl with no injury to her at all, while she was definitely trying to injure the officer and flee.
Had she tried this in America, she would have needed to be hospitalized right then...not for something else 2 weeks later...assuming she survived the arrest.

I think it's pretty insane that some are trying to imply that this arrest had something to do with the hospitalization and/or death that happened 2 weeks later, with absolutely zero evidence or even a theory to support that implication.

Except that it's not shenanigans to lane split to the front at a light when on a bike, it's expected and legal, but it is shenanigans to jump back in front as a car just because you're butt hurt someone got in front of you, then swerve at the bike as if to kill him....and also serious shenanigans to chase him like you're Steve Macqueen because he turned your mirror slightly.
Perhaps you mean it's shenanigans to hit the douchebags mirror? I guess I can't say that's totally incorrect, and clearly didn't turn out well, but when someone tries to kill you (which is what happened as I see it), that's a fairly restrained response.
Florida is a concealed carry state, and a 'stand your ground' state as well. The biker could have shot that guy in my eyes after the first attempt to hit him at the very start, certainly when he cut him off and got out of the car, and justifiably, properly, and morally when the car started really trying to run him off the road.
(ps, I don't ride motorcycles)

Changed the title in lieu of new information. I know the grabbing is really low on the scale of what constitutes as assault, but if a white male did the same to a black female the internet would burn down.

Also, you violate Penal Code 236 PC California's false imprisonment law when you restrain, detain, or confine another person without that person's consent. The kid could have filed charges, but I think he chose to just make her look stupid instead.

That's bad enough, isn't it?
Does he really have to be Trump level awful to be properly called a dickhead? I don't think so.
I'm not saying he's a fascist, or the worst officer out there by far. Not being the worst is no excuse for being terrible, and it's a terrible officer who lies to kids, effectively dissolving any trust the children may have had for officers.
Lazy from law enforcement, especially lazy in their knowledge of the law they enforce, is terrible, and absolutely not worth the over $200000 per year he's paid.

Don't get me wrong, the kid could have been more restrained...but the kid is a kid, and so a childish celebration of his 'victory' is not unexpected or so out of line....it's childish. I expect adults in authority to be above that. I expect adults in authority to ignore childish taunts from children (which, to his credit, he mostly did). Mostly, I expect adults in authority to not be childish themselves, even to children. Apparently that's WAY too much to ask, even for >$200000 per year.

Nope....and to a small degree, yep.
Actually, we are a constitutional representative democracy or constitutional democratic republic (they mean the same thing)....

If you want the most technical term, our country is a constitutionally limited representative democratic republic.
In our form of government, the constitution limits the power of government. We elect representatives, so it's not a pure democracy. But we do elect them by majority rule so it is democratic.
To be sure, in addition to being a representative democracy, the United States is also a constitutional democracy, in which courts restrain in some measure the democratic will. And the United States is therefore also a constitutional republic. Indeed, the United States might be labeled a constitutional federal representative democracy.
But there is no basis for saying that the United States is somehow “not a democracy, but a republic.” “Democracy” and “republic” aren’t just words that a speaker can arbitrarily define to mean something (e.g., defining democracy as “a form of government in which all laws are made directly by the people”). They are terms that have been given meaning by English speakers more broadly. And both today and in the Framing era, “democracy” has been generally understood to include representative democracy as well as direct democracy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/13/is-the-united-states-of-america-a-republic-or-a-democracy/

I would say this is pretty much on the button, though. This way clearly isn't working, but the people who have money and power have convinced the majority that nothing can change and even if we could we would be worse off.

I don't think i'm being melodramatic or conspiracy theorising either. Rupert Murdoch and the Barclay brothers tell people what to think and they think it. Democracy has been subverted by money in most western countries with corporate lobbyists willing to spend billions to get a politician on-side, "anti-lobbying" legislation that actually attacks grassroots and activists from broadcasting the truth at election time (and leaves lobbying untouched), and unfair campaign spending/fund-raising that leaves the rich with all the advantage.

The media in Britain have consistently presented a skewed and incorrect representation of the left-wing party leader. It is clearly a campaign by vested interests to stop a man who would bring their reign to an end. The language that they use and the metric by which they judge "their" guy is COMPLETELY different to how they judge the "other" guy.

What's worse is, fairness and balance in the media has deteriorated to such a point that it is now absolutely fine for all this to happen.

As Lawdeedaw said, we are already a long way up shit creek and we didn't even pack the paddle. Some people are getting very rich and are very comfortable, they have immense power and they will say anything to convince you that it's best that it stays that way. Including lying and using manipulative language and statistics in their national publications and television stations. And all you as an individual really has to do is vote someone into power that cannot be corrupted. You've got Bernie, we've got Jeremy.

"Too rich to be corrupted" is farcical though - let's only trust rich people then. Not only does this suggest that rich people are more trustworthy just by dint of having lots of money, but that poor people are less trustworthy because the greedy little paupers can't restrain themselves from 'upping their station'? I would rather judge someone on who i perceive their character to be than based on what is in their bank account, but i guess i'm fucked up like that.

There never was an issue about concessions. They always were ready to accept their fate. But even the peace talks before only included the condition that their emperor was left untouched. And thats exactly what the USA gave them later. So not accepting peace with them was a farce from the start, no matter from what side you look at it.

Truman didnt restrain Stalin. Truman provoked Stalin massively, making him think that they would invade Russia next or at least start a war with them, which started the cold war.
The USA was always provoking, especially at the start of the cold war. Theres a well known video on Youtube (prolly even here) that shows exactly where and when nuclear tests happened. It makes perfectly obvious how much the USA provoked the Soviets.

Well, right until Pearl Harbor there were the do-fights and don't-fights. If the anti-war party hadn't been assassinated, ran out and broken, we wouldn't have had to fight Japan at all.

The problem is these people still ruled. Imagine them pressing forward with a nuclear plan (which would have absolutely occurred if they thought they could get away with it.) Interestingly Germany sent material to them to dump on our shores as a sort of nuclear bomb but we intercepted it. It is thought that we used it against Japan, which is hilarious. But I digress.

The point is--even if they planned on surrendering, they had no intention of concessions. Would those in power (who were as guilty as the Nazi) willingly turn themselves over for trial? Huehue.

As far as the Soviet issue, yeah, your facts go without saying. And Truman did get his results--he got Stalin to restrain himself (In a certain way...though there was the cold war.)