It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I've figured it out! I have the answer!

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2016 @ 08:14 PM
link   
We (the people in the United States) find ourselves in what we think is a dilemma. We think that as a result of Orlando we are splitting along several fault lines at once. Almost half our country wants to ban guns completely. The other half wants a gun behind every blade of grass. Many of us want to expel large swaths of their fellow countrymen based solely on a profession of faith. The rest of us are seeing the last of our civil liberties jeopardized by such a prospect. We are yelling past each other on multiple issues at once and accomplishing less than nothing as we all march on together towards the next disaster.

We need to stop. We need to focus on what the problem actually is and stop confusing the issues. The problem is this: we are all now quite possibly targets for the next mad shooter, the next bomber, or the next violent flash mob. We are all now acutely aware that there slightly increased chance that it may well be our own name on the next list of victims.

So how do we solve this problem in a way that will not trample on everyone's civil liberties, will not create more divisions in our society, and will actually work?

Here is the answer: double the size of our current police forces, double their pay, and require that if you are a police officer that you carry a gun with you at all times while you are off duty.

This solution works for everybody. It does not involve a radical expansion or reduction of private gun ownership. It will actually lead to more gun control because there will be more resources available to enforce existing gun laws. It will make sure that becoming a police officer remains a viable middle class profession. And it will pepper every gas station, movie theater, school, college campus, grocery store, church, ball game, and public event with highly trained, armed citizens ready to respond to a threat at a moment's notice.

What I am proposing here is NOT a police state. How can it be a police state if the police are us - citizens with middle class aspirations beholden to the exact same set of laws the rest of us are? No, what I am proposing is exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they called for "a well regulated militia."




posted on Jun, 13 2016 @ 08:20 PM
link   
I am completely against everything you said. This is also in the wrong forums.

Heres the real problem: 'a camel is a horse designed by a committee '

You along with 80% of ats members/lurkers all have a solution. Too bad this committee is a metaphor to our government.



posted on Jun, 13 2016 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: olddognewtricks

I have respect that you are trying to think of a solution.

Having said that, it's my opinion that it would end horribly.



posted on Jun, 13 2016 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: olddognewtricks

Term limits for Congress, the House and judges, and the outlawing of lobbying/lobbyists, would be a good start. Real transparency would also help a lot.

If all Democrats and Republicans were armed, eg a well regulated militia, and they had equal numbers, it's very probable that after the next election only the libertarians would be left. Lol.

Cheers - Dave
edit on 6/13.2016 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2016 @ 09:02 PM
link   
a reply to: olddognewtricks

LOL double a police officers salary and double the force, lol, wow I can't stop laughing at that proposal. So the states will pay for it by getting pulled over more, more traffic violations, more tickets, more sting operations on the middle class citizens that the police automatically are not middle class if they are raking in 100k-200k each per year if you double their salary. Police are not saints as it is, and have a high percentage of domestic violence among them. So I am sorry, but the idea is not going to solve anything.



posted on Jun, 13 2016 @ 09:19 PM
link   
a reply to: olddognewtricks

Um ... Are you a police officer? lol



posted on Jun, 13 2016 @ 09:37 PM
link   
This will not work.

It is not fiscally responsible, and ultimately not a good idea.

People need to be able to defend themselves, not rely on the police.

Even if you tripled the number of police they cannot be everywhere at every moment.

Allow people to exercise their birth right of self protection.



posted on Jun, 13 2016 @ 09:50 PM
link   
a reply to: olddognewtricks

I have to agree with the push-up cat avatar guy: odzeandennz

You want to flood the US with MORE cops and turn us into an even BIGGER police state?

Sir, maybe you should have a drink of water, relax, pet an animal, even tell some jokes.

Your brain needs rest.

edit on 13-6-2016 by gladtobehere because: wording



posted on Jun, 13 2016 @ 10:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: olddognewtricks
Here is the answer: double the size of our current police forces, double their pay, and require that if you are a police officer that you carry a gun with you at all times while you are off duty.


In the US there are ~765,000 police with arrest powers (the types that roam the street with a gun opposed to doing desk work). Doubling that would bring the total to just under 1.6 million in a country of 320 million or roughly 1 for every 188 people. At that ratio there is still a very good chance that any individual club doesn't have an off duty police officer inside, and even if they do that officer probably still wouldn't have a gun on them because guns and alcohol don't mix.

Also, where do you propose the budget for these officers comes from? Doubling their pay and doubling their size is a quadrupling of the budget. They average around $60k now or $46 billion annually in wages which is about $80 billion in actual costs. Quadrupling that comes to 320 billion or another $240 billion we need to come up with. Just to meet the current payroll the police are using rather loose definitions of asset forfeiture... how do you want to come up with another $240 billion per year?



posted on Jun, 13 2016 @ 11:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: olddognewtricks
We (the people in the United States) find ourselves in what we think is a dilemma. We think that as a result of Orlando we are splitting along several fault lines at once. Almost half our country wants to ban guns completely. The other half wants a gun behind every blade of grass. Many of us want to expel large swaths of their fellow countrymen based solely on a profession of faith. The rest of us are seeing the last of our civil liberties jeopardized by such a prospect. We are yelling past each other on multiple issues at once and accomplishing less than nothing as we all march on together towards the next disaster.

We need to stop. We need to focus on what the problem actually is and stop confusing the issues. The problem is this: we are all now quite possibly targets for the next mad shooter, the next bomber, or the next violent flash mob. We are all now acutely aware that there slightly increased chance that it may well be our own name on the next list of victims.

So how do we solve this problem in a way that will not trample on everyone's civil liberties, will not create more divisions in our society, and will actually work?

Here is the answer: double the size of our current police forces, double their pay, and require that if you are a police officer that you carry a gun with you at all times while you are off duty.

This solution works for everybody. It does not involve a radical expansion or reduction of private gun ownership. It will actually lead to more gun control because there will be more resources available to enforce existing gun laws. It will make sure that becoming a police officer remains a viable middle class profession. And it will pepper every gas station, movie theater, school, college campus, grocery store, church, ball game, and public event with highly trained, armed citizens ready to respond to a threat at a moment's notice.

What I am proposing here is NOT a police state. How can it be a police state if the police are us - citizens with middle class aspirations beholden to the exact same set of laws the rest of us are? No, what I am proposing is exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they called for "a well regulated militia."
what you just said would be a police state and what makes you think that taking guns from law abiding citizens would stop criminals from getting guns illegally?



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 05:07 AM
link   
a reply to: malevolent

Arright fine.

So what do we do then? We are getting a lot of mass shootings in this country. San Bernardino was only less than seven months ago.

What's the solution?



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join