zlacker

Considering i've seen armies less well equipped then your police force and civilian population i think its a miracle the shooting hasn't started yet.

Y'all ever considered gun control or is that taboo? Maybe if you weren't all armed like you're going to a Texan wedding your law enforcement wouldn't have to be as well?

>>swarni+(OP)
Y'all ever considered gun control or is that taboo?

"The police are completely out of control. They're basically a street gang funded by tax dollars. Officers with dozens of complaints are sent back to the streets with almost literal carte blanche to run roughshod over minorities without a trace of accountability. Their propensity for violence and escalation has practically torn our entire country in half, while prosecutors look the other way and city officials stand by helplessly. Also, they should have all the guns."

Makes perfect sense. /s

>>Camper+D
Because you militarised them.

I'm sure walking 2 steps further down the wrong road will eventually get you to the right place.

Also i thought the point of the 2nd amendment was so you could rise up and overthrow a tyrannical government. Go shoot some cops and let me know how that works out. I'll wait.

>>swarni+O
Well, it kind of already has happened, at least on a small scale. A number of police have been shot since this started, but not in enough numbers to really make a difference.

>>swarni+O
Also i thought the point of the 2nd amendment was so you could rise up and overthrow a tyrannical government. Go shoot some cops and let me know how that works out. I'll wait.

It turns out that you don't need to shoot any cops. You just show up armed to the teeth, and they leave you alone. They'll even stand aside while you muscle your way into state and Federal government buildings. (Of course, this only works if you're white, but never mind that.)

>>Camper+D
Are you arguing that the public need guns to shoot at the police?

>>pjc50+z1
No. You need guns so they don't shoot you.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/04/30/armed...

>>swarni+O
US uniformed police services started out as ethnic gangs made into paramilitary forces to suppress other ethnic gangs in the urban north and slave patrols in the rural south. The problem does not have its roots in recent militarization, and has been constant for the whole history of police forces in this country.

Shifting political preferences among the enfranchised have caused it to be a source of greater tension in the electorate, and changes in media have made it more visible, but it's not a new problem.

> Also i thought the point of the 2nd amendment was so you could rise up and overthrow a tyrannical government

The point of the 2nd Amendment was so that the people could be the security services and there would not be a need for standing military and paramilitary external and internal services (beyond small cadres to form a nucleus for the mobilized militia) which, in the founders view, inevitably led to tyranny. It was for prevention on a model that was abandoned though the amendment remains, not for response.

>>irrati+h1
Unfortunately, I doubt we've made it 10% through this particular historical chapter so far. Certain people will see things like this [1], and they will start taking potshots at random cops who had nothing to do with it.

And no, it won't help.

[1] https://www.inquirer.com/news/philadelphia-police-beating-te...

>>Camper+n1
Bad idea IMO. Really prefer not to see more militias dressed in civil clothes because thats what they become

>>Camper+b3
I like how you’ve added “at random cops” as if to delegitimize any reaction against an oppressive state. I think what’s more likely is that instead of just filming police brutality, people will start shooting police officers who are caught abusing citizens.

>>swarni+(OP)
Even if it made sense to consider gun control in the long term, why would it make sense now? Police already struggle with the tasks they've been assigned: "Fight stupid Drug War and don't brutalize innocents? Does not compute!" Why give them another impossible task that would set them at odds with another group of citizens? It might be good for Americans in the long run, because we'd all see our real enemies clearly for the first time. (I.e., now that police are attacking 90% of the nation, who are they not attacking?) However, this is wishful thinking because it assumes TPTB are stupid, which they manifestly are not. Once they have robocops they'll repeal 2A, followed swiftly by every other human right. Until that time, cops have to be recruited somewhere.

>>Camper+n1
That works a lot better if you are in a political faction overrepreesented in law enforcement.

Other armed (or even merely suspected to be armed) people see a more violent, not less violent, response by police.

>>NoahTh+P4
I like how you’ve added “at random cops” as if to delegitimize any reaction against an oppressive state.

No, I did that to delegitimize (sic) reactions against random individuals.

Aside from the obvious moral issue, every cop killed will probably result in a dozen more being hired, and a hundred more votes for the people doing the hiring.

>>dragon+mv
Other armed (or even merely suspected to be armed) people see a more violent, not less violent, response by police.

Correct, and we're being told that the solution to that is to take away their arms. This is, of course, perfectly consistent with the original political motivation behind gun control.

Statistically speaking, if your death has a violent cause, it will happen at the hands of your own country's police or military forces. That's not a concern here in the modern-day US, but this is a historical aberration, one that may not prevail for much longer. Unilateral disarmament probably isn't the best strategy.