Supreme Court & Second Amendment

[aberkowitz]

In London, the police don't carry guns. I never understood how that was supposed to work.

I lived there for 4 months. It seems to work in some regards... I never felt scared living or walking around in the city.

 

[AverageJoe]

First of all- may want to check your research- only 20 states out there require licensing or registration to purchase a gun. Of those 20 only a handful require training.

I believe the research is accurate. If you read his post again, training and registration for purchase was not part of the comment:

...Here in Oregon, and as far as I know, ALL states and municipalities that have protected carry rights also mandate training and fees to pay for said training.

There is a difference between purchasing a firearm and carrying one concealed on your person.

 

[Mort Corey]

Actually- I believe the definition of law enforcement is my protection.

This must be one of those "is" definitions. Law enforcement is armed force in applying the dictates of the state. There is no duty of a police officer to protect or defend you. They are breaking no law if they decline to do so. That has already been determined by the courts.

I remember (many moons ago) when the local constable was referred to as a "peace officer". Today, most all refer to themselves as "law enforcement officers". To me, that's a telling difference.

Mort (who's sorry for getting off the subject of the Supremes)

 

[cbraver]

Damn, you guys are fast.

This is mostly the point that I've been trying to make here. Many people like to talk big about their ability to use guns, but I doubt most people would be as confident when confronted with a killer in their house. Owning a gun is not going to stop somebody from trying to hurt you- you may deter them enough so they run away or so they police can get there.

We agree about the police, (I wish my statement could be embeded in the quote like most forums, and this probably doesn't make sense to people just tuning in out of context) but I think you'd be surprised what any human is capable of when their life is at hand. Those who take the time for proper training (and there are some great protection/combat/concealment schools throughout the US, but, you do need to travel a bit).

To build on this line of thought then- shouldn't there be mandatory training for somebody to be able to be a gun? From what I understand licensing is only mandatory for certain states/municipalities in this country, and I don't know whether any of them require training. How about a national licensing and training program? You need a license and training to be able to drive a car, why not to own a gun?

Our driving training is an absolute joke, so, I don't really like that comparison. Concealed carry permits require a course to be taken, but furter training is the responsibility of the individual at this point.

In close quarters combat the advantage goes to very short weapons. Also at close ranges the shot pattern of a shotgun doesn't have the distance to spread.

Yeah, and most self-defense battles are in close quarters. As far as shotguns, most people shoot better with short stock shotguns. The other issue I have with shotguns is that even though they make a mess, sometimes shot doesn't pierce the breast plate.

 

[aberkowitz]

I believe the research is accurate. If you read his post again, training and registration for purchase was not part of the comment:

...Here in Oregon, and as far as I know, ALL states and municipalities that have protected carry rights also mandate training and fees to pay for said training.

There is a difference between purchasing a firearm and carrying one concealed on your person.

Tomorrow's comments seemed to separate "protected carry" from "concealed weapon". My understanding is that he was defining protected carry (a term which I've never heard of and cannot find a clear definition of) as the ability to buy and have a handgun. The comments also referred to registration and training- so that's what I inferred.

I apologize if I misinterpreted the comments....

To cBraver regarding driving training- I agree it's atrocious...

 

[aberkowitz]

This must be one of those "is" definitions. Law enforcement is armed force in applying the dictates of the state. There is no duty of a police officer to protect or defend you. They are breaking no law if they decline to do so. That has already been determined by the courts.

Sorry- I think I'm confused. You stated that there is no duty of a police officer to protect or defend you... but then the next comment was "they are breaking the law if they decline to do so." Maybe it's a matter of semantics, but doesn't that make protection their duty?

 

[Tomorrow]

Tomorrow, your Avatar says it all.

LOL, and I LIKE your new one!

 

[aberkowitz]

LOL, and I LIKE your new one!

I just noticed that.... Congratulations general!!

 

[Tomorrow]

Tomorrow's comments seemed to separate "protected carry" from "concealed weapon". My understanding is that he was defining protected carry (a term which I've never heard of and cannot find a clear definition of) as the ability to buy and have a handgun. The comments also referred to registration and training- so that's what I inferred.

I apologize if I misinterpreted the comments....

To cBraver regarding driving training- I agree it's atrocious...

You inferred incorrectly. I say what I mean and mean what I say...unless joking, of course. AverageJoe is absolutely correct. You needn't scold me for not "checking my research", by the way, and I won't scold you for misreading my post.

 

[unreal.freak]

Im a "live and let live", "God loving", gun owner!! I own many, many guns that range from hand guns to sporting rifles. I would feel safer in my home knowing i can atleast meet a criminal with equal or greater firepower than he has. A person(criminal) who has no respect for the law or any remorse for taking lives will do it with anything available. They(criminals) will use guns to murder, rob, injure, and hold hostige, reguardless if it is legal for them to posses a firearm or not. The fact that it is illegal to own a firearm has no bearing whatsoever on a criminals decision to do crime. However, if a criminal knows he may be met by an armed citizen, when breaking into the armed citizens home. He may just pass the home invasion idea over for a less violent crime, such as shoplifting or identity theft.

Peace,
Tommy

 

[Tomorrow]

Actually- I believe the definition of law enforcement is my protection. Why is the motto of the LAPD "To protect and serve" if not for the protection of the residents of LA?

Wouldn't you be surprised to know that I actually side more with what are labeled as "conservatives" in this country than I do with those labeled "liberals"??? My ideas don't align 100% with either party- and I think people who attack others as "liberal or conservative" because of one opinion they may have are narrow-minded.

You can disagree with me as much as you'd like, but I'm not going to back down from my beliefs because you try to label me. Trying to convince me of your point of view using facts and a well-reasoned argument will get you much further.

You seem a might sensitive, Adam. What made you think I was labeling you? Nowhere did I say such. If that is what I wanted to do, I wouldn't have posed the statement as I did. You seem to be taking these posts a bit too personally. I was merely commenting on a generality of governance. Some governing types want more or less of your life under their control. I don't think you are a politician, so you definitely weren't included in my "labeling" (generalization is more accurate).

With regard to "Protect and Serve"....nice slogan. Call the LAPD and tell them you have no means of self-defense. Ask them to always post a cop within a minute or two of your home to protect you against some potential miscreant with ill intentions toward your family. 'Tain't gonna happen. My wife works for the local PD...they are there to assist and serve, but will NOT be a first line of defense. That is all I was saying.

 

[Tomorrow]

Sorry- I think I'm confused. You stated that there is no duty of a police officer to protect or defend you... but then the next comment was "they are breaking the law if they decline to do so." Maybe it's a matter of semantics, but doesn't that make protection their duty?

The police of every community have NO mandate, legal or otherwise, to "defend" you. They are there to uphold the laws of the community. That is their sworn duty.

 

[aberkowitz]

You seem a might sensitive, Adam. What made you think I was labeling you? Nowhere did I say such. If that is what I wanted to do, I wouldn't have posed the statement as I did. You seem to be taking these posts a bit too personally. I was merely commenting on a generality of governance. Some governing types want more or less of your life under their control. I don't think you are a politician, so you definitely weren't included in my "labeling" (generalization is more accurate).

With regard to "Protect and Serve"....nice slogan. Call the LAPD and tell them you have no means of self-defense. Ask them to always post a cop within a minute or two of your home to protect you against some potential miscreant with ill intentions toward your family. 'Tain't gonna happen. My wife works for the local PD...they are there to assist and serve, but will NOT be a first line of defense. That is all I was saying.

I don't know where you live, but living in NYC I'm around a constant police presence. I see them walking a beat through my neighborhood, on the buses and subways, in the train stations, outside of office buildings, outside the bars on Friday and Saturday nights. I've personally seen cops arresting folks committing crimes. My friend who is part of the NYPD told me they've switched up to even more of a plainclothes presence in order to deter crime. I can say that it's worked because both the crime rates and absolute crime levels have fallen drastically in NYC over the past 10-12 years. So yes- I can absolutely say that I feel protected here.

As for the conservative/liberal comment- maybe I was sensitive there, but I felt that the reason to mention it was as an attack. Just as an FYI for you though, historically people who were called liberals did not want big government. They were in favor of a "Laissez-faire" government with limited intervention. Interesting how the term has evolved...

 

[aberkowitz]

The police of every community have NO mandate, legal or otherwise, to "defend" you. They are there to uphold the laws of the community. That is their sworn duty.

Mission of the NYPD- "enforce the laws, preserve the peace, reduce fear, and provide for a safe environment."

Roles seem to have expanded.

 

[majorloser]

Barricade

I personally liked the slogan on the car in the movie Transformers:

 

[cbraver]

Mission of the NYPD- "enforce the laws, preserve the peace, reduce fear, and provide for a safe environment."

Roles seem to have expanded.

What he is talking about comes from that people have sued local police and the government for "not protecting them from danger." The Supreme Court has ruled that law enforcement is not to be held responsible for crimes. That ruling makes very good sense to me, as the police can't possible be everywhere protecting everyone. Looking at it from the perspective of a citizen, however, it says that it's the responsibility of the people to protect themselves (if it isn't the governments, it's yours). That's where he is coming from. It's a valid arguement, in my opinion, but it's hard to word. It IS the duty of police to protect Americans, but they aren't held accountable if they don't in the court of law.

 

[Tomorrow]

Mission of the NYPD- "enforce the laws, preserve the peace, reduce fear, and provide for a safe environment."

Roles seem to have expanded.

There really is a burr under my saddle when it comes to this kind of thing. (It made me even start a new thread. ) Their mission statement is kind of like the LAPD motto, or any 'good' politician's speech. It's filled with rhetoric and great sounding but meaningless bits of language.

The mission may be as you state, Adam, but you can bet a six-pack that it is not in their legally sworn duties. Can you imagine the scene. A rookie is swearing in..."I promise to protect and reduce fear!"

You're undoubtedly right...lawmen's (and women's) roles have changed over the years. But we were talking about the fact that they are not legally bound to defend or protect you...just like those NYC cops aren't legally bound to reduce your fear. LOL.

And that is why we believe in self-defense.

 

[stratman]

However, in my experiences I've found that people who own guns tend to be a little overconfident and arrogant as to their abilities to use them accurately and effectively in a pressure situation. Aside from former/current military and police, very few people can claim that skill. I would be very curious to see the incidences of self-inflicted harm caused by people firing guns when somebody else was breaking into their home.

Well, I've been a gun owner since I became of legal age, before that my dad introduced me to guns, namely a Crossman pellet rifle, followed by a Ruger 1022, the first thing my dad taught me was safety and the consequences of using a weapon. I never had the good fortune of military training, but I've shot with ex GIs and I can more than hang with them and in some cases surpass them, specially when it comes to shotguns. I've met arrogant gun owners, cars owners, home owners never have I seen a correlation where gun owners are arrogant because they own a gun. Careless gun handling/etiquette will get a person in trouble very soon, same as driving carelessly, I fall into the camp (though not popular) that anyone buying a firearm must at least take a basic safety/handling class, apart from that, the right to bear arms is a unique American perspective that's rooted in our history and psyche.

If I'm not mistaken the other countries that requires citzens to bear arms and be proficient with them is Switzerland and Israel.

 

[aberkowitz]

What he is talking about comes from that people have sued local police and the government for "not protecting them from danger." The Supreme Court has ruled that law enforcement is not to be held responsible for crimes. That ruling makes very good sense to me, as the police can't possible be everywhere protecting everyone. Looking at it from the perspective of a citizen, however, it says that it's the responsibility of the people to protect themselves (if it isn't the governments, it's yours). That's where he is coming from. It's a valid arguement, in my opinion, but it's hard to word. It IS the duty of police to protect Americans, but they aren't held accountable if they don't in the court of law.

Thank you for the clarification. That makes a lot more sense.

 

[aberkowitz]

If I'm not mistaken the other countries that requires citzens to bear arms and be proficient with them is Switzerland and Israel.

Switzerland is interesting (I was there over the summer) with regards to guns, b/c the vast majority of crimes there are domestic violence. According to the hotel owner that I talked to there (great hotel btw if anybody needs a place to stay in Zurich) there's been a lot of controversy b/c more and more of those domestic crimes have involved the use of firearms. In addition, the crime rate in general is going up- particularly among foreign residents. There's now a call for more restrictions on gun ownership.

Israel is a place unlike any other. I haven't been for almost 17 years now, but there's a feeling in the air that you get walking down the streets there that I've never felt anywhere else. When you live in Israel, you know you could be blown up any minute- however you also feel totally safe. Maybe it comes from knowing that everybody has served in the military, or the fact that their police system is ridiculously good.