Thread: Ultimate Test of Civility ~ 2nd Amendment

It seems interesting, to say the least, that the law enforcement guys here defend the right to have guns even though they would be the ones most affected by the illegal use of them.

Many people are suprised by this. This is because a lot of brass goes on record with the media as being anti-CCW, but the press does not talk to the guys/gals that are actually doing law enforcement on the street. Do you think a Chief or Sheriff is going to go on record as saying they think the public should CCW because their resources wont allow their Officers to save everyones butt's in time. Hell no, they would rather give the PC answer and tell people to "just call us". It does not change a whole lot for most cops, we assume everyone has a gun, and if you do find one then you assume they have another, etc. As far as I am concerned CCW just puts more good guys out there.

The last time the CCW issue came up in WI a head of a LE agency made a comment to me that we were lucky it didn't pass cause they eliminated the part where we could be notified of their CCW status when responing to domestic violence incidents. Well most DV cases occurr in the home and you can CCW in your home without a license so that made zero difference to me, and again we always assume someone is armed no matter where they are But that same person also told me we didn't need patrol rifles. No sir we should stick with the shotgun "cause you can stop a car by shooting through the engine block with a shotgun"....... .....don't even get me started

Besides most of our dispatchers cannot optain the most basic info as is, now you want them to check a CCW database for every subject involved

Another thing many people dont realize is many people not involved in any way with law enforcement often train as much or more than many LEO's and walk around with superior weapons and more firepower due to dumb dept regulations. Hell I legally carry the same exact model of weapon that is issued to many federal agencies in a higher caliber than most LEOs carry, and generally have 37 to 49 rounds on me. I find it hard to believe that in some of these stories you hear about an off duty cop being in a store getting robbed where they have a duty to act, that there werent some individuals packing heat that werent ready to step up to the plate if need be.

I'm a gun toting California liberal. I might lean a little to the left on most social issues, but don't be messin' where you shouldn't be messin'.

Originally Posted by Korndog

I'm a gun toting California liberal. I might lean a little to the left on most social issues, but don't be messin' where you shouldn't be messin'.

I can only imagine what it took to get a permit in ventura county right outside LA county.....does the devil own your soul now?

Originally Posted by urleebird

Dylandog...

Your words are just as good as anyone else's here, and, they are welcome fodder... even if you are wrong.

You are a good writer and especially good at spin. But, in my opinion, it is just that... spin. That specific argument is used frequently by the left in an attempt to nullify the 2nd amendment.

Thanks for the words of welcome Bill. To be clear, I think the 2nd amendment is extremely important, as important as the first and I don't want to see either nullified. My point is that the second amendment isn't about home-defense and gun-ownership per se; it's about putting the force of arms in the hands of the people and not solely in the hands of the state. In the 18th century that meant guns, because that was what force of arms was then. So that was easy enough. Joe Chandler pretty much summed up the spirit of the Founders when he said, if the government has guns then he wants to be able to have a gun; otherwise you're vulnerable to potential government repression. Now that force of arms means missiles, fighter jets, and so on, the equation is much more complicated. But it is more important than ever to have guarantees that this awesome military belongs to we the people, that we are not powerless and the state all-powerful. Liberals who want to nullify the 2nd amendment are as misguided as conservatives who think it has something to do with showdowns with street thugs, real and imagined.

If the Founders knew that Americans in the 21st century were debating whether a man has the right to be armed and protected against the criminal element (what they'd have called brigands and bandits) they'd think we were nuts. They'd probably agree with Bill that only a dreamily naive pansy-ass would say otherwise. But they wouldn't understand what any of this has to do with the 2nd amendment. The right of home- and self-defense has its roots in English common law, not the American constitution.

What amazes me is the people who think others will protect them, instead of taking the responsibility to protect themselves. The police are not responsible for the protection of the people, this has been upheld by the supreme courty multiple times when individuals attempt to sue the police for not being present at the time of the crime, the police respond to crimes, they cant be most places to prevent them. Others think the military will help them, nope sorry, its illegal unless there is an act of war on american soil, and they think the national guard will protect them, if the national guard or the military is walking around in your home town, you better be damn sure you need self protection more than ever.

As far as the thugs on the street, just curious here, so far I havent heard of anyone who was packing being mugged, unless they chose to throw the bad guy a bone instead of dealing with the paper work of an investigation, in which case they obviously didnt think their life was truely in danger. On the other hand, 911 gets calls all the time about people beat senseless for anything from their shoes on up. If the news papers werent so liberally run you would hear about all the lives guns save regularly, most of the time without even firing a single round. I cant count the amount of car jackings avoided per year because they bad guy found himself staring down the wrong end of a handgun, instead they decided to move on to the unarmed invididual in the next car, and if you think Im making it up, you are dead wrong. Furthermore, if you think Im going to put myself on the line for some person who chose not to protect himself or his family you would be wrong again, I cant protect them because they passed lawes stating that I don't have that obligation and can be prosicuted for it, so let them lie in the bed they made, or the coffin in this circumstance.

Originally Posted by JLStorm

I can only imagine what it took to get a permit in ventura county right outside LA county.....does the devil own your soul now?

Thousand Oaks and neighboring Simi Valley routinely rank 1st and 2nd in the FBI safest cities in America list. We are, in general, a very conservative district. We are also nicely armed since we have more LEO's living here than any other city in the country. But you are correct in general. Tough to get a ccw, but not impossible, except for San Francisco area.

Originally Posted by Korndog

Thousand Oaks and neighboring Simi Valley routinely rank 1st and 2nd in the FBI safest cities in America list. We are, in general, a very conservative district. We are also nicely armed since we have more LEO's living here than any other city in the country. But you are correct in general. Tough to get a ccw, but not impossible, except for San Francisco area.

I did a brief stint outside malibu, and even though I worked S&R with ventura county sheriifs dept and went shooting at the same shooting range, I was told repeatedly it wasnt even worth it to try. I moved before I turned 21 so it wasnt really an option anyway. Strangely enough that was the only time I ever got shot at, but I was in van nuys not VC, and I was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

I really don't get the whole Guantanamo thing. They were caught bering arms against the soldiers of the US while acting for the losing side in a war. They are for sure Guilty of that and it is quite often fatal, no trial needed.

Why so many of them were brought over her I don't know they should either be shot or let go not debated over and certanly not given the same rights as a citizen.

It is not the exclusive right of a citizen to have a fair trial. The point is that at the moment you only have the government's word that what you say is true. How do you know they are guilty, and guilty of what? A trial presents the evidence, which is weighed and sifted and put out there for all to see. Although I'm no expert, I believe the Geneva convention requires this:

Depriving combatants, prisoners of war, refugees, or medical or religious personnel of a fair trail is a grave breach of the Geneva Convention.

(Protocol I, Art. 85, Sec. 4e)

Anyway, that's not my direct point. The point is that the argument that says you need the second ammendment to keep the government in check needs closer examination. What do you mean by "in check"? How will you all know when the government gets "out of check", and who decides this? What do you do if some people think action needs to be taken, but others don't? If your govt. is prepared to ignore international human rights, what national human rights might it be prepared to ignore, and will you recognise it if/when it happens?

So to me the "keep the governement in check" argument doesn't make sense. It just sounds like a rationalisation. I can't see how it would work in practice.

[Don't get me wrong - I'm not taking a "holier than thou" stance. In Australia our govt. passed anti-sedition laws recently, as a reaction to the terrorist threat. These laws are ostensibly to deal with "Muslim clerics" preaching hate against "us". But they technically apply to the whole population, because some muslim clerics are naturalised Australians. So I can be thrown in gaol for telling my neighbour that I think our Prime Minister is a worthless git with no more skill at running the country than the mould on my shower tiles. In addition, we have a scandalous human rights record, first with our indigenous population and lately with our treatment of refugees. ]

James.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not taking a "holier than thou" stance.

Pretty much sounds like it to me.