Why Cops Shouldn't be Allowed to Carry Guns

[TPaine7]

Recently a story has been discussed here where a CCW permittee accidentally shot another person while trying to shoot a bad guy. This story is used to prove that ordinary people shouldn't be allowed to carry guns.

I am forced to agree. That single anecdote proves that ordinary folks cannot be trusted with guns.

This story proves why cops shouldn't be armed either, even when on duty:

LOS ANGELES — Knowing that one of their officers was having sex with a 17-year-old Explorer program member, police in the central coast city of Santa Maria hatched a plan to immediately arrest him after he indicated he would rather kill himself than go to jail.

Use-of-force experts are split on whether that decision was the right call. The result was fatal shooting of the officer by a colleague while on duty at a DUI checkpoint.

Although local prosecutors deemed the shooting legally justified this week, it is the subject of a pair of independent investigations that will examine the department's response.

...

Officer Matt Kline, a five-year veteran, killed Officer Alberto Covarrubias early Jan. 28 as two sergeants tried to wrestle a loaded handgun from him. Covarrubias fired a round before being shot.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20120622/us-police-shoot-officer/

Some wild Matt Dillon-wannabe pulled out his popgun, fired a bullet and had to be subdued by police. And that's because he was resisting arrest after he statutorily raped a 17 yo.

Obviously since this cop pulled a gun when confronted by police officers, no police should be carrying guns. These wanna be Wyatt Earps with badges should all be disarmed, they are a menace to society.

(Note: this is just a straightforward application of the "logic" employed here by those who oppose civil rights.)

For extra credit, can cops be trusted to work with under-aged youth? Without careful supervision and chaperones?

[razorman]

1. Actually, I am the only one who should be allowed to carry a gun.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

4. lol

do you carry ammo, too

[razorman]

9. Absolutely. Gotta be ready for the Zombie Apocalypse.

[aikoaiko]

42. Are you professional enough?

insert DEA video here.

[Scootaloo]

2. Actually, I sort of agree

Frankly I'd trust some frothing crazy-fucker right-wing gun nut with an arsenal sufficient to equip a Middle Eastern coup attempt, before I'd trust ANY cop with a sidearm.

After all, if the right-winger shoots me, the result is a criminal trial. if a cop shoots me, the result is his buddies "investigating" and - inevitably - "finding no evidence of wrongdoing."

...I guess what I'm saying is I don't trust cops.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

3. aren't cops just private individuals in uniform doing a job that is paid for by our taxes?

sure, there are some bad apples and mistakes happen . . .

[demosincebirth]

5. Cops are cops 24 hours a day. You can say the same about the military.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

8. Oh. Believe me. I do.

[Euromutt]

86. Nope, they are agents of the state

And as such are permitted to do a number of things private citizens aren't, and are shielded from punishment when they do them incorrectly.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

88. They are Private Individuals Hired by a Collective Group of Private Individuals and as such They

Should be held accountable to that Collective Group of Private Indivuals. Of course, things don't always go according to plan as you and I well know.

[Euromutt]

89. Nope, sorry, my inner PolSci major insists

An on-duty police officer, acting under color of law, is as such an agent of the state, with qualified immunity from wrongdoing. I.e. if he screws up and harm is caused due to his actions or lack thereof, provided this occurred in good faith, the state bears liability for his actions. You can't send the state to prison, but you can petition (or sue) it for redress of grievances. Much of the friction between law enforcement and the public stems from the state trying to wriggle out of accepting that liability for its agents' behavior.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

90. excuse me but, what part of this statement:

"Should be held accountable to that Collective Group of Private Individuals. Of course, things don't always go according to plan as you and I well know."

did you not understand?

Law Enforcement and the Judicial System comprised of Private Individuals who Each Makes a Private Decision to Abuse (or not) The System.

Each Person Should be held accountable for their actions. That this does Not Always happen or that it does Not Happen to Suit Your Idea of Justice (or vengeance as the case may be) is not "immunity".

Thank you and Have a Nice Day. Peace. Out.

[Hoyt]

6. Must be Friday night...... Please leave your guns at home.

[TPaine7]

7. Come on Hoyt, be consistent.

Are you sure you don't want to post something like this?:

You know darn well members of police culture claim they aren't cowboys and don't rape people and pull guns while resisting arrest.

The police officer should not have pulled his weapon to resist arrest after statutorily raping a 17 yo. He did and got shot for his trouble.

I'll be interested in seeing what other youths think of this "hero gun cowboy." This assumption that police officers are "responsible" is BS, as the current incident indicates. The law has to make sure they are "responsible."

And, please, no gibberish about how stats show cops are so law-abiding. Things like this incident do not get reported (or it takes forever) to the system.

The above actually makes some good points. Who do you think the system is more eager to cover up the crimes of, Joe Blow CCW pernittee or a cop whose misdeeds can lead to million dollar lawsuits against the city?

In any event, why aren't you consistent?

Star Member Hoyt (7,047 posts)
40. You know darn well members of gun culture claim they aren't cowboys and don't hit innocent people.

View profile

The shooter should not have pulled his weapon if there was a chance of hitting innocent people. He did and shot the store clerk.

I'll be interested in seeing what if anything the "hero gun cowboy" is charged with -- I hope it is something serious, with prison time. This assumption that permitted gun owners are "responsible" is BS, as the current incident indicates. The law has to make sure they are "responsible."

And, please, no gibberish about how stats show CCWers are so law-abiding. Things like this incident do not get reported (or it takes forever) to the system.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117245202#post40

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

10. As Bill Gambini said...

"I shot the clerk??? I shot the clerk??? Woooa! Wait a minute."

[Starboard Tack]

11. Nobody should carry a gun, unless they have damn good reason for doing so.

Especially cops. They are supposed to be role models. The routine arming of police officers is insulting on every level. It creates an "us vs. them" mentality and encourages others to carry, be they the "them" of the equation or the "us" wannabes.
Bad karma all round.

[gejohnston]

12. other than UK and South Korea

what other countries don't cops routinely carry? Out of the countries I have been to, UK and South Korea are it.

[Starboard Tack]

15. I know. Isn't it amazing? You would think others would see the light.

There are a few who are similar to the UK. Iceland & Norway come to mind. Also the Irish Republic, where uniformed cops are not routinely armed. New Zealand cops don't carry on their person. St. Helena, The Falklands, Cook Islands, Gibraltar, Picairn Island, all British, of course. It is our job to set a good example in the world. You really can't expect the robbers to be unarmed if the cops are. That's not cricket.
Now for a nice cuppa tea.

[gejohnston]

18. Ironic thing about Norway

the citizens have guns but the cops don't. Does Picairn, population 50, have a police force?

[Starboard Tack]

20. Giving cops guns is the first step in creating a police state.

We were taught that public safety came first and no force should ever be used beyond that necessary to restrain somebody who was either being violent or attempting to flee a crime scene.
The first time I set foot on foreign soil was in France. I couldn't believe that cops were carrying guns. I was young and incredibly disillusioned in that moment. I thought the rest of the world was at least as civil as England, if not more so. A rude awakening, to say the least.

[gejohnston]

23. Until 1988

South Korea was a police state with first half way real elections. Even then, South Koreans did not really have speech or assembly rights. Although Japanese cops did not start carrying guns until after WW2, (they carried swords) mostly because of culture, (cops resisted carrying pistols mostly because they considered guns less masculine) it was a police state before then. Today Japan is now a soft police state.

[Starboard Tack]

27. I have not been to either country, so I couldn't say.

[Clames]

45. Thank goodness there are many places in the world far more civil than England.

I can think of very few things England can serve as a barometer for in a positive light. Used to be a barometer for bad food and worse service if you happened to travel there though much improved in the last 10 years. I was taught to meet force with force and end confrontations as quickly as possible.

[Starboard Tack]

54. What does that have to do with carrying a gun?

Force should be met with force. That's when you pick up your gun. Cops deal with force on force situations less than .01% of the time. Force does not have to be administered with a gun.
Much English food sucks and so does a lot of American food. So what?

[gejohnston]

58. English food might taste nasty and bland

but American food, if there is such a thing, gives you the illusion of tasting great while it clogs your arteries and buys your doctor a new Rolls Royce.

[Starboard Tack]

64. Yep!

Don't you just love all those gourmet restaurants in France and Italy touting the wonderful American and English food!? Grits'n chips with that double whopper!

[gejohnston]

67. even worse

red eye gravy on anything. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red-eye_gravy

[Clames]

72. I actually have been to a few that served dishes...

...with a distinct American influence while I was in Italy and Germany. My UK cousins absolutely loved cajun cuisine.

[gejohnston]

47. I can sort of relate.

I mentioned before about Wyoming game wardens having only a pistol and or a rifle, often leaving it in their truck while approaching vehicles that he or she knew people had guns. In Florida or the south, not so much. They seem to be as heavily armed as city cops.

[Starboard Tack]

61. Exactly. Cops here tend to have an us vs. them attitude.

Not conducive to good community policing. Beat cops are far more effective when they are not perceived as intimidating, which is inevitable when they patrol in battle dress.

[Marengo]

85. In the People's Republic of China...

many of the Public Security Bureau officers (jingcha or gongan) I observed did not appear to be carrying firearms.

[TPaine7]

13. So being armed in case of confrontation in order to preserve your life isn't a "damn good reason"?

And your personal spiritual beliefs--"karma"--should be the basis of public policy?

You may excel at talking your way out of dire situations, but surely you don't believe that those who are less talented deserve to die, "survival of the fittest" style, for lacking your talent?

[Starboard Tack]

14. Did I say public policy?

Individuals should act in favor of public safety, rather than personal fear of the unknown. Why would you place others at risk to save your own life?
I don't "excel" at talking my way out of dire situations. Bringing a gun to the party is far more likely to create a dire situation than not. Why create what you're trying to avoid. It's not about survival of the fittest. It's about being smart.

[TPaine7]

16. No, you didn't say public policy. Point taken.

Don't be modest, you do excel at it according to many of your post here. You may not have said so in those words, but what you've said adds up to that conclusion, at least to me.

Bringing a gun to the party is only "far more likely to create a dire situation than not" if the person bringing the gun has issues that go far beyond guns. Guns don't force people to create problems. Have you read GSC's posts on the Texas murder rates for CCW permittees? If guns were "far more likely to create a dire situation than not" I would expect the numbers to be very different.

As for putting people at risk to save your own life, I think you would do so in a heartbeat. Let's say you were bleeding out due to an accident but could drive before you lost consciousness. Would you drive to a nearby hospital at faster than posted speed limits, ignoring stop signs and light if you could see your way clear to do so, or would you quietly pull over and bleed out in order not to place the lives of others in any danger?

If you were being chased by a gang of knife wielding youths, would you run through a crowd to escape or would you allow them to kill you to avoid the possibility that a collision with a walking person could hurt or even kill them?

You overestimate the risk of carrying guns, I think. A very tiny percentage of CCW permitees kill or even wound anyone.

[Starboard Tack]

19. I don't think I excel at talking my way out of situations any more than you or anyone else.

I prefer not to use the violent option, so I leave it off the table. I wonder how that's working for those, in GSC's stats, who chose the violent option. Either they are dead or injured or they killed or injured someone. We see in numbers what we want to see. No human life is an irrelevant statistic, unless it can be saved. Then it becomes highly relevant. Killing one to save another is still a killing and nothing to brag about, IMO. It just reinforces the notion that violence and killing is acceptable behavior.

Your examples are out of some movie script, but I'll answer them anyway.
Driving to a hospital while bleeding out presents a problem, but the intention is to save life, not take it. Having a traffic accident is very different than shooting at center mass.

I'm sorry, but having a gang of knife wielding youths chasing me is beyond my comprehension. Groups of people do not act in unison without cause. What possible reason could they have?

Tiny percentages still count for those make up those percentages.

Point is, nobody is carrying a gun to protect anyone but himself.

[TPaine7]

21. Sure killing is nothing to brag about, but no one said anything about bragging.

Driving to a hospital while bleeding out presents a problem, but the intention is to save life, not take it. Having a traffic accident is very different than shooting at center mass.

Drawing a gun to stop a crime is also very different than shooting center mass, as well. There should be no shooting if the attacker immediately stops the threat.

I'm sorry, but having a gang of knife wielding youths chasing me is beyond my comprehension. Groups of people do not act in unison without cause. What possible reason could they have?

Have you ever heard of mistaken identity? You might look like someone else.

And my examples were hypotheticals. What possible reason could a CCW permittee have to shoot someone? Many of the answers to that would sound like something out a a movie script too. That's because movies are dramatic, just like my examples or CCW shootings.

Point is, nobody is carrying a gun to protect anyone but himself.

I think you're mostly right about initial intent, but wrong on practical application. I think most carriers would use their guns to stop crime under the right circumstances.

[Starboard Tack]

24. Mistaken identity? Yes, I've heard of it.

But I think you are really reaching if you are suggesting that "gun carry" is easily justified because gangs of knife wielding youths might mistake me for one of their enemies, or maybe today is the day they decide to just pick someone out of the crowd to wield their knives at. I'll roll with the odds on that one, thanks.

Believe me, if I thought there were one valid reason to carry a gun, I would.

I think you're mostly right about initial intent, but wrong on practical application. I think most carriers would use their guns to stop crime under the right circumstances.

I agree that I am mostly right on this. I don't agree that most carriers would stop a crime, if they were not in immediate danger themselves. I think very few would pull a weapon on a criminal who was already pointing a gun at someone. Lots would pull their weapons on unarmed burglars or other would-be thieves, but not on armed robbers. Heroes don't carry guns in peacetime and we don't want them to.

[TPaine7]

25. I am suggesting no such thing.

My examples were to show that you would risk others to save your life. I was right.

What makes you think that most CCW permittees wouldn't pull a gun on a burglar armed with a knife or crowbar. Or armed with much greater numbers or body mass?

Heroes don't carry guns in peacetime and we don't want them to.

Talk about movie scripts! What has CCW to do with heroes? I thought it was about survival, yours or that of anyone you chose to help. And heroes or not, police actually do carry guns in peacetime in most countries.

[Starboard Tack]

26. We risk our lives every time we get out of bed. Has nothing to do with carrying guns.

I'm sure most gun carriers would pull a gun on burglars armed with crowbars or not. I would too if they sneak into my home uninvited. Don't need a carry permit for that. Police do carry guns in most countries, unfortunately. We live in a very backward world in lots of ways.
Survival is about surviving. A world I live in 24/7. Guns don't enter into it, beyond the discussions I have here.

[TPaine7]

28. So we agree, risking life is not a big scary issue.

Most of us risk lives all the time for much less pressing needs than saving our own lives.

If I decide I want a magazine and a newspaper and drive to the local store, I have risked the lives of people in order to get those items. In fact, I probably risked lives more than a CCW permittee who walked the same distance carrying a gun.

[Starboard Tack]

29. Yes, we agree.

Everyday life is full of risks. Why would we compound those risks by carrying a deadly weapon, concealed on our person?

[TPaine7]

30. Because by doing so we also compound our ability for self-defense.

And, the gain due to the benefit is greater than the risk.

Why is it acceptable to you that I risk the lives of dozens or even hundreds of people in order to get a magazine, but not to enable life-saving defense?

[Starboard Tack]

31. Now you hit the crux of the matter.

the gain due to the benefit is greater than the risk

That is where the debate lies. If there is a gain, which I doubt, it would be a personal gain, not a public gain. I have seen no evidence that there is any gain, either personal or public. In fact, everything I see, read and think leads me to believe the opposite. We lose as a society and we lose as individuals. Without a sense of integrity, we are nothing. Carrying guns is the solution of futility and anarchy, which is no solution at all.

[TPaine7]

33. Why do you refuse to apply your analysis to the other branch--the one I raised?

Why is it acceptable to you that I risk the lives of dozens or even hundreds of people in order to get a magazine, but not to enable life-saving defense?

Me having a magazine (personal gain) vs society potentially losing the dozens of lives risked as I drive to and from the store (public risk)?

[Starboard Tack]

34. Easy!

Your driving to buy a magazine is meant to do exactly that, with no built-in component of being mentally prepared to intentionally kill someone. If you hit someone with your vehicle, it will be accidental, I hope. If you shoot someone, it will be intentional. You will be using a tool, specifically designed to cause damage, not a mode of transportation.
I might add that, using a vehicle powered by fossil fuel, to buy a magazine is almost as irresponsible as carrying a gun in public. The vehicle, the magazine and the gun are all polluters, and as such, contribute to the demise of the planet we all call home. Just sayin'.

[TPaine7]

37. Enjoying a magazine is less important than preserving innocent life.

Also, IMNSHO, society benefits when criminals are stopped at gunpoint and no one is hurt.

Society also benefits when, in a case where it's either a productive member of society or a predator, the productive person survives and the predator dies.

For example, society would have benefited greatly if the BTK killer had been killed by his first intended victim.

Yes, that's an extreme example, but the principle holds for less prolific predators. Better the predator die than Joe or Jane blow.

There are both personal and societal benefits when the good guy prevails.

[Meiko]

40. Can you imagine

the crying, screaming and gnashing of teeth if it were announced that police would no longer be able to carry guns...oh the humanities...

[Starboard Tack]

41. No I can't , because it won't happen and shouldn't happen.

Police, like everyone else, should be able to carry a gun when necessary. Because police encounter more dangerous situations, they should have access to guns when needed. It works for cops in the UK, why not here?

[Clames]

46. What works in the UK...

...has absolutely no bearing on what would work here. That's patently obvious to anyone who has spent time in both countries.

[Starboard Tack]

49. Nonsense.

[Clames]

51. Apt description of the notion that what works in the UK would work in the US.

Nonsense it right.

[Starboard Tack]

52. You are entitled to your opinion.

I believe I am more qualified to know than you. Works in Norway, Ireland and New Zealand too. Do you think Americans are incapable of common sense?
Community policing works much better when the police leave their weapons secured in their vehicles and armories. I don't trust anyone who is carrying a gun unless I know them personally. Do you?

[Clames]

59. I can't help what you believe.

Born in the UK and lived there plenty. Just glad I live in the US now. Americans are plenty capable of common sense. You on the other hand, are incapable of defining such a term to apply to a culture you are far from an expert on. Community policing may very well work better in the UK. No evidence suggests it would work here. I have family that visits regularly from the UK and they seem to have a better grasp of that concept than you do.

I don't trust anyone with anything, even those I know personally. Then again my situational awareness is well honed and I know the value of verifying something before putting too much stock into it. I run into people who CCW around here quite often, never had a reason to be alarmed. Just a mental note and I go about my business as usual.

[Starboard Tack]

63. I don't want to get into a pissing contest with you.

"Community policing may very well work better in the UK. No evidence suggests it would work here."

You said it.

Do you really expect to have a civil conversation with someone when you say things like

"I don't trust anyone with anything, even those I know personally. Then again my situational awareness is well honed and I know the value of verifying something before putting too much stock into it."

Do you know the "family" members who visit regularly? How come you trust them?

"Then again my situational awareness is well honed and I know the value of verifying something before putting too much stock into it."

Apparently not! I'm sorry, but you sound terribly confused. I don't think you have a clue as to the meaning of situational awareness. Your verification comes from relatives who visit.

[Clames]

73. You are so dense you should be at CERN.

Perfectly civil until you pop in with half baked ideas about what works in cultures you have no real experience with.

I trust my family members who visit to a certain degree on many things. Especially things that let me know how full of it you are every time you bring up something about gun laws and the UK. I certainly didn't trust them to leave them unsupervised at the gun range I took them to. I made sure they understood basic safety practices and they had a great time. They certainly look forward to going again when they come back. Some of their friends are quite envious of the experience from what they said


I seriously doubt you have a clue about most things you attempt to post about in this group. You don't understand the concept of situational awareness (not even the definition apparently), hopelessly ignorant on gun laws and culture differences in the US, proven you have little grasp of the impacts American cuisine has made in international trends and vice versa.


You just keep on assuming over there, you might say something relevant and thought provoking. Someday.

[Starboard Tack]

76. Which cultures are you referring to? US and UK?

"Perfectly civil until you pop in with half baked ideas about what works in cultures you have no real experience with."

I grew up in England and I was a cop in England. I have lived mostly in the US for the past 30+ years, in several different states around the country, in major cities, small towns and rural areas. I still have a home in England. I think, along the way, I have acquired some experience with both cultures.

[Clames]

80. And you still don't understand why what you suggest wouldn't work...

...in the US? Please explain what you think would happen in a city like Chicago, Miami, or New Orleans if they adopted UK's policies.

[Starboard Tack]

83. Neither of us know what will work or not.

I know which kind of world I want to live in. Do you?

[Clames]

84. Yes I do.

And I'm doing very well in this world and it gets better every year. Partly because I'm able to examine an issue in its entirety and make rational decisions. I don't look at laws in one country and think there should be a good chance they would work in another without considering the veritable chasm of cultural difference that separates the two. I know that type of thinking doesn't work between neighboring states in the US, similar to how laws that work well in France doesn't mean they would work as well in Spain. Simply not a practical idea.

[Tejas]

56. Use 'COP' and 'ASLEEP' in Google IMAGES, then come back with more excuses.

[Starboard Tack]

65. LOL! But what do you mean by excuses?

[ileus]

17. I should be the only person allowed to carry...

[NewMoonTherian]

35. Even that makes more sense than arming cops. n/t

Whoo, boy. I'm in a mood tonight!

[Starboard Tack]

32. Here's another reason why cops shouldn't carry guns

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014150630

[safeinOhio]

36. I'd say cops carry guns because

they go to and work in dangerous areas. Also, if a cop fires his gun, he must retrieve every spent case and most likely be on unarmed desk duty until the shooting is investigated.

On the other hand, I have the option of not going into dangerous areas. I rarely carry, even though I'm licensed to do so, because I rarely feel like I'll be in danger. I have been attacked by dogs, so I do carry a small gun when I take a walk or go on a bike ride.

If you stay away from dangerous areas, don't get involved with illegal drugs and stay out of love triangles and ignore hot heads that flip you off, your odds of needing to defend yourself are close to none. Crime statistics prove my point. Statistics also show that if you do fire your gun in a gun fight, you'll be lucky if you hit your target 11% of time, even if you are an excellent marksman. I don't have a problem with good, well trained cops having guns. I do have a problem with bad cops having them, just like I have a problem with citizens that are not well trained or hot heads carrying guns. There seem to be too many shootings that involve road rage when all one has to do is not look at the guy, roll up the window and drive away.

[Starboard Tack]

39. You are a true role model for both gun owners and licensed carriers.

Thanks for bringing sound reasoning to the thread and the group.

[Meiko]

43. Well said

I don't really want to put cops on the mean streets without a means of protecting themselves. There are a lot of really bad people out there who would love it if the cops were forbidden from carrying a gun. I also think that we would lose a lot of cops who just wouldn't want to work under those conditions. In addition it would be difficult to recruit new officers.

I think what we really need is tighter controls on our current police agencies, they are out of control in many cases. Every week you read about another suspect who has been beaten and otherwise abused by police. Ever watch cops shows? they are pretty revealing. If you are being detained and the cop has a hold of your arm lets say, and you shift your weight or pull away at all, SLAM you get put to the ground face first, handcuffed and charged with resisting arrest, it is beyond ridiculous.

I have been pulled over by cops who are very professional and it was never a problem. On the other hand I have been stopped by cops with a full blown attitude. Just mean spirited people, these are the types that scare me. I am more afraid of the police than I am of a criminal. It has never ceased to amaze me that cops get to investigate their own, whats up with that. Any shooting or misconduct issue needs to be investigated by an outside agency, and not one made up of retired cops and old chiefs of police.

Another problem area for me is the accumulation of weapons by police agencies. There is no reason that cops should ever be in the field with full auto weapons, ever. The police should not even be able to own machine guns. There are no restrictions on what they can have and some of their equipment and firepower has become very sophisticated. Why is this level of equipment needed. I would also limit the interaction between police and the military. No training of police by US military. The only training would be coordination type training for emergency relief, earthquake, flood that sort of thing. No law enforcement agency can be used outside US borders, not even in an advisory mode. If Honduras is having a drug problem they need to deal with it. The war on drugs needs to be de-funded. It has become a war on the American people that has gone on long enough.

I could make a list a mile long but you get the point. Law enforcement is dangerously close to becoming it's own military force within our own borders. They need to be reined in now.

[TPaine7]

44. There are many people who live and work in

dangerous places, and who can't afford to leave.

[safeinOhio]

48. and those people that live in

crime infested urban cities vote for mayors that wish to restrict guns because they can't leave.

[gejohnston]

50. do they actually have a choice?

how many pro gun big city mayor candidates can you think of?

[safeinOhio]

53. few, because those running for mayor represent

the voters wishes. If they didn't, someone would show up that did and win. Big city dwellers live in war zones with gun fire every night. Most have a relative or friend that has been a victim of gun crime. They just want fewer guns in their city. You sure don't see that many of them join the NRA. Out in rural areas, it is a different story. The only gun fire they hear is on opening day of hunting season.

[gejohnston]

55. Yet it does not occur to them why

they live in war zones. They know who the combatants are, who is funding them, but don't seem to do anything about it. They don't seem to join Brady either, although joining NORML would be more constructive.

[safeinOhio]

62. "They" ?

"does not occur to them why" ?

I think you'd have to walk in "They" shoes. Why don't you talk to some of those "theys", urban minority folks and find out what "They" think. You might be surprised. I don't think you have any business judging "theys" intelligence.

[gejohnston]

66. not judging anyone's intellegence

just I noticed as an outside observer.

[safeinOhio]

68. Your post # 55 is

condescending, at the least, and boarders on blatant racism.

Perhaps you are not aware of it.

[gejohnston]

69. actually no I am not aware of it

I honestly don't understand how it is, but that is the down side of being a bit of a hick. I humbly apologize if it is. That is not my intent.

[safeinOhio]

71. I didn't think it was, however

it did come across that way.

As a Democrat, one must be aware of the fact that urban areas are responsible for all national Democratic wins. Look at any map of national elections. To dismiss minorities in any way is not a good way to support what DU stands for. While it may seem to make sense to make roadways into the rural areas for Democrats, gun laws especially, we must not alienate the largest part of our base. The best way for us to do that is show respect for all voters.

[gejohnston]

74. It absolutely makes sense to make roadways into rural areas.

and rural areas with high minority populations are also Democratic. It is also important to win back white working class. A large united front against the oligarchs and their money is the best counter measures against election fraud, suppression, and using wedge issues. I actually don't buy into much of the right/left dynamic. The true believer syndrome operates the same way with the same propaganda techniques when it comes to abortion to guns and everything else in between. IIRC, Tuesday Afternoon posted a very good OP on this subject, and was savagely attacked by people missing the point. It is all about class warfare.
The more of the 99 percent is united against the oligarchs, the better.

[safeinOhio]

78. I think the majority of

middle age, rural, white voters that vote republican are not going to change to the Democratic party because of guns. They will still listen to FAUX news and rush limbaugh. Obama has been very liberal on gun issues as President and that has not changed their vote, they are still about 60% voting the other way.

ON the other hand, we can not afford to insult black and other urban liberals on gun issues by knocking those that they vote for. If only a small % stay home, the Democratic party can't win. Obama's middle of the road approach seems, to me, to be the best way to go. Smart decisions that are not radical gun rights or anti those that support reasonable restriction on the sale and possession of handguns.

[rl6214]

87. You are reading something into gejohnston's post that he did not say

I read him making a general statement about city dweller while you injected race into his post when there was none there "urban minority folks".

[TPaine7]

57. The times, they are changing...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=319882&mesg_id=319882

Even if this were not so, not all who live in inner cities vote for the violation of their own rights.

IIRC, the CEO or founder (or both) of a famous pizza chain was building a city in Florida for conservative Catholics. Of course, being in America, there are sure to be people who live in the city who aren't conservative Catholics.

Just because the majority support banning birth control, should that mean that they get to dictate to the minority who want to practice it?

It doesn't matter what the people in a highly conservative Catholic area think about birth control, or what those in a given city think about the right to keep and bear arms. They can refuse to exercise their own rights, but they cannot legitimately ban others from exercising theirs.

[gejohnston]

60. just what this state needs,

another planned "community" full of golf courses and strip malls like Celebration City and Villages.

[safeinOhio]

70. Those rights have limits as even Scalia notes

As it held in Heller, the Court reiterated in McDonald that the 2nd Amendment only protects a right to possess a firearm in the home for lawful uses such as self-defense. It stressed that some firearm regulation is constitutionally permissible and the 2nd Amendment right to possess firearms is not unlimited. It does not guarantee a right to possess any firearm, anywhere, and for any purpose. I don't think urban folks want to move to the right of Scalia. To assume that their are no limits is like assuming the 1st means people have a Constitutional right to publish kiddy porn.

So, as listed in the majority opinions in the SC on gun rights, inner city folks have the right to vote for mayors that support limits that even the far right wing of the court support.

Tom Monihan steps way over what the courts have decided is Constitutional, therefore a bad example.

[TPaine7]

75. You have been misled

..the Court reiterated in McDonald that the 2nd Amendment only protects a right to possess a firearm in the home for lawful uses such as self-defense.

Utterly and completely false. You probably read this in a "reputable" media source, but you have been misled. The Court only addressed the home because that was all that was at issue in the case. In Heller the Court only addressed federal territories too, but that did not mean that the Second Amendment only protects firearms in federal territories, as the Court later found in McDonald.

Only finding that the Second applies in the home is not the same as finding that the Second only applies in the home, the fantasizing lies of some publications notwithstanding.

It does not guarantee a right to possess any firearm, anywhere, and for any purpose.

People make a lot of this statement, but it means almost nothing. As long as there is at least one regulation on what you can do with a gun--like laws forbidding murder, for instance--this is met. As it turns out, you cannot possess guns for murder, for kidnapping, for terrorism, for fraud, for intimidation....

I don't think urban folks want to move to the right of Scalia.

Scalia didn't say what you think he did.

To assume that their are no limits is like assuming the 1st means people have a Constitutional right to publish kiddy porn.

I readily concede that the law against murder is a limit on gun possession and use. The "no limits" meme is silly in the extreme.

So, as listed in the majority opinions in the SC on gun rights, inner city folks have the right to vote for mayors that support limits that even the far right wing of the court support.

They have the right to vote for dead folks, Santa Clause, the Tooth Fair or the Ghost of Christmas Past. However, they don't have the right to take away the rights of residents. And despite the brave talk of antis in the media and your probably honest confusion, a fair reading of Heller shows that the Court understands there is a right to carry guns in public. Even the justices in CHICAGO realize this, if you listen to the verbal arguments in the Chicago case regarding carrying guns, you will see that: http://www.democraticunderground.com/117242946 .

Certain media outlets are bluffing, but the writing is on the wall. The pretense that the Court said that the Second Amendment only applies inside one's home will die an ugly death.

[safeinOhio]

77. Those were Scalia's exact words

in the majority opinion.

I think they mean exactly what he said.

[TPaine7]

81. This is not a quote of the Supreme Court:

..the Court reiterated in McDonald that the 2nd Amendment only protects a right to possess a firearm in the home for lawful uses such as self-defense.

This is, as I said, "Utterly and completely false"--a gross misunderstanding, at best.

As I tried to explain:

Only finding that the Second applies in the home is not the same as finding that the Second only applies in the home...

I even gave an example using a similar gun issue.

It does not guarantee a right to possess any firearm, anywhere, and for any purpose.

That sounds like a quote, or a close paraphrase. And I agree with it. But it certainly isn't saying that localities can ban public carrying. It actually doesn't say much except that some uses of guns can be forbidden. NO SANE PERSON (AND FEW IF ANY INSANE PEOPLE) DISAGREES.

All your talk about machine guns is completely off point.

[safeinOhio]

79. I'm not the one being misled.

Last edited Wed Jun 27, 2012, 07:32 AM - Edit history (1)

I read the majority decision myself and came to my own opinion by the words in it. I have not read any other persons conclusion on those words other that those that hold your opinion.

If you truly think you are correct, I'd suggest you obtain a fully auto weapon without getting the proper license or paying the restrictive fees and then take it to the range every day, or better yet walk thru downtown Manhattan. When you get arrested you can become the hero by taking the government to Federal Court and all the way to the SC. You are sure you are right, so I'm sure the government will have to pay your lawyers or the NRA will help with the cost. My guess is the NRA would stay far away from you. You'll see what Scalia really meant.

[TPaine7]

82. It appears that your interpretation of my words is no better

than your interpretation of the SC's ruling.

Nothing I said implied that carrying a full auto in NY couldn't be forbidden.

[Fredjust]

38. Simple solution...

cops have tazers now, so there is no need for firearms. They need to be the example for the rest of society!