Do we owe it to our police to let them have bigger guns than everyone else?

by Roger47 Posted 2012/07/24 15:23:00

Related Topics: Police, Guns, Magazines, magazine, Bullet, Killed, Gun, Bullets, Expire, Protect, 2004, Officers, Rifle

14 votes
Read all 12 opinions
View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	Yes	5 votes	36%
	No	9 votes	64%

It seems like there are some who believe that the second Amendment should protect the right of people to own assault rifles and 100 round magazines. At the time the assault weapons ban was enacted, police chiefs from around the country supported it. They knew their officers were more likely to be killed if going up against someone with an assault weapon than someone with a semi-automatic. They also supported the ban on clips that held more than 10 bullets. Both were allowed to expire in 2004.

Add a comment above

Philo-Publius 2012/07/24 15:43:35

No

+8
The 2nd Amendment's intent is undermined if the arms borne are not sufficient to, collectively, if needed, overthrow a tyrannical government.
>> See Replies

More polls by Roger47

Chris - The Rowdy One! #187 2012/08/06 20:52:57

No

I am all for the commoners to be armed with some quite awesome weapons.

I do not trust the police or any other arm of the government.

reply
Dan ☮ R P ☮ 2012 ☮ 2012/07/24 20:27:58 (edited)

No

+1
The government and police are not suppose to be above us or have any special rights or privileges over the citizens. Allowing such policies promotes thuggish behavior and actually attracts criminals to these positions as they can get away with more illegal or immoral behaviors than the average citizen.

In an ideal society, the citizens, police, and other government servants (best not to call them "officials") should be equal in every way possible, partially so any unfounded senses of superiority over the people are quickly "shot down".

reply
Wake The Sheeple 2012/07/24 16:26:22

No

+3
You are very naive. The second amendment was included in the Constitution to make sure that the people always have the means to overthrow and reclaim their Republic should it pass into despotism as it is now doing.

reply
Roger47 2012/07/24 16:23:56

Yes

+1
I am shocked and amazed that so many seem to believe there is a real need to have the capability of overthrowing our own government. Did I stumble upon some sort of right wing survivalist convention? When we need a revolution, we go to the polls!

reply
Wake Th... to Roger47 2012/07/24 16:30:11

+3
Not when the two party system rigs elections or supplies the choices we have this year. I am very involved in politics and personally witnessed election fraud, disenchantment, and outright disregard for the rule of law right up to the office of governor in my state. If you cannot change things with a ballot then you are left with very little choice but envoke change like our founders did.

reply
The Ban... to Roger47 2012/07/24 16:45:05

+2
Why do you assume it's a right-wing thing? You and I agree on a lot.

I want to be able to defend myself from the right-wing government creeps just as much as I do the left-wing ones.

reply
Dan ☮ R... to Roger47 2012/07/24 20:31:55

+1
The polls are pointless unless the entire process is 100% open, and we have poll watchers making sure fraud is not committed.

I have just two quotes for you to help illustrate the necessity of the power to retaliate against criminals.

" The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything." - Attributed to Stalin.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - JFK

reply
jitko 2012/07/24 16:06:46

No

+5
"Owe"? Did we vow to protect and serve THEM? Does the constitution have an amendment to prevent people from overthrowing the government? Or is it not the other way around?

But that stated, I don't feel safer because anybody can buy an arsenal that would match an army. The theater shooting shows how we are less safe. I don't want to live in a society where everyone is a well-armed army, but I also refuse to live in a society where only those in power are the ones who are allowed to have arms. I don't have an answer but we could start with making gun purchases at gun shows also subject to five-day wait for background check.

reply
Greg 2012/07/24 15:45:59

No

+7
We owe it to ourselves to make sure the police DON'T out gun us.

reply
Philo-Publius 2012/07/24 15:43:35

No

+8
The 2nd Amendment's intent is undermined if the arms borne are not sufficient to, collectively, if needed, overthrow a tyrannical government.

reply
The Bantam Seditioner 2012/07/24 15:38:08

No

+7
In a free society, people ought to be *at least* as well-armed as the state.

reply
Sister Jean 2012/07/24 15:24:44

Yes

maybe

reply