- Joined
- Nov 6, 2009
- Messages
- 36,920
- Reaction score
- 22,245
- Location
- Didjabringabeeralong
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Communist
thank you for making it clear that you cannot cite anything in the actual Second Amendment which supports your view about any supposed right of citizens to have comparable firearms as police officers.
we do-to carry them on the streets of our cities like police officers do. as to stuff you keep in your home-no. Most CCW permit holders are safer and better shots than most cops.
Anyone who trains both cops and non LEO civilians as I do will tell you that. and when you have people like me who are former olympic level shooters who have law degrees and years of experience in this area of the law-I am way way better trained than cops. I shoot every week. I have cleaned every police or LEO qualification test in my area including the County Sheriff's course and the Federal US Marshalls' Service (where I posted a "distinguished expert" rating-the highest available)
Then why are you arguing with Turtledude, telling him that he shouldn't have the same weapons as a police officer? You certainly seem to be making a judgement.
Hate to point this out, but there's nothing there saying they can't, either.
the incrementalist attack on the second amendment requires its adherents never to say where the line is crossed because the line changes every time they achieve another infringement of our rights
got to run
BBL
The events you mention predate the US Constitution and the Second Amendment. As a history teacher, I knew that. And now you do also.
I simply stated that there is nothing in the Second Amendment which states that a citizen can have the same weapons as a police officer. I further stated that the weapons carried by a police officer have nothing at all to do with the Second Amendment. Police officers do NOT carry the firearms they do because they have a Second Amendment right as a citizen to do so. They carry firearms because that is a necessary piece of equipment to performa and carry out their job. That is pretty much the rule the world over regardless of what rights a citizen may or may not have regarding firearms in a nation.
and you won't even tell us what weapons are protected.
do you think the weapons civilian police officers are issued are of a lower level of offensive capability than what say my nephew-a captain in the Green Beret used in his patrols in Afghanistan and Iraq?
what is the purpose of a police issued weapon
what is the purpose of the second amendment
its really not so tough a question
Soap box--------> ballot box-------->cartridge box.
So what? That doesn't mean a militia will never be necessary in the future. And if people don't have militarily effective firearms, the call-up of such a militia would be impossible.
I know what you stated. I'm asking you WHY you stated it.
More an idiot saying. In today's world, a useless thought and not something rational people consider viable.
Which is irrelevant because what it is NOT there does NOT give you anything.
Obviously you have no respect or understanding of our country's origins.
Again, I know nothing of this militia call up nor the rules that apply to such that you refer to under the era of the US Constitution. And you seem unable to point it out.
but you have said owning one single shot rifle would mean you are enjoying your second amendment rights. at what point does magazine restrictions or number of weapons you can own become a violation?
it seems to me a clear bright line that makes sense is that if CIVILIAN police officers can use something OTHER Civilians should be able to own it
Because it is the real world situation.
If we are to renew the "assault weapons" ban, then let's grandfather it in. I.e., if someone legally owns an "assault weapon" before the ban takes effect, then they may keep that gun. Afterward, no such weapon may be legally purchased for civilian use.
Would this be acceptable or not?
If we are to renew the "assault weapons" ban, then let's grandfather it in. I.e., if someone legally owns an "assault weapon" before the ban takes effect, then they may keep that gun. Afterward, no such weapon may be legally purchased for civilian use.
Would this be acceptable or not?
Such a thing would be no more acceptable than saying that the government should be able to limit you to only one political in nature public comment a year and it should be constitutional because it doesn't "[deny] the citizenry the the right to have [free speech]", it just restricts when, how much, and how said speech can occur.
Right, so what's in there then?
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
So you've got to have a high-fibre diet to keep your militia regular, and, of course, your right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Therefore, the founding fathers gave carte blanc to every paranoid-schizophrenic to own and carry anti-personnel mines and SAW's. Now we get to Turtle's point, that that's a wee bit unreasonable, considering we humans have gotten quite efficient at projecting lead. So, therefore, despite the wording, infringement must occur, and Turtle likes to draw his arbitrary line at what police can use. Of course, some want the line arbitrary line in other places, hence all the arguing. But, going by what is there, there is no limitations at all.
Point what out? That the people may need to form a militia? It would seem that this would be obvious to any student of history.
And you point out this real world situation because...?
ancient history more aptly.
because of the ridiculous and fallacious comparison of citizens with the equipment necessary for the job performance and duty of police officers.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?