I can hold the police department and our soldiers accountable, I also have a say in their mission and funding (not a direct one).
Again, not all the weapons in the world (and these guy didn’t have hand guns like most gun owners) saved them from either being invaded by the US or being governed by a crazy theocratic cult. You seem to be missing my point,
You’re claiming that the tyrannical government is rational, I’m saying it’s potentially tyrannical and that your hand guns are not going to keep it at bay. Actually there are more important checks and balances that prevent this, and none of them have to do with the 2nd amendment.
You’re right, never being trained by the army. But I did escape a military dictatorship, are we pulling out resumes now?
Not that great an example since he was attacking the government not private citizens. What was done was evil and terrible but you’ve got one instance compared to the countless instances of the US attacking buildings that happened to have clearly innocent people in them. Remember something called Waco where they took their tanks in against citizens and killed a bunch of children? Supposedly that was a motivation for the bombing. In neither case do I see responsibility.
Well the American people changed administrations two years ago electing a guy who promised to get out of Iraq immediately. That didn’t turn out like promised. The whole premise of the Bill of Rights is that you cant trust the government. If you can then you ought just throw out the other amendments.
What makes a government official more trustworthy? They are drawn from the people. If you cant trust the people how can you trust the people when they have special power as a government agent, especially if power tends to corrupt? The idea of the government having this sole power is anathema to the foundations of America. I’m not saying you should trust a private citizen. I am saying you should not particularly trust this same person because he’s got a state costume on or was elected by the same people you cant trust.
“He was attacking the government not private citizens”, what does that even mean??? Did children of God die or not in that instance? Would he have used worse weapons if they were easiliy available? C’mon, you know what I mean.
I have mechanisms to hold the government accountable, I have no such mechanisms against fanatical organizations that are armed.
It means exactly what the words suggest it means. According to the official story the motivation was an attack on the government for its killing of innocent people in Waco and Ruby Ridge. And by the way the perpetrators were former members of the government. That kinda blows a hole in the government is more responsible theory. In fact the government trusts its soldiers so little it doesn’t allow them to typically carry guns on base which is why the Fort Hood shooting was able to claim so many lives.
Source
You have a mechanism that you think holds the government accountable. Of course our long experience with history tells us the guys with the guns make the rules. The mechanism for holding fanatical organizations accountable is the government. That is what it exists for. If it cant do that then it fails at its most basic purpose so again, why would you trust it to protect you?
Who keeps coming up with these advanced weapons? Not private citizens. The government spends lots of money coming up with new ways to kill people. Those are the people you want to trust?
This doesn’t make any sense. You’re saying the OK bombing was an act against the government because they deserved it? I’m not really sure what your point is here BTW. I am saying that there are private citizens that would abuse more powerful weapons, it seems you refuse to agree with that.
I pay taxes so the police and the military protect me from burglars and invaders. I don’t pay the Hutaree to protect me against the anti-Christ. So yes, I trust official govt. organizations more than those people.
Totally missing my point of course. So you owning a hand gun is going to prevent further improvement in military technology???
Like someone said above, read John Lott’s book, More Guns, Less Crime. The author is a statistician I think, and he originally was anti-gun and set out to prove that more guns = more crime. He found out that it was just the opposite.
It won’t if you go head on with them, which of course would be idiocy. It will most definitely help if those fighting have a substantially greater amount of people (think Chinese involvement in the Korean War), or if guerilla tactics are used.
I just cant believe that !!! The best law of recent times !! It’s true !! I noticed that but did not come on time to copyright it !!!
Not a rifle, the muzzle velocity is too high and many rifle rounds would punch through exterior walls making it dangerous for innocents. My belief is that a shotgun is the best home defense weapon. It’s hard to miss and range is safely limited.
I can only tell you about the two agencies I worked at since I have no firsthand knowledge about all law enforcement personnel. 100-percent of the officers at the two agencies I worked at were properly trained and were “range” effective in the use of firearms. At both agencies all officers had to qualify twice annually under daylight conditions and once annually under low-light conditions. A minimum passing score was required in all qualifications to remain on the street. Failure to qualify required remedial training and continued failure ended in termination.
In my opinion, no. As a retired officer I am now a civilian and see no reason why I should be allowed to own a handgun if handgun ownership was outlawed. No, I do not presently own a handgun and do not plan to acquire one. I’m not hunter so I also do not have a hunting rifle. I do have a law enforcement model 12 gauge Remington pump shotgun and am quite confident it meets my home defense needs.
Yes, with regards to active police officers. At both agencies where I was employed we were required by policy to be armed whenever inside city limits regardless of whether we were on duty so it wasn’t optional. We also had a moral obligation to take action if we viewed a crime in progress while off duty, the reason behind the policy.
Not really since this is not an inappropriate use or analogy.
I’m saying that the motivation in the attackers mind was an injustice done with advanced weapons by the organization which they attacked. I would say none of the parties deserved it. I agree some private citizens might abuse more powerful weapons. But we have definite evidence that governments have abused all more powerful weapons. That being the case there is no reason to think restricting more powerful weapons to governments is a wise idea.
Private citizens have the same moral duty. One problem of the modern police force is that private citizens now often do not act on that duty but are told to wait for the police, which can mean great evil occurs while waiting.
The job of the police is not to take guns off the street. Police and government officials will make that claim. But the American people, whose will is supposed to determine what the government does, do not typically want police to do that. A few American cities have passed gun laws virtually banning all guns in private hands. These are also, not surprisingly, some of the most violenct cities. The gun laws have done nothing to make people safer which pretty much closes the case on whether gun laws reduce violence.
Numbers by themselves are of course meaningless. But the research into gun violence in the US has pretty conclusively shown that guns and their availability are not the problem. If you have preconceived notions about guns and will not abandon your beliefs despite the evidence then what can be done? Besides, Christians should know you cant make man good by laws. That does not mean you cant have laws. But expecting laws to solve your problems is starting out on the wrong path.
About 2 million Vietnamese were killed in Vietnam many by US soldiers and weapons. So why would you trust the US government as the only holder of weapons? If the US is an especially trustworthy government maybe it sould demand that the other governments of the world disarm. Do you think the rest of the world would agree? Do you think the idea is wise? If you think the idea is good then I can see how you might think the US should disarm its citizens. But if you know why the idea is bad then you should have no trouble understanding the US citizens should be allowed to hold all sorts of weapons including ones said to only be for the military.
You don’t understand Godwin’s law, yet without knowing it you reaffirm it.
You are going to be sorely disappointed when you realize that the police have NO obligation to protect you from burglars. They show up only after the crime has been committed.
One police officer against the 2nd Amendment does not equate with the Pope against something. I know a number of police officers, do their opinions count? Or only those that agree with you?
If we re-wrote the constitution today it wouldn’t look much like the present version. And the second amendment certainly wouldn’t be in it.