You can't keep screwing the economy or suspend the people in fear while the population is armed.
That is what gun control and ACA are about.
Western South Dakota ranchers aren't too thrilled with their GOP-TEAts right now..
Dead herds in the Blizzard, no way to remove the carcasses;
now Sen. Thune wants that part of the govt. to reopen..
Just like with Hurricane Sandy versus the natural disasters in RED areas.
I'm not sure why you think we can't remove animal carcass, but we have several tractors and don't need a government goon to operate them.Western South Dakota ranchers aren't too thrilled with their GOP-TEAts right now..
Dead herds in the Blizzard, no way to remove the carcasses;
now Sen. Thune wants that part of the govt. to reopen..
Just like with Hurricane Sandy versus the natural disasters in RED areas.
The silence says it all.[/QUOTE
I don't know, but isn't one of law enforcements biggest argument that they are outgunned on the streets?
The silence says it all.
I don't know, but isn't one of law enforcements biggest argument that they are outgunned on the streets?
I don't know, but isn't one of law enforcements biggest argument that they are outgunned on the streets?
First of all thank you for being the first pro gun control person to respond. I appreciate that.
Police departments that still carry the 9mm? Yes I would say they are. Most departments switched to the Glock 10mm years ago. So caliber wise? No not anymore. All squad cars carry a tactical shotgun and some even have AR's. So how they could say they are outgunned nowadays is beyond me. It is usually a ploy to get either more money for a department or to put pressure on government for more gun control. Sometimes it is political appointees (police chiefs) bowing to political pressure. That is actually more often than not the case.
So maybe 20 years ago, yea they were. Can't say that anymore. I am not even going to go into the hardware special tactics units uses.
In the end police who are just civilians authorized by local government to enforce the laws, and should not be above we the people when it comes to those laws.
I most certainly am not pro gun control! Grrrrr....:2wave:
Damn that sucks. Then we still have not got even one real answer. Go figure, lol.
Your title isn't provocative enough.
Does not need to be. They have been viewing it.
Yes but more people want to respond when you say it like an asshole. :lol:
Try to be nice. :lol:
Why? .
You are taking my thread way off topic. It has nothing to do with police powers or the rights of the people.
So ask me in a PM or the nether regions.
Now back on topic...
All things being equal many X military, X LEO's and civilians have as much training as do active and retired LEO's. The only real difference is the psychological testing for police and some military MOS'es. Most people with CCW licenses etc have had very extensive background checks as well.
So if people I mentioned had the same psychological testing as police, should they like the police be allowed access to the same weapons? Police are allowed access to teargas and grenade launchers, full auto weapons and even explosive etc grenades.
So if we the people have the same training, background checks etc as police. Why should only the peoples right be infringed?
Well, there is a difference in that the training isn't mandatory for us to practice our right. In order to be a police officer you HAVE to have training. If you were talking about making training equivalent to what the police receive for all gun owners, then of course. If not, then I'm not sure how I would feel about ordinary people who may or may not be trained having access to grenade launchers and things of that nature.
You missed the point. If we have, like me for instance. The same training or better than any police officer. Why does he get to be above the law? So the training they go through must mean very little if people with even more training etc are restricted by laws that police are exempt from just because the local, state, federal authorities say so. It is obviously not based on training or we could have the same hardware. A civilian law enforcement officer is still just a civilian. So why are the civilian police forces not restrained by the same laws? How are they above the people?
Well it's because not everyone who owns a gun is as well trained as you. That's why I said if there was mandatory training then I would agree. Or are you suggesting that different people have different levels of licensing where they can purchase such weapons IF they have the appropriate training?
No. My point is why are the police above the law? It's obviously not the training. Otherwise people like myself, Goshen etc could purchase the same arms no mater what state like police, and we can't.
Well in that case, they would have to give out a special kind of license for those who were trained, like I said.
I'm also quite sure the government doesn't want a populace who is armed as well as they are.
No. My point is why are the police above the law? It's obviously not the training. Otherwise people like myself, Goshen etc could purchase the same arms no mater what state like police, and we can't.
I posted a similar question in another thread but here goes for a wider set of views...
All things being equal many X military, X LEO's and civilians have as much training as do active and retired LEO's. The only real difference is the psychological testing for police and some military MOS'es. Most people with CCW licenses etc have had very extensive background checks as well.
So if people I mentioned had the same psychological testing as police, should they like the police be allowed access to the same weapons? Police are allowed access to teargas and grenade launchers, full auto weapons and even explosive etc grenades.
So if we the people have the same training, background checks etc as police. Why should only the peoples right be infringed?
For the record I am OK with the system in place Federally. Locally New York, CA and a few others are in my opinion over the line of "shall not be infringed."
I'd be interested in how many people die in accidents with guns vs. how many are killed maliciously. In the case of mass shooters, lack of training with the weapon is usually not a problem. Quite the opposite in fact. If training was really the main concern, then accidents would be a significant portion of shooting deaths.
With all the caveats that this site might be biased, the claim here is that accidental shootings are way down, just like intentional shootings:
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?