zlacker

> The second amendment exists in the US Constitution, first and foremost to balance the power between a populous and would-be tyrants.

So the solution for police not being regulated enough, is for the people to take up arms against them?

Rather than fixing the regulations?

>>Nursie+(OP)
It seems like folks have been demanding the regulations be fixed for some time now to no avail. Moreover, it isn't always so easy to just 'fix' a regulation. Qualified Immunity isn't a regulation in the traditional sense, it's jurisprudence. Sure, it's possible that legislation can resolve it (and hopefully it does so in a meaningful way) but "just asking" hasn't been working for some time now.

What CHAZ shows us is that there is perhaps a middle ground between "asking" and "taking up arms," but if none of the demands are met, I don't know that there are many other steps left.

>>bmelto+mp
Sure, I agree "just asking" clearly hasn't worked, but "the ballot box" hasn't been exhausted as an option yet, in fact I would say that we're gearing up now to see how effective both the soap box and the ballot box can be, as protest action finally seems to be getting through to both the public and (at least part of) the political class.

In fact it looks like in some places the cries to defund the police are finally being heard and actioned. I hope there are more, as this is a radical act and not just a legislative tweak. It's clear that a fundamental rebalancing of the relationship between police and society is needed, starting with talking away their weapons, and total de-escalation of police violence and their effective immunity to the consequences of their racist actions.

I hope "CHAZ" isn't a last step before open, armed conflict, because if it does go that way the public mood is going to shift in a millisecond to enforcement. Just like I hope here in the UK we don't see people pull down statues of Churchill - he was a racist asshole, but he was also the leader that brought us through WWII, and the population of this country aren't ready to stop venerating the latter because of the former yet.

I'm also not sure what "winning" looks like for either side when that starts.

>>Nursie+(OP)
Firstly, I never said anything about taking up arms against anyone. I am simply stating the fact that “unchecked power” is impossible when a monopoly of power (force... aka weapons) is held by the state.

History has shown us over and over and over that an unarmed populace will either A) be subject to unchecked violence by its overlords, or B) be successfully invaded by new and less desirable overlords.

Secondly, “fixing the regulations” is not necessary; what is necessary is enforcing the already existing regulations.

>>gonati+kL
> History has shown us over and over and over that an unarmed populace will either A) be subject to unchecked violence by its overlords, or B) be successfully invaded by new and less desirable overlords.

Which is why the UK gets invaded every other week?

Seems an overly reductive viewpoint.