Agreed, so no point mentioning it as evidence in favour of allowing guns in the first place.
Inevitable gun control argument thread....
- Thread starter .Shane.
- Start date
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Would better law enforcement help cutting down the number of guns?
It seems that many people have little trust in the police and decide to protect themselves instead. What if trust in law enforcement is restored? Is it even possible? It would make less people go out and buy guns for their protection and cut down the number of guns voluntarily without the need for a draconian ban.
Long term solution of course.
It seems that many people have little trust in the police and decide to protect themselves instead. What if trust in law enforcement is restored? Is it even possible? It would make less people go out and buy guns for their protection and cut down the number of guns voluntarily without the need for a draconian ban.
Long term solution of course.
Speaking for myself, it's not that I have little trust in the police per se. I think my local police are reasonably competent. However, they are limited in two ways - one, their response time simply cannot be good enough to satisfy me without use of teleporter technology. Whether I'm in bed or walking down the street, I'm two seconds away from having a pistol in hand. Just calling 911 takes longer than pulling a pistol does, to say nothing of telling the 911 operator the emergency, them dispatching a unit, and that unit getting from wherever it happens to be to my location. And then there's the same problem that people seem to cite when rejecting concealed carry in schools - how does the police officer figure out that I'm the good guy?
Which brings up the second way - it isn't the job of the police to protect me. I can get twelve restraining orders on a guy, and when he shows up at my door with a shotgun and I call 911 and the dispatcher decides to take a coffee break rather than dispatch a unit, the dispatcher might get fired but my estate has no grounds to sue the police department or their employees. They keep general crime in check through deterrence and apprehension of criminals, but my own personal skin is my own responsibility.
It has always struck me funny that people would cheer on a celebrity (that employs an armed bodyguard) or politician (that actually does have police whose job it is to protect them) when they advocate many more restrictions on guns - they are being as self-serving as it is possible to be. Why cheer that, but boo them when they otherwise act like a Hollywood dilletante or vote themselves a pay raise?
SewerStarFish
King
"That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this hall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons."
Go ahead, twist that to mean a collective right for militias. Booyah, score one for State sovereignty and State Constitutions!
Exactly. Pennsylvania's constitution:
"Section 21 . Right to Bear Arms
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."
Mo. & Pa. -- who knew they were so close?
Well, here's a new twist.
For those of you thinking that the US Constitution's Second Amendment is/was angled at state militias that might be defending against the federal government, AG Gonzalez has gotten Sen Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ, and among the most ardent of gun-banners) to introduce a bill that would enable blocking of people on terrorist watch lists from buying guns.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070427/D8OP3Q8G1.html
Now obviously I'm no more in favor of terrorists buying guns than anyone else is. But... The US Attorney General being able to deny an individual from buying guns without any due process? Aren't the states entitled to a little more control than that, particularly given that the AG could unilaterally put every member of a state militia group on the terrorist watch list?
And if anyone doubts how readily this would get screwed up, I direct you to Exhibit A, the no-fly list.
At least the Bush Administration is being consistent - I fully expect them to take a whack at the Third Amendment soon, just to cover all their bases...
For those of you thinking that the US Constitution's Second Amendment is/was angled at state militias that might be defending against the federal government, AG Gonzalez has gotten Sen Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ, and among the most ardent of gun-banners) to introduce a bill that would enable blocking of people on terrorist watch lists from buying guns.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070427/D8OP3Q8G1.html
Now obviously I'm no more in favor of terrorists buying guns than anyone else is. But... The US Attorney General being able to deny an individual from buying guns without any due process? Aren't the states entitled to a little more control than that, particularly given that the AG could unilaterally put every member of a state militia group on the terrorist watch list?
And if anyone doubts how readily this would get screwed up, I direct you to Exhibit A, the no-fly list.
At least the Bush Administration is being consistent - I fully expect them to take a whack at the Third Amendment soon, just to cover all their bases...
