Preventable and stupid allowing your cops shoot your citizens.

Just in case i haven't said it enough times. I'll put this below your bottom line.
I take it you still haven't read what i said to the first person to jump on the parents.

Zach0805: He did not point the gun at the cops. Read before posting.

@ orathaic

I know that the Second Amendment/national defense has no connection to the topic at hand. It was in response to Invictus, not as a response to the thread in general. Regardless, I will respond to you.

Just to clarify, the Second Amendment is a national defense asset if we're talking about a worst-case, Red Dawn-esque scenario. Are a bunch of good old boys with deer rifles going to stop terrorists and other violently anti-American ne'er-do-wells? Of course not. Are a bunch of good old boys with deer rifles going to make life miserable for an occupying army? Of course.

One could reasonably point to defense spending and say that America will never be invaded, which would be a fair assertion. But once gun rights are gone, they don't easily come back. What if you repealed the Second Amendment, cut defense budgets by 90%, banned nuclear weapons worldwide, and waited 50 years? Now we have Red Chinese paratroopers dropping everywhere and no way to repel them. "Oh, shit. Looks like we shouldn't have repealed the Second Amendment."

Is my above scenario a little extreme/absurd? Of course. But what's much less extreme/absurd is a revolt against an out-of-control federal government. Beyond a certain threshold, armed revolt is the only way to stop a police state.

@ TrPrado et al

"Gunfighter seems to translate the word militia to mean populace. That job kind of falls to the National Guard as is, and they're better armed than the populace."

The Supreme Court has interpreted the Second Amendment to protect the right of the *populace* to keep and possess firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, such as defending one's home against intrusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago

Ah, now gunfigther, you've changed your position entirely. No longer is the second admendment a positive for national defence - because you admit it is extreme and absurd to find a situtation where it would help. But instead you're claiming that it is to protect citizens from the government.

Now there is an arguement i can get onboard with! I don't want to see a police state... but then your position is that in order to prevent a police state we must have the lesser evil of innocent citizens being killed by police (never-mind the number of police who are killed in the line of duty... )

I guess we will differ on this aswell. But as least we're back on topic :)

And for your information - i would actually agree with the supreme court interpretation - i think an admenment is much better than re-interpreting a law which has such an important place in American culture; you should change the culture first, then the constitution, then reduce the number of arms...

Increase the arms until you have killed all of the idiots, then when you vote on gun control you will win the vote and finally grow up as a nation, until then carry on killing

But does the Supreme Court argue ever that a militia (I speak of the National Guard) is not also established by the Second Amendment? No. Also, McDonald is a very broad and easily worked around decision since state legislatures are allowed to make "laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms," which if processed in certain ways can end up being that gun sales in general are impossible.
"But what's much less extreme/absurd is a revolt against an out-of-control federal government." Please define out-of-control, because this can be an insane act of sedition in some of the cases where some might see it as entirely justified.

The idea that the Second Amendment serves any national defense purpose is laughable. It is impossible for the United States to be invaded by a conventional army. It simply cannot happen. It would mean the enemy has destroyed our entire navy and air force. The United States, or any power, would resort to using its nuclear weapons long before then.

@ orathaic

"lesser evil of innocent citizens being killed by police"

Things like this are always going to happen when we have an armed police force. An armed police force is an unquestionable necessity when there are 300 million firearms in the United States. That being said, I am very concerned with what I view as a recent trend of police militarization and police brutality in the United States. A few accidental shootings here and there are not enough of a reason to disarm our police officers (or our citizens), but I am taken aback by the volume of police-related shootings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cases_of_police_brutality_in_the_United_States

This list is WAY too long. I think part of it is modern police training. Police these days have a militaristic view of the civilian population. It's not Reed and Malloy out there anymore, that's for damned sure.

@ TrPrado

"Also, McDonald is a very broad and easily worked around decision since state legislatures are allowed to make "laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms," which if processed in certain ways can end up being that gun sales in general are impossible."

True. There is always a work-around. But work-arounds take political capital, and anti-gun advocates have none. The NRA's fundraising numbers are no accident. The lack of recent national gun legislation is no accident. The recent liberalization of many state gun laws is no accident.

"Please define out-of-control, because this can be an insane act of sedition in some of the cases where some might see it as entirely justified."

Define 'out-of-control'? Okay. One scenario that comes to mind is a serious effort by the federal government to register or otherwise seize private firearms on a large scale.

You would revolt if the government tried to register guns?
Sounds like you're kind of on the 'extreme act of sedition' edge..

"Define 'out-of-control'? Okay. One scenario that comes to mind is a serious effort by the federal government to register or otherwise seize private firearms on a large scale. "

I love how the first thing that comes to mind is the ridiculous... when the governement currently shoots citizens with missiles from the sky (see executive orders to drone strike US citizens abroad) taps all communications (see snowdon leaks) and suppresses legitimate political organisations who oppose the status quo (see inappropriate uses of the patriot act)

But back to, killing of US citizens by police.

'An armed police force is an unquestionable necessity when there are 300 million firearms in the United States' - sure, then step one should be to reduce the number of firearms - which you haven't justified the need for.

The only equivalent article on wikipedia which i can find for ireland is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irish_police_officers_killed_in_the_line_of_duty

Notice how many irish police officers are killed by people in cars instead of people with guns. (even going back 30 years where we had a number of active paramilitary organisations... we still didn't have armed police)

"then step one should be to reduce the number of firearms - which you haven't justified the need for."

One needn't justify a need. The Second Amendment provides an individual constitutional right to bear arms. Short of repealing that, the numbers cannot go down.

@ steephie22

"You would revolt if the government tried to register guns?"

Registration is the first step on the path to disarmament. History has proven this time and time again.

@ orathaic

"I love how the first thing that comes to mind is the ridiculous... when the governement currently shoots citizens with missiles from the sky (see executive orders to drone strike US citizens abroad) taps all communications (see snowdon leaks) and suppresses legitimate political organisations who oppose the status quo (see inappropriate uses of the patriot act)"

Yet with all of those resources, the all-powerful government can't seem to defeat a few thousand Afghan hillbillies lightly armed with 30-year-old secondhand Russian weapons. Imagine millions of angry Americans, many with state-of-the-art small arms.

"'An armed police force is an unquestionable necessity when there are 300 million firearms in the United States' - sure, then step one should be to reduce the number of firearms - which you haven't justified the need for."

But I am not suggesting that police officers be disarmed. Just less heavily armed and with better conflict resolution training.

"Registration is the first step on the path to disarmament. History has proven this time and time again."

Care to provide some examples? I'm a little skeptical of that.

"Yet with all of those resources, the all-powerful government can't seem to defeat a few thousand Afghan hillbillies lightly armed with 30-year-old secondhand Russian weapons. Imagine millions of angry Americans, many with state-of-the-art small arms." Except that the Taliban is currently going down in flames. They've been dying and damn near destroyed. Our weapons and operations were so effective that the civilians they were hiding near died with the terrorists. The locals throw shit-fits about us having a presence there because we could potentially mean them harm and even death. What's more, what if you unleash millions of angry, and therefore prejudiced, Americans onto the Afghan populace. And, moreover, define "lightly armed." Because they have state of the art explosives.

@ bo_sox48

Um, pretty much every totalitarian regime of the last century? One cannot disarm a populace overnight, my left-leaning friend. You have to know who owns firearms and what kind of firearms they own in order to disarm them effectively.

@ TrPrado

"Except that the Taliban is currently going down in flames. They've been dying and damn near destroyed."

I dispute that. If that was true, then how come we have not "won" the War in Afghanistan?

"What's more, what if you unleash millions of angry, and therefore prejudiced, Americans onto the Afghan populace."

What are you talking about? You are making no sense.

"And, moreover, define "lightly armed." Because they have state of the art explosives."

Lightly armed by first world standards. I don't see any Taliban tanks or attack helicopters.

Do you actually think that the United States is headed down a the path of a "totalitarian regime" right now?

"Do you actually think that the United States is headed down a the path of a "totalitarian regime" right now?"

It's certainly not moving away from becoming a totalitarian regime. For decades, the presidency has accumulated more and more power. More than ever, Congress is uninterested in asserting its prerogatives.

The classical liberal structure of our government and society is being gnawed away. It may take many more years, but things are *not* going in the right direction. An American Sulla may already have been born.

That sounds like something Rand Paul would say. We're nowhere near totalitarianism.

I didn't say we were near. Try and read.

"If that was true, then how come we have not "won" the War in Afghanistan?" I didn't say we've won, and I didn't say they were gone. Their leadership is falling apart and they are being hunted by three different military forces. They're very scattered, and the only reason they can't die is because they can pick up just enough sentiment to get a few more members.
"What are you talking about? You are making no sense." Arm millions of Americans, all of them angry at Afghani terrorists, and put them in Afghanistan. The Taliban hides anywhere and everywhere, so how exactly do you expect these Americans to tell the difference between most Afghani citizens and Afghani terrorists? Some of these same Americans may see that Afghanis are sentimental towards terrorists and that they are all threats, and that can't be good.
"I don't see any Taliban tanks or attack helicopters." No, they just have the means to blow these things up.

Then you would be much better off concerning yourself with something that will actually matter during our lives.

There comes a point, when the government does not respond to the wishes of the people and calls itself a democracy, and guns down innocent civilians routinely and with impunity, that you need to start using the word "illegitimate."

We need to teach our governors that it's going to be Change, or Die

"Then you would be much better off concerning yourself with something that will actually matter during our lives."

Oh, I think it very well could matter during our lives. The presidency is so powerful now that all it would take it electing a genuinely bad man to set us down a quite dark path. The institutional checks on government power have largely worn away. All that's really holding us back from arbitrary government is a lack of nerve by the people in charge to really go for it.

We maintain a constitutional system these days largely because our political culture expects such. How long will that last? Like I said, our Sulla may already have been born.

The English and the Russians failed to control Afghanistan, so US efforts are not going to be any better. You have a weak official Afghanistan government and a bunch of warlords controlling everything outside of Kabul. Meanwhile the Taliban and terrorist groups are in caves in the mountains that are hard to detect, over the border, and mixed in with civilians since they don't wear uniforms. You need lots of ground troops to clear an area and then keep the enemy from filtering back in again. So the best you can do is kill enough of the leadership to convince the rest to come to the table and negotiate, because being a boss is hazardous to the health.

As to an Imperial Presidency, Iran-Contra showed that private funding and secrecy lets the president bypass Congress. No need for an appropriation of funds and no oversight lets you get away with everything. There was a rumor that Dan Quayle was picked as vice-president as a reward because his staff helped with funneling weapons to the Contras.

The right to bear arms is about as silly as the right to arm bears.

Can anyone confirm this: http://countercurrentnews.com/2014/11/national-guard-ferguson-walmart-protests/#

@"Imagine millions of angry Americans, many with state-of-the-art small arms." - yeah, just imagine, oh wait, they exist, have they stopped the tyranny of the US government? I'm not talking about their terrorism against other states and peoples; i'm talking about taking power away from the people, allowing cops gun down innocent citizens and get away without being charged. Any country where you need to be afraid of your police force is well on it's way to tyranny.

That said, maybe in white areas people aren't scared of their local police... i don't know what kinds of generalisations should be made. But I do know there are certain magazines you could read (about, lets say linux) which will get you on NSA watch lists (as a potential threat) and thusly lose your right to privacy...

Well done you guns have lead to dead children at police hands, and you're not up in arms about it. I *TOTALLY* see your point of view now...

About 10 years ago, "60 Minutes" ran a segment about a group legally buying in the US .50 caliber rifles to be used as "elephant guns" on African safaris and shipping them to a rebel group in the former Yugoslavia to shoot down aircraft at a mile range. The shipments were all listed as end use in Africa with a stop over in Yugoslavia to get around government regulations. So obtaining arms isn't a problem here.

Hey in Arizona the schools were getting military surplus weapons to protect them from shootings until a review this year by the DOD about where things were going.
ucson.com/news/state-and-regional/arizona-colleges-acquire-military-weapons/article_1de42152-129f-5789-b99f-848b47b47dc6.html

Randomizer: "This domain name(ucson.com) is for sale."