Beto says the quiet part out loud.

[Nealithi]

The police are not on the street to protect you. That was even stated in a court case. They can arrest someone that harms you after the fact. But not prevent it. So having a weapon in those instances seems a good idea. I prefer knives, but that stems from a previous point I had about stupid people.

Are you referring to a supreme court case that ruled in favor of a cop that didn't save someone's life after following proper procedure? Because that's pretty much all the ruling entailed.

People bring that up as if to claim that police have no responsibility to protect the public.

The case is an older one. Some guys broke into someone's house and they crawled onto a roof. The police came by but did not see them. So they left. It was much longer than this, but after it went on trial and it came down that the police are under no obligation to protect citizens. I have blood pressure go up when I find and read that again or think too hard on it. If I find it specifically I will post a link.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

The police are not on the street to protect you. That was even stated in a court case. They can arrest someone that harms you after the fact. But not prevent it. So having a weapon in those instances seems a good idea. I prefer knives, but that stems from a previous point I had about stupid people.

Are you referring to a supreme court case that ruled in favor of a cop that didn't save someone's life after following proper procedure? Because that's pretty much all the ruling entailed.

People bring that up as if to claim that police have no responsibility to protect the public.

The case is an older one. Some guys broke into someone's house and they crawled onto a roof. The police came by but did not see them. So they left. It was much longer than this, but after it went on trial and it came down that the police are under no obligation to protect citizens. I have blood pressure go up when I find and read that again or think too hard on it. If I find it specifically I will post a link.

That sounds about right as far as which case we're talking about.

This wasn't exactly the police just blowing the whole thing off. As far as the case was outlined, the police acted responsibly as far as duty and procedure is concerned. And this ruling was in response to people trying to sue the police and/or the department for not investigating the matter above procedure, and that's what the ruling in question is referring to as far as I could tell.

The ruling of limited law enforcement refers to them not being cast as personal bodyguards when called about a situation.

[Makeshift Python]

The 2nd Amendment is right there, in black and white.

There's also the 18th Amendment... look how that turned out.

For all we know, the same could happen to the 2nd... and then whatever amendment that is be repealed, or not.

The constitution isn't itched in stone.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

The 2nd Amendment is right there, in black and white.

There's also the 18th Amendment... look how that turned out.

For all we know, the same could happen to the 2nd... and then whatever amendment that is be repealed, or not.

The constitution isn't itched in stone.

I saw LittleRaven say that Bill of Rights are no different than the other amendments, I swear on my mother's life.

[Yukaphile]

It won't happen to the second. People, especially Americans, just cling to their guns so tightly because we have a tribal mindset and a "might makes right policy." That you can FIGHT to bring justice to the world. Instead of reasoned discussion and legality. Any attempts to revise it would lead to even worse gun violence as those super hoarders go on a shooting spree, and then the hard right with ties to the gun-makers spins this into propaganda to stop any and all legal recourse against them profiting off our fear and climate of paranoia. This is how murder and fear and violence is institutionalized, from the top levels all the way to the individual homes out there. Really sad and telling to the state of our society.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

It won't happen to the second. People, especially Americans, just cling to their guns so tightly because we have a tribal mindset and a "might makes right policy." That you can FIGHT to bring justice to the world. Instead of reasoned discussion and legality. Any attempts to revise it would lead to even worse gun violence as those super hoarders go on a shooting spree, and then the hard right with ties to the gun-makers spins this into propaganda to stop any and all legal recourse against them profiting off our fear and climate of paranoia. This is how murder and fear and violence is institutionalized, from the top levels all the way to the individual homes out there. Really sad and telling to the state of our society.

I get that Yuka, but I wish you would at least try to prevent massacres.

[Yukaphile]

I'm one person. I can't stop that.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I'm one person. I can't stop that.

Very poetic.

[Admiral X]

Gun control laws. I think the 'Well Regulated' portion should mean you have to be trained and certified federally to own a gun. Because there are in fact stupid people out there.

I'd agree to an extent, but if requiring an ID represents a poll tax, requiring someone pay for some kind of Federal certification to exercise a right would be in the same vein. On top of that, it kind of misses the point of the Second Amendment acting as a kind of check against the government by having the government hand out licenses for it. This is why I'm more in favor of having a kind of graduated set of courses for gun safety in schools.

As to the home defense dispute. While I choose to not own a gun to defend my home. I accept others do. And claiming that a gun is not a 100% protection is spurious. Do you have locks on your doors? They are not 100% either. But it is a defense.
The police are not on the street to protect you. That was even stated in a court case. They can arrest someone that harms you after the fact. But not prevent it. So having a weapon in those instances seems a good idea. I prefer knives, but that stems from a previous point I had about stupid people.

Well we agree on some things at least.

I would expect a good 5-10% of the Republican base to be out on the streets helping police shoot protesters, and another 90-95% to sit at home cheering them on, myself.

after all, a cancelled election is an election that democrats can't win, and what else do they care about?

All this tells me is that you don't understand more conservatively minded people very well.

It won't happen to the second. People, especially Americans, just cling to their guns so tightly because we have a tribal mindset and a "might makes right policy."

Speaking of tribal and the government seizing guns, you do realize there's a history there, right?

[Yukaphile]

Yes. There's also a history of people just accepting this, because they know with modern technology, any chance of overthrowing a well-entrenched entity like the state with the support of military and full access to the wide range of infrastructure and backed up by tanks, heavy guns, jets, aircraft carriers, and heavy ordnances ranging up to nuclear capability, that the ordinary person stands no chance. So most just go with the flow.