I thought of buying an AR15. Something I've said I'd never do. It's an assault rifle. I came to my senses and bought a generator and some buck shot instead. I don't judge gun enthusiasts who own AR15's. I personally don't envision myself participating in an assault on anything and shooting guns isn't my hobby. I'll stick with the shotgun I have for bird hunting and the handgun I have for home protection. I don't want to ever be in a situation where I have to shoot anyone. BUT...if HPD or Harris Co. Sheriff's office gets disbanded I would definitely reconsider.... Or figure out a way to electrocute the bad guys with my new generator.
Yes. I mentioned some of the differences I had with the piece. But what the article posted by the other poster was referring to isn't what the mainstream people talking about defunding are referring to. The woman at the end is wrong if it is a general statement but is correct for many of the places. I won't pretend to know about her area. So I can't say she was right or wrong about where she was.
Good point, that rifle in my avatar ..I haven’t shot in nearly two years, I started a lawn care business a year ago that is doing very well and taking up all my time even during the coronavirus times but man if police didn’t exist, I hope I never am in a scenario to take a life. We are all precious
A couple of points. This definitely sounds like the writer is saying Chauvin should've been shot. "For fans of legal restrictions on self-defense rights, 2020 is a disaster. It provides continuing evidence that to push gun control proposals is to advocate that the likes of Derek Chauvin—the Minneapolis cop who killed George Floyd—should be armed, while the communities they terrorize should be helpless." Minneapolis isn't a gun free zone so there are armed citizenry. If someone had shot Chauvin I don't think we would just be talking about George Floyd's death but many others. The first thing the other LEO would do is if they see one of their own shot is they start shooting, they get on the radio and call for back up to come in shooting. This idea that people should arm themselves against LE is the recipe for civil war. I saw alot of bad stuff treating less lethal rubber bullets but the MPD and other LE didn't go for the very lethal ammo. As for the other points I believe there is a Constitutional right to firearms. I also believe that trying to disarm the citizenry is nearly impossible and impractical. Even before this I also recognized that there are many situations where LE cannot respond quickly and it is up to civilians to provide for their defense. That doesn't mean that gun control is dead and I don't think with what we've seen there won't still be call for expanded background checks, better tracking of firearms and other regulations. There is nothing in the Second Amendment, Heller or Chicago rulings that prevents background checks, regulation on type of firearms and even registration.
I disagree. I take this preceding statement to be the essence of his argument--nothing more, nothing less. I don't see him or anyone else arguing that an armed bystander should have intervened and shot Chauvin. His argument instead is that those who push gun control proposals are in effect advocating that only cops (including ones such as Derek Chauvin) should be armed . . . while the communities they terrorize (they meaning the cops, including ones such as Derek Chauvin) should be helpless (unarmed). The broad argument the author is making is specifically against the actual argument made by Bloomberg--that only the police in this country should be armed. What the author means by "the death of gun control" in 2020 is that the American public who have been sitting on the sidelines watching the past week and a half of violence and looting in the nation's cities are far less likely now to trust that the police can or will rush to their aid in the event of a criminal threat to their (the American public's) well-being. Gun control proposals are anti- self-defense. What the author means by the death of gun control is that he suspects there is a renewed appreciation for self-defense. Coupled with a widespread loss of confidence in the police that is shared by rioters/looters/protesters and the "mainstream" Middle-American public alike.
What is point though of civilians being armed in regard to LE terrorizing them? What should an armed civilian had done regarding Chauvin?
I take it the author's point is more about trusting in one's self for self-defense against crime than in trusting law enforcement officers who cannot themselves be trusted (at least on occasion) for protection against crime He is arguing against Bloomberg who argues that only law enforcement can be trusted to have guns and to protect the public against crime
If that's the point it isn't one I think people who support law and order would encourage. The last thing we need is a bunch of armed vigilantes running around shooting at every person they feel is a criminal or threat to them.
If those 3 or 4 people that were witnessing Floyd being strangled to death had legal pistols and AR15's on their back it would have at least made those cops think if they should continue down the road they went on. Also we wouldn't be at this point where major congressional police reform is possible.
Florida police organization offers to hire cops who were fired or resigned over police misconduct https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/08/us/brevard-county-florida-police-union-misconduct-trnd/index.html This is the problem with these union.
I understand the difference between vigilantes and people defending themselves. Advocating and increase in armed citizens running around will lead to more vigilantism. We're already seeing it with horrible results, especially regarding minorities. You can cheer it all day long. It is still an idea that would be contrary to law and order.
Maybe just maybe the bad cops hide behind their police union scumbag president Bob Kroll. Maybe the best way to get rid of the rotten cops is disband the police force and hire the actual non scumbags.
