Three Baton Rouge police officers shot near BRPD HQ

LOLZ...

Sadly, this is where I started reading the thread. Will have to go back a few to see where the constructive postings were. Or drink that whiskey. Either way...

 

Tend to agree, but DEALING with it now absolutely IS a Presidential issue. He needs to strongly condemn these types of actions.

 

Spoiler

This morning, two Baton Rouge police officers and one East Baton Rouge sheriff's deputy were shot and killed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. At least three other officers were shot and wounded.

It's still early in the investigation into this tragedy. But before we say that being a cop is a dangerous job; before we say that people are "understandably" angry following a series of officer-involved shootings; before any of that, we have to understand that when police are shot, America is the target.

Sir Robert Peel, who created the first "modern" police force in London in 1829, put it this way: "The police are the public and the public are the police." The police are members of the community that they are sworn to protect and to serve. For most of us most of the time, the police are the government.
The police are the ones who actually deliver and guarantee the most essential benefits of a free and just government. It is "law officers" who, each and every day, actually deliver the protection promised by law. Freedom and justice? These are just aspirations, wishes, and promises until they are delivered, guaranteed and intact, to us.

A police officer is nothing more and nothing less than a member of our community who has voluntarily committed to make that delivery and guarantee it, if necessary, with his or her life.

So we need to breathe very deeply right now. We need to watch. We need to think. On Thursday, more than 80 people were killed—mowed down by a 20-ton truck—in Nice, France. On Friday and Saturday, Turkey nearly dissolved in a military coup, days after many were killed and injured in a terrorist attack on the Istanbul airport. Today, Baton Rouge in the United States of America was attacked.

There are differences among these attacks, but, in the end, they are all about only a single difference—the difference between civilization and chaos, between community and anarchy, between living together and killing each other, and between law and lawlessness.

Spoiler

Some people — social protestors and political candidates among them — see only reasons to fight one another. But what we had better all see is that there has never been a time when coming together as Americans was more important than it is right now.

Call it ISIS, call it terrorism, call it mental illness, call it whatever you want.
Those of us who believe in liberty and justice under the rule of law — by which I mean the overwhelming majority of this nation — are under attack. Our enemies thrive on lawlessness. They use the Internet and other means to turn up the chaos by inspiring some among us to open fire, wield knives or axes, detonate explosives, or turn trucks into weapons of mass destruction.
I can only assume that they also pray that we kill each other.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/17/opinions/police-shot-america-is-target-cedric-alexander/index.html

 

hunting dogs comes handy . Rubber bullets comes as placebo to restore the sense of macho empowerment and self protection to valuable house hold like flat screen and fridge without the side effects of taking someone life

 

You don't eat them, do you?

 

Nope, you are safe

 

Uh, do you have "jokes" in your culture? Or does everything get lost in your translation?

 

well that was a joke bahaha ,does this prove it or I need to explain further :grin:

 

All rights have limits. Game over. Stop wasting your time. Rights are rights, lol.

 

I think it just shows the importance of funding effective mental / behavioral health facilities all over the U.S. and especially to our veterans who've no doubt seen some really horrible atrocities.

Besides easy access to guns, the one common trend in all these shootings is mental illness from the shooters. While no doubt some of these shooters might still have committed their acts, I'd like to think an aware acquaintance that reached out as was close to these anti-social individuals could hopefully rationalize some sense into them. If not them, then a behavioral health social worker who helped improve their quality of life so they'd feel less of a need to commit these atrocities.

 

Please define for us what makes it constitutionally permissible to regulate ownership of grenade launchers, but makes it unconstitutional to regulate ownership of certain types of rifles.

 

"Well regulated", giff, as long as they're "well regulated".

 

I'm not saying that they can't regulate ownership of certain types of rifles, I'm saying that we've seen it before and it was ineffective. What is unconstitutional is adding barriers to purchasing or owning firearms as a whole. The arguments for training courses or other taxes with the intent of making it more difficult for citizens to own or purchase firearms is unconstitutional just like a poll tax would be, or a voters training course would be.

So really it's two separate issues. Targeting and banning "assault weapons" is ineffective, so there's no reason to make them illegal, as such I'm against it. I'm also against the "war on drugs" for similar reasons. There's no point in criminalizing otherwise law abiding citizens.

 

This is an issue where I side with those who want to ban assault rifles. They allow far too much carnage to be inflicted without any real benefit other than being fun to shoot. Enough is enough, I'm sick of seeing people get mowed down with them.

 

They didn't regulate ownership, they regulated manufacture and purchase. Anyone who already had one could keep it. Bobby you don't know what you're talking about. You can stop now.

 

That's sort of what they are hoping, that people will make an emotional decision rather than a rational one.

An assault weapons ban has been done before and it produced no positive results whatsoever.....but now we think it will because of emotional propaganda.

 

Try reading what I wrote again and see if you can comprehend it this time around.

 

Like I said, there's no logical reason for citizens to have these types of weapons. No harm in making them illegal to sell to others from this point forward. There's no sense in pretending that the number of people who own them won't continue to grow if you can easily obtain one.

 

Did you read Buck's post? The POTUS, whatever anyone thinks of him, has condemned this shooting in the strongest terms I think I can imagine. He condemned the Dallas ones also, but in a long-winded and wide ranging speech (that some here felt was inappropriate to the occasion -- I get that.)

But I don't think presidential statements, especially in the 8th year, move the needle either way.

Some militant half-crazed d-bag is going to make time to listen to a presidential speech and say, "you know, he is right. The police are the public, and any attack against them is an attack against civilization. I wonder how much I can get on resale for this armory I have assembled? Hmmm..."

 

I use an AR-15 to hunt with, assuming I didn't have one, what logical reason do you have that I shouldn't be allowed to have one? Given that the ban had no positive effects whatsoever when it was tried in the past, you can't say that there will be a positive effect this time so what do you have?

It's just like the war on drugs, they scare some people, so they want them banned despite not really having a legitimate reason to do so. Wouldn't want reefer madness to consume the country amirite?