Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We'll take the risk with carefully selected and trained police, not with every kid, adult, dog, and random backwoods redneck who got them without any background check at a gun show.
You know carried out the second deadliest mass shooting ever (up until Andreas Breivik)?
And @"random backwoods redneck" thanks for your input, bigot. I have yet to meet any rural folk who would shoot a drunk because he had a pocketknife.
Statistically speaking, backwoods rednecks aren't particularly homicidal. If that was the case West Virginia would be a virtual killing field.
Try not to pay too much attention to the sock puppet. He is talking about things he knows nothing about (guns) and trying to conflate something negative (murder) to people he doesn't like (people who live in the country and in small towns).
I absolutely support allowing the police to carry those types of guns.
I also support laws to keep guns out of the hands of people who can't pass a background check or a mental sanity test, and requiring those laws to be followed by gun shows and gun shops throughout the country.
Even by the usual standards of strawman arguments on CD, this is utterly, droolingly idiotic. Of course the police should have sufficient fire-power to deal with any reasonably likely threat. The only upper limit is the point where opposition becomes outright rebellion, in which case it's time for the civil power to invoke the riot act and bring in the soldiery. Really, in the rhetorical boxing match around gun control, you just left your guard down and took a KO uppercut.
In recent years there has been a strong trend of police carrying rifles similar to the one used by the mass killer in Connecticut. Some are replacing shotguns with .223 rifles; some are putting rifles in patrol cruisers in addition to shotguns.
We're told ad infinitum by gun control advocates that such rifles have no purpose but to slaughter large numbers of people. That may be in the job description of military, but certainly not police. Police, just like any citizen, are supposed to use guns in a defensive manner, to protect against lethal threats.
So should police be forced to get rid of all the AR's they have acquired?
And further, if these guns are only meant to slaughter, what does that implicitly say about police across the country who have eagerly snapped them up? Gun control proponents, how can you possibly trust a group that feels the need for that kind of weaponry?
I agree with most of what you say save for the mass killer in CT. No proof has ever been presented a shooting ever occurred. CNN told everyone it did when they aired a live drill. The onus of truth lies on those who suggest it happened.
No blood, bodies, guns or bullet holes have been seen by any but those who were part of the drill; meaning no one has seen anything. Adam Lanza never existed.
What I don't understand is how the gun grabbers want civilians to be arms free YET nothing is being mentioned about the abuse by police officers lately....by killing people and even pets and getting away with it... and then asking questions later. Why aren't they talking about that since they want cops and Military to be the only ones armed in this country?! Do they think it is okay for police offers to have that type of behavior just because they are well, police officers?
nothing being mentioned about police brutality? Are you ****ing kidding? Those weren't tea partiers protesting in Ferguson and Baltimore
Even by the usual standards of strawman arguments on CD, this is utterly, droolingly idiotic. Of course the police should have sufficient fire-power to deal with any reasonably likely threat. The only upper limit is the point where opposition becomes outright rebellion, in which case it's time for the civil power to invoke the riot act and bring in the soldiery. Really, in the rhetorical boxing match around gun control, you just left your guard down and took a KO uppercut.
So why shouldn't a citizen be able to defend himself in the same way with the same weapons as the police?
Why shouldn't a citizen also have "sufficient firepower"?
Are you saying the lives of citizens aren't worth the same level of firepower to protect themselves with?
Yes, the police should not have those weapons. The reason they got those weapons was based on the irrational and racist fear about being out gunned by urban thugs.
In fact, most police departments have become too militaristic in their tactics and weaponry, and again this changed was fueled by the irrational and racist fear of urban thugs.
During the late 1990's, I remember stories in credible newspapers about the on coming onslaught of super predators. Look up the term.
Here's that salesman of the virtues, Bill Bennett, who once co-chaired the Council on Crime in America, and issued a 1996 report titled "The State of Violent Crime in America," containing these ominous words and (entirely inaccurate) predictions: "America is a ticking violent crime bomb. Rates of violent juvenile crime and weapons offenses have been increasing dramatically, and by the year 2000, could spiral out of control." These were the years when headline-seeking criminologists like John DiIulio of Princeton and Northeastern's James Alan Fox painted lurid scenarios of "superpredators," meaning urban youth of color, swelling Generation Y by as much as 24 percent. In fact, violent juvenile crime rates have plunged during the 1990s, utterly confounding Bennett, DiIulio and the others. The false prophets continue to receive handsome salaries, lecture fees and the respectful attention of book reviewers. The damage wrought by their predictions lives on in the form of a continuing hysteria about youth crime and the criminalizing of minority youth, of youth from certain neighborhoods, and of certain ethnic origins.
And legislation was pushed and approved on this basis their fear based, racist, hateful, and false ideas.
But of course the same conservatives who claim to fear the government take over loves militaristic police forces aimed at keeping control of those people.
You also seem to forget the armed robbery that happened in California in which the robbers were wearing heavy body armor and were drugged to make them nearly invincible. They were also heavily armed. The police could not take them down with their pistols or shotguns. They had to go to a gun store to get weapons that could stop these armed robbers.
We're not forgetting anything.
We're simply asking why a private citizen should not be able to defend himself in the sane manner as the police?
And as the OP asserts, if an AR-15 is only good for slaughtering large numbers of people, why do the police need them if they're not planning on slaughtering large numbers of people?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Care to attempt that train of thought again?
