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.
These cops were armed weren't they? So they couldn't help themselves,
Quote:
how would Joe Schmo off the street help them?
Regardless, armed or not these things happen, you can't predict that they're going to happen & clearly even if someone was armed these cops would've been killed anyway, that was what the killer intended. He's dead now too so at least he's not out there running around waiting to kill more people, right?
Had I been there and had the opportunity from a different vantage point, I would have taken a shot at the perp.The perp would have been focused on his target and this could have given me the opportunity to take him out.
Drunk drivers kill 25,000 per year. Despite all the education, Americans still drive drunk. Please join me in outlawing cars now! We simply can't trust the average person to own a car; we must outlaw them now.
I'm not sure if firearms regulations would make that much of a difference, at least not for a long period of time. The US has traditionally had a higher rate of homicide than other developed countries. We are simply a more murderous nation, for various structural reasons.
4 WA police murdered: Should the 2nd amendment be repealed?
No, the pettifogging politician(S) that 'let' the convicted felon go should serve out all remaining time or be hung, shot or injected with that happy stuff and all his worldly goods confiscated and turned over to the state treasury.
Recently four police officers of the state of Washington were gunned down in a coffee shop, by a person who apparently entered the shop for the purpose of deliberately targeting those officers. Since this is a politics-discussion forum, I guess we should ask a political question related to this tragedy, since some people will (as usual) start insisting we need more gun restrictions to keep this from happening.
The 2nd amendment says that since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted. Though it is frequently ignored by lawmakers who want to curtail gun rights, it is nonetheless still on the books, and stands in the way of anyone wanting to create new government regulations against citizens owning or carrying guns.
Clearly, since criminals will find ways to get guns despite all laws, the only way gun restrictions will keep guns from falling into criminal hands, is if they eliminate ALL guns from every member of society, criminal and law-abiding alike. People who want to make more restrictions against ordinary people owning guns, must hav this as their ultimate objective, or else there will still be guns available for criminals to acquire by theft, fraud etc., and the goal of disarming criminals will never be achieved as long as such guns are there to steal.
There is clearly a need to protect officers of the law from the murderous intention of the occasional madman. Does that need justify the deliberate disarming of the entire populace and leaving them at the mercy of those same murderous madmen (plus all the ordinary muggers, rapists, and petty criminals)?
Should the 2nd amendment be repealed and something put in its place saying something like:
"Government recognizes no inherent right of ordinary citizens to keep and bear arms. Government will have the power to regulate, restrict, or ban the ownership of guns and other such weapons by some or all ordinary citizens."?
The execution of 4 police officers by a violent armed felon who should never have been out on "bail" to begin with has as much to do with the 2nd Amendment as it does the importation laws of the coffee the officers were drinking or the manufacturing regulations on the cruisers they had parked out in front.
From your question it would appear you believe the right to bear arms is a right granted by the Constitution. This would be wrong. The purpose of the Second amendment is to protect our inherent right to bear arms from the government. The same applies to the first amendment and all other rights the Constitution touches upon. The US government does not grant rights, especially natural rights such as the right to life, liberty, speech and the right to bear arms. So the government can't repeal something it didn't grant in the first place. Nor can the people repeal it. It exists implicitly in all people as a property of their being. And even if the 2nd were repealed there is no obligation to obey it. My right to bear arms cannot be limited in any way by any government.
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.
