Why are guns so important to Americans?

[editec]

So, in other words, guns are not really the problem, it's actually crimogenic factors.

Give that man from the show me state a great big social science cigar!

Damned right it isn't about guns, it's about the people behind those guns.

Sadly we live in a society where it's easier for a kid to get a gun than it is for them to get a decent education or job.

Guns don't kill people, HOPELESSNESS kills people.​

 

[Diuretic]

So, in other words, guns are not really the problem, it's actually crimogenic factors.





.

Yep, exactly that.

 

[Diuretic]

Not quite.

You have lost:



Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone
Sapp v. City of Tallahassee
Davidson v. City of Westminster
Ford v. Town of Grafion
Calogrides v. City of Mobile
Weutrich v. Delia
Morgan v. District of Columbia
Thurman v. City of Torrington
Bowers v. DeVito
Silver v. City of Minneapolis
McKee v. City of Rockwall, Texas
Freeman v. Ferguson
Keane v. City of Chicago
Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice
Stone v. State 106 California
Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville
Hartzler v. City of San Jose
Souza v. City of Antioch
Chapman v. City of Philadelphia
Riss v. City of New York
Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services
Zinermon v. Burch
Keane v. City of Chicago
Warren v. District of Columbia

Lost? But I wasn't trying to "win"!

I made the point that the police apparently in the US aren't liable for the safety of an individual, it seems they are only liable to support the Constitution and keep the peace, enforce the law and all the rest of it, according to case law.

The original point was my rebuttal of the idea that the police didn't have to put themselves in harm's way, whereas the military does. Yes, the military does indeed. But in carrying out their duties the police have to also put themselves in harm's way at times. If they weren't required and prepared to do so then why bother to have a police force at all?

The Castle Rock case looked like it turned on the views of the US Supreme Court vis-a-vis a law mandating arrest in certain circumstances (dv). The court held that a residual - well it looks that way to me - discretion is still held by police and that the mandated arrest law didn't affect that discretion therefore no liability. It's interesting because here it's not possible for police to be directed or ordered to arrest because every police officer has an individual authority and accountability and a mandated arrest would be legally impossible without a massive change to the law.

Anyway, I'll grant you this. It appears as if in the US police don't take an oath to put themselves in harm's way to protect people. So they do it voluntarily. Okay, it still works then.

 

[Diuretic]

An unarmed populace ARE subjects and subject to what ever whim the Government chooses.

So's an armed one if the government has got more of everything and bigger than everyone else and a will to use them.

 

[Diuretic]

Actually, no. The 2nd Amendment has always been about self defense & defense of the state. A lot on the Left think it is a "hunting" right, which is completely off base. That is a big reason why they have re-packaged the issue around hunting hoping to dupe misinformed sportsmen of their true agenda....

Gun control might fail in some jurisdictions for good reasons but that doesn't damn the idea. To each their own.

From what I know about the 2nd Amendment and its precursors (in English law) I agree it's not about hunting or recreational use, the precursor laws in England were specific that people were required, if they could, these things being very expensive back then, to keep arms in case they were required to be called up. This was at a time when there was no standing army but militia, yeomanry and the ability of local colonels in chief (usually aristocratic landowners) to muster their local men to go to the aid of the King (more likely to start a war so the King could get some money from an enemy somewhere).

 

[necritan]

So's an armed one if the government has got more of everything and bigger than everyone else and a will to use them.

If the subjects fight.....and the government wipes out the subjects....then there is nothing to govern. Not good buisiness....if your in the governing "type" buisiness.

 

[ignatov]

I wish Americans were as quick to defend the first and fourth amendments, which have been shredded in the name of national security, as the second.

 

[necritan]

I wish Americans were as quick to defend the first and fourth amendments, which have been shredded in the name of national security, as the second.

Agreed.....

 

[DiveCon]

I wish Americans were as quick to defend the first and fourth amendments, which have been shredded in the name of national security, as the second.

i disagree that they have been shredded
and most that DO defend the 2nd amendment also defend those as well

 

[Diuretic]

If the subjects fight.....and the government wipes out the subjects....then there is nothing to govern. Not good buisiness....if your in the governing "type" buisiness.

Quite true, but would everyone choose to fight to the death or would they sue for conditions? Hypothetical I hope.

 

[Ninja]

Then why is the new doctrine for active shooter predicated on first responders being trained and ready to enter a building where there is an active shooter (this before the tactical unit actually arrives)?

I remember the SWAT poofs standing around in their tactifool gear for their photo-op while Cho Seung Hui murdered 32 people. Didn't enter the building until the shooter offed himself.

Pretty common here in the States. A Cop's first priorities are HIS life and HIS job, the people who subsidize their exorbitant salaries, insane benefits, and "more equal than others" status get fucked.

 

[LOki]

Lost? But I wasn't trying to "win"!

Just building upon your coment is all.

I made the point that the police apparently in the US aren't liable for the safety of an individual, it seems they are only liable to support the Constitution and keep the peace, enforce the law and all the rest of it, according to case law.

The original point was my rebuttal of the idea that the police didn't have to put themselves in harm's way, whereas the military does. Yes, the military does indeed. But in carrying out their duties the police have to also put themselves in harm's way at times. If they weren't required and prepared to do so then why bother to have a police force at all?

The Castle Rock case looked like it turned on the views of the US Supreme Court vis-a-vis a law mandating arrest in certain circumstances (dv). The court held that a residual - well it looks that way to me - discretion is still held by police and that the mandated arrest law didn't affect that discretion therefore no liability. It's interesting because here it's not possible for police to be directed or ordered to arrest because every police officer has an individual authority and accountability and a mandated arrest would be legally impossible without a massive change to the law.

Anyway, I'll grant you this. It appears as if in the US police don't take an oath to put themselves in harm's way to protect people. So they do it voluntarily. Okay, it still works then.

I'm sure it does work for you, but the reason it doesn't work for me is that the same sadistic, criminally violent, bullying sociopaths that have no legal obligation to protect us from sadistic, criminally violent, bullying sociopaths, are the very same sadistic, criminally violent, bullying sociopaths that are fully armed by our government, and charged with disarming us of the very tools we'd use to protect ourselves from sadistic, criminally violent, bullying sociopaths.

 

[Diuretic]

I remember the SWAT poofs standing around in their tactifool gear for their photo-op while Cho Seung Hui murdered 32 people. Didn't enter the building until the shooter offed himself.

Pretty common here in the States. A Cop's first priorities are HIS life and HIS job, the people who subsidize their exorbitant salaries, insane benefits, and "more equal than others" status get fucked.

There's been a lot of discussion about it since Columbine. The doctrine in the US now is apparently to have general duties/patrol members trained to go in and try and deal with the active shooter. The previous approach of cordon and contain until tactical units arrive has been amended. I'm generalising of course, each situation has to be taken on its merits but that's apparently the prevailing view in the US.

 

[Diuretic]

Just building upon your coment is all.

I'm sure it does work for you, but the reason it doesn't work for me is that the same sadistic, criminally violent, bullying sociopaths that have no legal obligation to protect us from sadistic, criminally violent, bullying sociopaths, are the very same sadistic, criminally violent, bullying sociopaths that are fully armed by our government, and charged with disarming us of the very tools we'd use to protect ourselves from sadistic, criminally violent, bullying sociopaths.

Which is pretty bloody sad. I have to admit I have been somewhat taken aback by the creeping (sometimes sudden) militarisation of the police in the US. But that's a generalisation. And so is yours. You make it sound as if all your cops are like that. I know they're not because I've met some and seen them working. But that's just one person's experience.

It might be an unpleasant idea but the police are a reflection of a society. If that's how you see your cops then you might want to rethink where your society is and where it's going.

 

[editec]

It might be an unpleasant idea but the police are a reflection of a society.

You are right.

Much like our schools, the various police forces are usually a reflection of whomsoever is in control of that society specifically.

If the society is sick, expecting the police not to reflect that illness is asking far too much of them.

They have to deal with the crap when societies are in trouble.

I don't envy them that duty, let me tell ya'.

 

[wayne]

Which is pretty bloody sad. I have to admit I have been somewhat taken aback by the creeping (sometimes sudden) militarisation of the police in the US. But that's a generalisation. And so is yours. You make it sound as if all your cops are like that. I know they're not because I've met some and seen them working. But that's just one person's experience.

It might be an unpleasant idea but the police are a reflection of a society. If that's how you see your cops then you might want to rethink where your society is and where it's going.

I don’t like the militarizing of the police either. It makes me cringe when I hear the TV scrip writer refer to non-police as civilians instead of citizens or taxpayers. I get the feeling that this is a liberal thing. There is a distinct difference between police and military. The police are the enforcers of the law where as the military kills people and breaks things.

 

[Diuretic]

Yes, you're right, the term "civilian" has a specific context and police officers shouldn't use the term to refer to citizens who aren't police officers. I don't understand it.

 

[MartaK]

well that's a matter of interpretation...

 

[editec]

Just building upon your coment is all.

I'm sure it does work for you, but the reason it doesn't work for me is that the same sadistic, criminally violent, bullying sociopaths that have no legal obligation to protect us from sadistic, criminally violent, bullying sociopaths, are the very same sadistic, criminally violent, bullying sociopaths that are fully armed by our government, and charged with disarming us of the very tools we'd use to protect ourselves from sadistic, criminally violent, bullying sociopaths.

Not only do I basically agree with your cynicism, Loki, but that sentence construction is simply to die for!

 

[carol6018]

Hello! Do you live in a cave?