# Freedom and Security



## Wry Catcher

Are they a dichotomy?


----------



## Wry Catcher

Lots of looks which is good but let me put the question in terms of a current event.

Would we as a people but more free and more secure if everyone had the right to carry any type of firearm?

Would you feel free to go to a mall if you knew each of the thousands of people there were armed?  Would you feel more or less secure?


----------



## Michelle420

Wry Catcher said:


> Lots of looks which is good but let me put the question in terms of a current event.
> 
> Would we as a people but more free and more secure if everyone had the right to carry any type of firearm?
> 
> Would you feel free to go to a mall if you knew each of the thousands of people there were armed?  Would you feel more or less secure?



I am not a gun owner and to be honest about it I am not bothered if a private citizen owns a gun.

I am not sure why anyone needs big assault weapons, is there a reason for needing that?


----------



## Wry Catcher

drifter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of looks which is good but let me put the question in terms of a current event.
> 
> Would we as a people but more free and more secure if everyone had the right to carry any type of firearm?
> 
> Would you feel free to go to a mall if you knew each of the thousands of people there were armed?  Would you feel more or less secure?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a gun owner and to be honest about it I am not bothered if a private citizen owns a gun.
> 
> I am not sure why anyone needs big assault weapons, is there a reason for needing that?
Click to expand...


As a retired member of the LE community I would like laws to outlaw the civilian population from having greater fire power then the officers/deputies/agents on the streets.  LE spends time and money recruiting and checking the background of candidates, training them and supervising them closely during their first years on the job, and making sure they understand the law and use of force policies issued by their agency.

Civilians get a cursory background check and very little training, no psychological examination nor are they supervised even one day after their purchase of a gun.

I don't care what they keep in their homes, but it would be nice to know what we faced before knocking on their door.  As it stands now a LE officer must assume danger and be prepared for everything.


----------



## Michelle420

Wry Catcher said:


> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of looks which is good but let me put the question in terms of a current event.
> 
> Would we as a people but more free and more secure if everyone had the right to carry any type of firearm?
> 
> Would you feel free to go to a mall if you knew each of the thousands of people there were armed?  Would you feel more or less secure?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a gun owner and to be honest about it I am not bothered if a private citizen owns a gun.
> 
> I am not sure why anyone needs big assault weapons, is there a reason for needing that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a retired member of the LE community I would like laws to prevent the civilian population from having greater fire power then the officers/deputies/agents on the streets.  LE spends time and money recruiting and checking the background of candidates, training them and supervising them closely during their first years on the job, and making sure they understand the law and use of force policies issued by their agency.
> 
> Civilians get a cursory background check and very little training, no psychological examination nor are they supervised even one day after their purchase of a gun.
Click to expand...


What if civilians who wanted a handgun went through the same training and background check, would you be in support?


----------



## there4eyeM

So, this is not a philosophical question about freedom and security, but (again) about firearms?

Well, OK, here goes an attempt at both at the same time:

That freedom has to be protected is already arguable. Liberty, the right to movement and speech, can be constrained by others. If one is truly free, however, no other can take that away. For free means freedom from the constraints of error, falseness, an entrapped mind. Obviously, firearms are unneeded to protect such a state.

By contrast, the 'freedom' to carry firearms can easily lead to insecurity for the one carrying as well as those in the area. Having a firearm does not assure being the one to use it. And at precisely what point and in what kind of confrontation would one produce the arm? How does one decide? There are very few incidents when issues are so clear that a firearm would settle matters. Then, what happens when others also have weapons and, upon seeing a person pull out a lethal device, react in their perceived self defense?

That kind of freedom and security do not necessarily go together.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Unarmed people are neither free nor secure


----------



## Wry Catcher

drifter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a gun owner and to be honest about it I am not bothered if a private citizen owns a gun.
> 
> I am not sure why anyone needs big assault weapons, is there a reason for needing that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a retired member of the LE community I would like laws to prevent the civilian population from having greater fire power then the officers/deputies/agents on the streets.  LE spends time and money recruiting and checking the background of candidates, training them and supervising them closely during their first years on the job, and making sure they understand the law and use of force policies issued by their agency.
> 
> Civilians get a cursory background check and very little training, no psychological examination nor are they supervised even one day after their purchase of a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if civilians who wanted a handgun went through the same training and background check, would you be in support?
Click to expand...


I don't think that's feasible.


----------



## Michelle420

Wry Catcher said:


> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a retired member of the LE community I would like laws to prevent the civilian population from having greater fire power then the officers/deputies/agents on the streets.  LE spends time and money recruiting and checking the background of candidates, training them and supervising them closely during their first years on the job, and making sure they understand the law and use of force policies issued by their agency.
> 
> Civilians get a cursory background check and very little training, no psychological examination nor are they supervised even one day after their purchase of a gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What if civilians who wanted a handgun went through the same training and background check, would you be in support?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think that's feasible.
Click to expand...


From a philosophical standpoint if they received the same training and passed the same criteria would you be ok with citizens owning guns?


----------



## Wry Catcher

drifter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if civilians who wanted a handgun went through the same training and background check, would you be in support?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that's feasible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From a philosophical standpoint if they received the same training and passed the same criteria would you be ok with citizens owning guns?
Click to expand...


LE background is extensive; each candidate is given a complete psychological evaluation, both written and oral - two interviews with a psychologist; at least two interviews with in-house staff, the first with first level supervisors, the second with management and then assigned a training officer who evaluates the candidate regularly for at least one year.

And that's only part of it.


----------



## Michelle420

Wry Catcher said:


> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that's feasible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From a philosophical standpoint if they received the same training and passed the same criteria would you be ok with citizens owning guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LE background is extensive; each candidate is given a complete psychological evaluation, both written and oral - two interviews with a psychologist; at least two interviews with in-house staff, the first with first level supervisors, the second with management and then assigned a training officer who evaluates the candidate regularly for at least one year.
> 
> And that's only part of it.
Click to expand...


Ok you have listed what professionals must go through , it didn't really answer what I asked you though.

Is it your philosophy that no matter what training received even if identical to someone professionally trained, a citizen should not have guns?

or do you support citizens owning guns if they go through identical requirements and training as that of professionals?


----------



## there4eyeM

Being for or against firearms is a rather narrow perspective. Society should be developing rational, responsible participants. Such citizens could have hydrogen bombs and there would be no problem.

As stated elsewhere, I actually like precision machines such as pistols and rifles. I've owned, fired and carried them. I have no emotional feelings about them. I do see that the evolution of things in US history has brought us to a new place, and firearms are only a tiny part of what confronts us, a symptom at most.


----------



## dblack

Wry Catcher said:


> Are they a dichotomy?



I don't think so. In fact, I'd go so far as to say they depend on each other. Freedom without security is living in fear, security without freedom is to live as a slave.


----------



## Wry Catcher

drifter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> From a philosophical standpoint if they received the same training and passed the same criteria would you be ok with citizens owning guns?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LE background is extensive; each candidate is given a complete psychological evaluation, both written and oral - two interviews with a psychologist; at least two interviews with in-house staff, the first with first level supervisors, the second with management and then assigned a training officer who evaluates the candidate regularly for at least one year.
> 
> And that's only part of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok you have listed what professionals must go through , it didn't really answer what I asked you though.
> 
> Is it your philosophy that no matter what training received even if identical to someone professionally trained, a citizen should not have guns?
> 
> or do you support citizens owning guns if they go through identical requirements and training as that of professionals?
Click to expand...


I'm not opposed to citizens owning guns and don't believe they need the same vetting and training as do armed peace officers.  Please read what I posted about the types of weapons now available for civilians to outgun peace officers.

BTW, I was watching the Niners beat Atlanta.  Sorry about the delay.


----------



## Michelle420

Wry Catcher said:


> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> LE background is extensive; each candidate is given a complete psychological evaluation, both written and oral - two interviews with a psychologist; at least two interviews with in-house staff, the first with first level supervisors, the second with management and then assigned a training officer who evaluates the candidate regularly for at least one year.
> 
> And that's only part of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok you have listed what professionals must go through , it didn't really answer what I asked you though.
> 
> Is it your philosophy that no matter what training received even if identical to someone professionally trained, a citizen should not have guns?
> 
> or do you support citizens owning guns if they go through identical requirements and training as that of professionals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not opposed to citizens owning guns and don't believe they need the same vetting and training as do armed peace officers.  Please read what I posted about the types of weapons now available for civilians to outgun peace officers.
> 
> BTW, I was watching the Niners beat Atlanta.  Sorry about the delay.
Click to expand...


No worries, I just enjoy the discussion.

I read your concerns on weaponry and " laws to prevent the civilian population from having greater fire power then the officers/deputies/agents on the streets"

That is why I asked if they had identical training that professionals receive and are required to have would you still oppose it.

I suppose I wondered if it was citizens having high powered weapons that bothered you  or the lack of training and requirement laws for citizens that professionals are required to have.

I don't have any weaponry myself but I don't mind if my neighbor has a collection.

I think it comes down to accountability and responsibility.

Did your team win?


----------



## auditor0007

Wry Catcher said:


> Lots of looks which is good but let me put the question in terms of a current event.
> 
> Would we as a people but more free and more secure if everyone had the right to carry any type of firearm?
> 
> Would you feel free to go to a mall if you knew each of the thousands of people there were armed?  Would you feel more or less secure?



Based on the simple fact that there are a lot of nuts out there, I would prefer less people had access to firearms, especially in public places.  If everyone was packing, we would all learn to live with it, but to have the feeling that everyone would be more secure is not very realistic.  In the end, it would probably prevent many of the mass killings we see, but we would also likely see more incidents where just one or two people were killed.  I imagine every city would see a couple of homicides each day like this.  Just think about driving.  Someone cuts you off and nearly drives you off the road.  You get pissed off, go after them, catch up to them, aim and fire.  Even knowing the other person might be armed, you'd still take your shot.  Now not everyone would react like that.  Some people could control their emotions enough to avoid this scenario, but we all know there are some out there who could not.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Wry Catcher said:


> Are they a dichotomy?



The government always puts security of the country of individual freedom.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Wry Catcher said:


> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of looks which is good but let me put the question in terms of a current event.
> 
> Would we as a people but more free and more secure if everyone had the right to carry any type of firearm?
> 
> Would you feel free to go to a mall if you knew each of the thousands of people there were armed?  Would you feel more or less secure?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a gun owner and to be honest about it I am not bothered if a private citizen owns a gun.
> 
> I am not sure why anyone needs big assault weapons, is there a reason for needing that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a retired member of the LE community I would like laws to outlaw the civilian population from having greater fire power then the officers/deputies/agents on the streets.  LE spends time and money recruiting and checking the background of candidates, training them and supervising them closely during their first years on the job, and making sure they understand the law and use of force policies issued by their agency.
> 
> Civilians get a cursory background check and very little training, no psychological examination nor are they supervised even one day after their purchase of a gun.
> 
> I don't care what they keep in their homes, but it would be nice to know what we faced before knocking on their door.  As it stands now a LE officer must assume danger and be prepared for everything.
Click to expand...


LEOs can carry anything a civilian can, unless the idiotic politicians restrict them. If you have a problem with what your bosses let you carry argue with them, don't take away other people's rights.


----------



## hortysir

I am secure with my freedoms


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Wry Catcher said:


> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a retired member of the LE community I would like laws to prevent the civilian population from having greater fire power then the officers/deputies/agents on the streets.  LE spends time and money recruiting and checking the background of candidates, training them and supervising them closely during their first years on the job, and making sure they understand the law and use of force policies issued by their agency.
> 
> Civilians get a cursory background check and very little training, no psychological examination nor are they supervised even one day after their purchase of a gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What if civilians who wanted a handgun went through the same training and background check, would you be in support?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think that's feasible.
Click to expand...


You don't think it is feasible for civilians to go through a bottom of the barrel firearms course?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Wry Catcher said:


> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that's feasible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From a philosophical standpoint if they received the same training and passed the same criteria would you be ok with citizens owning guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LE background is extensive; each candidate is given a complete psychological evaluation, both written and oral - two interviews with a psychologist; at least two interviews with in-house staff, the first with first level supervisors, the second with management and then assigned a training officer who evaluates the candidate regularly for at least one year.
> 
> And that's only part of it.
Click to expand...


We both know that depends on what law enforcement agency they work for, stop lying.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Quantum Windbag said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are they a dichotomy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The government always puts security of the country of individual freedom.
Click to expand...


Huh?  Did you mean "over" individual freedom?

I suppose that's true and when not taken to the extreme makes sense.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Quantum Windbag said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a gun owner and to be honest about it I am not bothered if a private citizen owns a gun.
> 
> I am not sure why anyone needs big assault weapons, is there a reason for needing that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a retired member of the LE community I would like laws to outlaw the civilian population from having greater fire power then the officers/deputies/agents on the streets.  LE spends time and money recruiting and checking the background of candidates, training them and supervising them closely during their first years on the job, and making sure they understand the law and use of force policies issued by their agency.
> 
> Civilians get a cursory background check and very little training, no psychological examination nor are they supervised even one day after their purchase of a gun.
> 
> I don't care what they keep in their homes, but it would be nice to know what we faced before knocking on their door.  As it stands now a LE officer must assume danger and be prepared for everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LEOs can carry anything a civilian can, unless the idiotic politicians restrict them. If you have a problem with what your bosses let you carry argue with them, don't take away other people's rights.
Click to expand...


LE cannot afford to outfit every officer/deputy/agent with the same weapons available to the civilian population.  Keep in mind, LEO's will need to be trained in the operation of special weapons and how such firearms are to be used in the use of force policy and qualify quarterly; the agency will need to buy such weapons, maintain such weapons, and purchase ammunition so the use of such weapons can become familiar to the LEO.  

Small special weapons teams are so equipped; that does not aid patrol.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Quantum Windbag said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> From a philosophical standpoint if they received the same training and passed the same criteria would you be ok with citizens owning guns?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LE background is extensive; each candidate is given a complete psychological evaluation, both written and oral - two interviews with a psychologist; at least two interviews with in-house staff, the first with first level supervisors, the second with management and then assigned a training officer who evaluates the candidate regularly for at least one year.
> 
> And that's only part of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We both know that depends on what law enforcement agency they work for, stop lying.
Click to expand...


That's true.  I'm reporting on what I did when I was assigned recruitment and training.  I know that it is (mostly) true in California, at least with the agencies with whom  I collaborated.


----------



## dblack

Wry Catcher said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are they a dichotomy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The government always puts security of the country of individual freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh?  Did you mean "over" individual freedom?
> 
> I suppose that's true and when not taken to the extreme makes sense.
Click to expand...


I don't think it does. In fact, if you believe government's primary responsibility is to protect individual freedom, it's flat out contradictory.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Wry Catcher said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are they a dichotomy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The government always puts security of the country of individual freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh?  Did you mean "over" individual freedom?
> 
> I suppose that's true and when not taken to the extreme makes sense.
Click to expand...


It makes sense to ignore freedom in order to protect me from my decisions? How?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Wry Catcher said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a retired member of the LE community I would like laws to outlaw the civilian population from having greater fire power then the officers/deputies/agents on the streets.  LE spends time and money recruiting and checking the background of candidates, training them and supervising them closely during their first years on the job, and making sure they understand the law and use of force policies issued by their agency.
> 
> Civilians get a cursory background check and very little training, no psychological examination nor are they supervised even one day after their purchase of a gun.
> 
> I don't care what they keep in their homes, but it would be nice to know what we faced before knocking on their door.  As it stands now a LE officer must assume danger and be prepared for everything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LEOs can carry anything a civilian can, unless the idiotic politicians restrict them. If you have a problem with what your bosses let you carry argue with them, don't take away other people's rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LE cannot afford to outfit every officer/deputy/agent with the same weapons available to the civilian population.  Keep in mind, LEO's will need to be trained in the operation of special weapons and how such firearms are to be used in the use of force policy and qualify quarterly; the agency will need to buy such weapons, maintain such weapons, and purchase ammunition so the use of such weapons can become familiar to the LEO.
> 
> Small special weapons teams are so equipped; that does not aid patrol.
Click to expand...


Strange, that is not what you said the first time.

Come to think of it, it doesn't even apply to what I said, which was that, as far as I am concerned, police should be allowed to carry anything they want, just like anyone else. The people that have the biggest problem with that are the politicians that make up rules about what guns are, and are not, allowed. Once again, take that up with them, don't whinge to me about it.

Strangely enough, most civilians can't afford to carry gold plated Desert Eagles either.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Wry Catcher said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> LE background is extensive; each candidate is given a complete psychological evaluation, both written and oral - two interviews with a psychologist; at least two interviews with in-house staff, the first with first level supervisors, the second with management and then assigned a training officer who evaluates the candidate regularly for at least one year.
> 
> And that's only part of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We both know that depends on what law enforcement agency they work for, stop lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's true.  I'm reporting on what I did when I was assigned recruitment and training.  I know that it is (mostly) true in California, at least with the agencies with whom  I collaborated.
Click to expand...


Big cities tend to use them more than smaller cities. I know one guy that got into the academy in El Paso that had no business being a cop in the backwoods of Arkansas.


----------



## asterism

Wry Catcher said:


> Lots of looks which is good but let me put the question in terms of a current event.
> 
> Would we as a people but more free and more secure if everyone had the right to carry any type of firearm?
> 
> Would you feel free to go to a mall if you knew each of the thousands of people there were armed?  Would you feel more or less secure?





Wry Catcher said:


> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of looks which is good but let me put the question in terms of a current event.
> 
> Would we as a people but more free and more secure if everyone had the right to carry any type of firearm?
> 
> Would you feel free to go to a mall if you knew each of the thousands of people there were armed?  Would you feel more or less secure?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a gun owner and to be honest about it I am not bothered if a private citizen owns a gun.
> 
> I am not sure why anyone needs big assault weapons, is there a reason for needing that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a retired member of the LE community I would like laws to outlaw the civilian population from having greater fire power then the officers/deputies/agents on the streets.  LE spends time and money recruiting and checking the background of candidates, training them and supervising them closely during their first years on the job, and making sure they understand the law and use of force policies issued by their agency.
> 
> Civilians get a cursory background check and very little training, no psychological examination nor are they supervised even one day after their purchase of a gun.
> 
> I don't care what they keep in their homes, but it would be nice to know what we faced before knocking on their door.  As it stands now a LE officer must assume danger and be prepared for everything.
Click to expand...


I never fear getting shot at gun shows and those guns are EVERYWHERE!

I think bureaucrats on the fringes of law enforcement get a little too policy crazy when they try to engineer safety.  Also, I think you're overstating the screening law enforcement gets.  When military rejects get ushered right onto the patrol force it's not all that stringent.

Law enforcement is an honorable profession and it generally works well, the field has more than it's proportional share of true heroes despite the defects.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Quantum Windbag said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government always puts security of the country of individual freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?  Did you mean "over" individual freedom?
> 
> I suppose that's true and when not taken to the extreme makes sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It makes sense to ignore freedom in order to protect me from my decisions? How?
Click to expand...


I'm thinking in terms of policy, the Selective Service Act, for example; establishing rules of the road too which limit your freedom to drive as fast or as recklessly as you please.


----------



## Wry Catcher

asterism said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of looks which is good but let me put the question in terms of a current event.
> 
> Would we as a people but more free and more secure if everyone had the right to carry any type of firearm?
> 
> Would you feel free to go to a mall if you knew each of the thousands of people there were armed?  Would you feel more or less secure?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a gun owner and to be honest about it I am not bothered if a private citizen owns a gun.
> 
> I am not sure why anyone needs big assault weapons, is there a reason for needing that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a retired member of the LE community I would like laws to outlaw the civilian population from having greater fire power then the officers/deputies/agents on the streets.  LE spends time and money recruiting and checking the background of candidates, training them and supervising them closely during their first years on the job, and making sure they understand the law and use of force policies issued by their agency.
> 
> Civilians get a cursory background check and very little training, no psychological examination nor are they supervised even one day after their purchase of a gun.
> 
> I don't care what they keep in their homes, but it would be nice to know what we faced before knocking on their door.  As it stands now a LE officer must assume danger and be prepared for everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never fear getting shot at gun shows and those guns are EVERYWHERE!
> 
> I think bureaucrats on the fringes of law enforcement get a little too policy crazy when they try to engineer safety.  Also, I think you're overstating the screening law enforcement gets.  When military rejects get ushered right onto the patrol force it's not all that stringent.
> 
> I don't know that this is true.  Our policy was clear, and all agencies with whom I collaborated followed similar policies.  No one was hired and put on the streets with a gun without a thorough background, complete psychological, physical and several interviews.
> 
> Law enforcement is an honorable profession and it generally works well, the field has more than it's proportional share of true heroes despite the defects.
Click to expand...


In addition to what I posted above new LEO's are assigned a Training Officer and on probation for at least a year.  They can be terminated at anytime during this period and have no right to know why (though they usually have a good idea).


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Wry Catcher said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?  Did you mean "over" individual freedom?
> 
> I suppose that's true and when not taken to the extreme makes sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It makes sense to ignore freedom in order to protect me from my decisions? How?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm thinking in terms of policy, the Selective Service Act, for example; establishing rules of the road too which limit your freedom to drive as fast or as recklessly as you please.
Click to expand...


It makes sense to the government, it doesn't make sense to the brigades of African Americans that were used as cannon fodder during Vietnam.


----------



## asterism

Wry Catcher said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of looks which is good but let me put the question in terms of a current event.
> 
> Would we as a people but more free and more secure if everyone had the right to carry any type of firearm?
> 
> Would you feel free to go to a mall if you knew each of the thousands of people there were armed?  Would you feel more or less secure?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a retired member of the LE community I would like laws to outlaw the civilian population from having greater fire power then the officers/deputies/agents on the streets.  LE spends time and money recruiting and checking the background of candidates, training them and supervising them closely during their first years on the job, and making sure they understand the law and use of force policies issued by their agency.
> 
> Civilians get a cursory background check and very little training, no psychological examination nor are they supervised even one day after their purchase of a gun.
> 
> I don't care what they keep in their homes, but it would be nice to know what we faced before knocking on their door.  As it stands now a LE officer must assume danger and be prepared for everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never fear getting shot at gun shows and those guns are EVERYWHERE!
> 
> I think bureaucrats on the fringes of law enforcement get a little too policy crazy when they try to engineer safety.  Also, I think you're overstating the screening law enforcement gets.  When military rejects get ushered right onto the patrol force it's not all that stringent.
> 
> I don't know that this is true.  Our policy was clear, and all agencies with whom I collaborated followed similar policies.  No one was hired and put on the streets with a gun without a thorough background, complete psychological, physical and several interviews.
> 
> Law enforcement is an honorable profession and it generally works well, the field has more than it's proportional share of true heroes despite the defects.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In addition to what I posted above new LEO's are assigned a Training Officer and on probation for at least a year.  They can be terminated at anytime during this period and have no right to know why (though they usually have a good idea).
Click to expand...


I think you are overselling this a bit.

Regardless, being an LEO is much more than being an accurate shot in a stressful situation.  Most of the training is in procedure, whether you admit it or not, and if a cop is terminated their rights to own weapons stay intact.  Many of those end up in the fringes like bounty hunters, private investigators, and security with access to the same types of weapons.


----------



## midcan5

Freedom doesn't exist and security can exist whether there is freedom or not. Is that a paradox. And guns have nothing to do with freedom or security. A gun is merely a tool, even a prisoner or a person who lived in a rigidly ruled place would not be determined to be free or secure based on having a gun. Guns only make sense with their use. Freedom is a concept that only makes sense in context; security can be any number of things. If I am sensibly rich, or have social security or some other ways in which my basic needs are met, am I secure. I may or not be as many other factors enter into the situation. Suppose I find I have a illness that requires great expense, am I still secure. Or suppose I have lots of weapons and so does my neighbor does that make me secure. Many people feel secure and free in the most rigid societal structures, others would never feel secure or free as they live in their minds and the outside is seen through it.

Is freedom real? http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/50799-is-freedom-real.html

Parable to understand politics. http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/50727-who-should-rule-test.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/philosophy/265505-freedom.html


----------



## dblack

midcan5 said:


> Freedom doesn't exist ...



Does slavery exist? 

This claim that freedom doesn't exist is specious sophistry and adds nothing to the conversation.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

midcan5 said:


> Freedom doesn't exist and security can exist whether there is freedom or not. Is that a paradox. And guns have nothing to do with freedom or security. A gun is merely a tool, even a prisoner or a person who lived in a rigidly ruled place would not be determined to be free or secure based on having a gun. Guns only make sense with their use. Freedom is a concept that only makes sense in context; security can be any number of things. If I am sensibly rich, or have social security or some other ways in which my basic needs are met, am I secure. I may or not be as many other factors enter into the situation. Suppose I find I have a illness that requires great expense, am I still secure. Or suppose I have lots of weapons and so does my neighbor does that make me secure. Many people feel secure and free in the most rigid societal structures, others would never feel secure or free as they live in their minds and the outside is seen through it.
> 
> Is freedom real? http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/50799-is-freedom-real.html
> 
> Parable to understand politics. http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/50727-who-should-rule-test.html
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/philosophy/265505-freedom.html



Remember all those times I berated you for using quotes instead of actually making posts?

I take them all back. This is, quite simply, the most incoherent thing I have ever read, it probably reduced my IQ by 15 points just to read it.


----------

