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.

 

Disarm The Police

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 11:29 PM
link   
I'd always wanted to do some more research into this idea, so I typed it into google to see what came up. While certainly not a new idea (English Bobbies still don't carry guns), I have long come to the point where I feel the militarizing of our police force has gotten so excessive, someone somewhere needs to keep shouting on the proverbial street corner.

Have a read through this fine article from Gary North, which pretty much though not entirely sums up what I wanted to say.


THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS FAR TOO WEAK

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution asserts the right – the legal immunity from interference by the State – of American citizens to keep and bear arms. This means a rifle strapped to my back and a pistol or two strapped to my hip, day or night.

It doesn't go far enough. It leaves guns in the hands of a subculture that has proven itself too irresponsible to carry them: the police.

If I were called upon to write the constitution for a free country, meaning a country no larger than Iowa, I would require every citizen to be armed, except members of the police. A policeman would have to apply for an on-duty gun permit. He would not be allowed to carry a gun on duty, just like England's bobbies are not allowed to carry them.

Every child, male and female, beginning no later than age six, would be trained by parents regarding the moral responsibility of every armed citizen to come to the aid of any policeman in trouble. Unarmed people deserve protection.


And let's try something with this thread. Pick an argument: either for or against the police having weapons, or even maybe a stance on why the police should have more or less weapons, and bring in a link to the thread which supports your point of view.

My stance is I support either severe disarmament or complete disarmament of the police, as long as similar measures are taken as mentioned in the article. My support for my stance is provided in my link above, as well as the other links contained in the article.

Oh and semp, would love to get your take on this.


[edit on 2-9-2008 by TrueAmerican]




posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 02:34 AM
link   
i must say that i dont feel comfortable being out gunned. however completely disarming police wouldnt be that great of an idea i dont think. my idea would be to have cops only carry guns in cities with a high rate of violent or gun related crimes. or only give them to cops who patrol in areas with a high rate of violent or gun related crimes so that major metropolitan areas like chicago for example dont have gun totting cops crawling all over the city.

but what about cities that dont meet this criteria of high rates of violent or gun related crimes? i think they should have a small armory or something with guns for whatever situation that may require the use of lethal force. if you get rid of all guns for cops and when a bad apple turns up robbing a bank with fully automatic weapons then cops will be needing equal force to stop the suspect from hurting anyone.

in addition to this all police should have extensive gun training at least as lengthy as their normal police training and be required to take annual strict safety courses.

and on a side note i believe every law abiding citizen should own a gun(s) for their own defence from not only criminals who illegally obtain guns and to defend themselves from tyranny such as a police state. untill we reach that stage in our social evolution where we no longer need to defend ourselves from ourselves then both sides (the people and the police) will need to defend themselves from eachother.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 04:40 AM
link   
reply to post by TimeDog
 


TD, you actually go and read that article, and understand the reasons he gives for this idea? It doesn't sound like you did, but I appreciate the response.

With the recent reports of all the bullying, even deliberate provoking, by the police at the RNC, (and this is just more of the usual), can we really afford not to seriously consider the idea of radically disarming the police and imposing some new restrictions on their abilities?

[edit on 3-9-2008 by TrueAmerican]



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 05:43 AM
link   
to pick a side - disarm 'em - BUT only with your stipulation of arming the citizens.

I'm crackin up! I see this armed robber strolling into a bank, firing his weapon and yelling, "Everybody On The Floor!!!"
Only to have every person in the bank turn towards him in unison, each one of them pointing a loaded gun at his head!
Guess the banks would like this arrangement?



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 05:55 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 

If I am not mistaken.. In the UK it illegal for private citizens to have guns, so their law enforcement don't carry them either.

In the US, everyone is packin heat therefore the threat to police is much greater. You will never disarm the police is the US I am afraid. I personally believe that US law enforcement should be disarmed because they are seriously dangerous and many are quite irresponsible with the use of lethal force (or non-lethal for that matter). Maybe the government should issue bullet proof vests...



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by mapsurfer_
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 

If I am not mistaken.. In the UK it illegal for private citizens to have guns, so their law enforcement don't carry them either.

In the US, everyone is packin heat therefore the threat to police is much greater. You will never disarm the police is the US I am afraid. I personally believe that US law enforcement should be disarmed because they are seriously dangerous and many are quite irresponsible with the use of lethal force (or non-lethal for that matter). Maybe the government should issue bullet proof vests...


problem today is now the police and the military are all buddy buddy, so even the highest crime areas are out-gunned. It's all fudged up. I guess I'll leave this pickle of a problem up to evolution.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 07:43 AM
link   
I'm not in favor of disarming ANY law-abiding, sane citizens. Cops generally fall under that umbrella. Sort of.

I don't like applying an equipment fix for a "people" problem. Guns or no guns is an equipment fix for a people problem. The "people" here being the out-of-control cops who never outgrew the "beat up kids for their lunch money" stage.

Fix the cops (or get rid of the bad apples) and leave the guns alone. All of them. Theirs and ours.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 09:42 AM
link   
I agree that some cops should not have a gun. Recently I had an altercation with a city cop at my home. As I sat there, and calmly quoted law to him, showing him that he was wrong and I was right, he constantly kept his hand on his firearm. I could read it in his thoughts that he really wanted to pull it and shoot me. What really got to him was when I asked from where did he get his power? He said, as all of them do, "from the State." Well, I said, the "State" is naught but an act of Congress, and they are not in session at this time. I made it really clear to that cop that he is my servant, no my master. He stomped off in a huff, knowing that he could not make me fear him. I have a saying....know the law, or be a victim of it. Ohio is an open carry state, and I carry often. All I have to do is conceal the butt of my .44 revolver so I don't scare people with a shirt tail. All the cops have is a star and a gun. Well, I have a star and a gun too. And, I am willing to die for my freedom. I dare say most cops are not willing to do this.

I found out later that the cop in question did not have a bond. He got fired, and now he in a common citizen, just like me. Don't let the cops get away with this stuff.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 10:10 AM
link   
That is a pretty stupid article. It's actually proposing to disarm the police and have the citizenry be the firepower for the police officer.

This is because model citizen-heros are everywhere, especially in high crime areas where model citizens don't go. I guess when the police officer goes to patrol the factory district because a break-in alarm got sounded, he's supposed to pick up armed citizens on the way there? Oh no, of course not. We'll indoctrinate our kids to be action heros and pseudo-soldiers. Nothing wrong with that!



Anyone so foolish as to attack a policeman would be looking down the barrels of, say, a dozen handguns. "Go ahead, punk. Make our day!"


What planet is this guy from?



A policeman would gain obedience, like James Stewart in Destry Rides Again, through judicial empowerment. He would not threaten anyone with immediate violence. He would simply say, "Folks, I've got a problem here. This person is resisting arrest. Would three of you accompany me to the local station with this individual?"


Oh, excuse me, he's living in a western movie, very anachronistic.

If you accidently kill the wrong person, you'll be put to death by the citizen army?



Kill the wrong person, and you must pay the ultimate restitution: eye for eye, life for life. But no faceless bureaucrat hired by the State would do the act. A group of armed citizens will execute you under the authority of the court. Remember, the police are unarmed.




[The Policeman] would blow his whistle, and a dozen sawed-off shotguns accompanied by people would be there within 60 seconds.


Good thing that there are always a dozen citizens within 300 yards in this society!

OH Crap! I hear a whistle! I'm going to grab my shotgun and go get in a shootout. This is routine, I do it all the time.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by dunwichwitch
problem today is now the police and the military are all buddy buddy, so even the highest crime areas are out-gunned. It's all fudged up. I guess I'll leave this pickle of a problem up to evolution.


It's definitely a bad thing when high crime areas are out gunned by the police, let me tell you!

I just can't stand seeing pigs out gunning criminals!



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by logician magician
 


I totally agree. The cop is going to be blowing and blowing but nobody is going to come. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

You know our freedoms are being stepped on when the crime areas are being out-gunned by the police.


Seriously though, I do think there are some cops that shouldn't be armed. But, like the whitewave said, it's a 'people problem.'



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 03:25 PM
link   
white wave is correct. like my grandpa always said, guns dont kill people, people kill people.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 11:22 PM
link   
We should also Take there damn cars away, half of them anyways.

In a car a cop cannot hear a woman being raped, cannot smell the orphanage burning, cannot hear the old man being robbed, and certainly cannot interact with the community in any way as they are in a car all day.... smelling their own farts and laughing probably... making that mean face cops make...


Cops, being one of societies 'pillars" are not normal people. They are people with a ridiculous amount of power given to them out out of trust.

Should they violate that trust, the most severe penalty should be imposed... as economically as possible.

They were selected for their job under the pretense that they would commit no crime, so when they do break the law, we as a society should be outraged and merciless.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 12:03 AM
link   
If the police officer is a citizen of this country, you have NO right to be disarming them just as they have NO right (according to the constitution.. and yes, have seen other threads arguing this) to be disarming you.

"...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This cannot just be applied to the civilians, but must be applied to all, across the board without exception if it is to be followed according to its original intent.

I find it hypocritical that some think the freedoms only apply to the civilians and not to those who are in an authoritive position just as much as I find it wrong that authority figures think they can infringe on the civilians personal rights.

[edit on 4-9-2008 by justamomma]



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 03:13 AM
link   
reply to post by justamomma
 


Yes, but what if the Armed police's job is to enforce Disarmament of the populace?

That changes things - and is unfortunately the case in America.

If everyone had a gun on their hip we wouldn't even be discussing this


unfortunately we aren't allowed to wear guns. Unless you are a member of the fraction of a percent of the world's population who's right to carry is speciafically protected - Like some state in the US.

Try strapping one on and going for a walk in New York.... bang bang you're dead.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 05:49 AM
link   
An armed society is a polite society.
Two hundred years ago most citizens knew how to fire the most state of the art weapons.

Firearms were needed for food, basically and for protection equally.

I propose to unrestrain and liberalize the second amendment.

Take the Florida situation where a county in Florida had a high rape rate.
The target population of women were trained and armed and in six months the rape rate plumetted to a third of the national averafe.

The prevailing factor in crime prevention is a criminal fearing the victim is armed.

The introduction of on the job injury and possible death for a criminal is sobering and effective deterrence. Deterrence has worked for me effectively in the past. Deterrence works.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by fmcanarney
An armed society is a polite society.


You think so?



In October 1992, in Louisiana, a Japanese exchange student named Yoshihiro Hattori went into the wrong house on the way to a Halloween party. The homeowner's wife screamed for help and the homeowner drew his .44 pistol and yelled for the student to 'freeze!' Not understanding the American idiom that 'freeze!' means 'Don't move or I'll shoot', the student continued advancing towards the homeowner. The homeowner pulled the trigger and shot him dead.


That's real polite, isn't it?

You should do a comparison of crime rates between NEW YORK and TOKYO. Hint: Tokyo has 40 muggings a year. New York has 11,000.

Many of those 11,000 muggings are undoubtedly metal pipes instead of guns - something that wouldn't work with tighter gun control.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by TruthTellistYes, but what if the Armed police's job is to enforce Disarmament of the populace?

That changes things - and is unfortunately the case in America.

If everyone had a gun on their hip we wouldn't even be discussing this


unfortunately we aren't allowed to wear guns. Unless you are a member of the fraction of a percent of the world's population who's right to carry is speciafically protected - Like some state in the US.

Try strapping one on and going for a walk in New York.... bang bang you're dead.


I don't disagree necessarily. I feel that we should have the same amount of access to weapons that they do w/out restraint.

But I am thinking about this logically. Disarming them would be unnecessary if we had the unrestrained access to weapons that we should. Without it though, how the hell are we planning on disarming them?

[edit on 4-9-2008 by justamomma]



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 10:14 PM
link   
I was in Orlando, Fl., around 1987 and we were granted the priviledge to carry a gun. Crime dropped so dramatically during those few weeks that the nightly news sounded like a girl scout announcement. The "privilege" was rescinded and crime shot back up. I've seen first hand how having a gun affects crime rates. Cops might behave themselves a little more if they suspected the person they were needlessly harassing might be carrying a gun too.

Also, if someone comes into your house, even by accident, and you pull a gun they are just suicidal in any language if they continue to advance. You may not understand the words but I bet you understand a gun pointed in your direction and a harsh tone of voice when you encounter them. The guy mentioned in the previous post was too stupid to live if he continued to advance on the homeowner after having a gun pulled on him, especially when he realized he'd made a mistake and entered the wrong home.

Read the constitution. Guns aren't for duck hunting. They're for ensuring that the government doesn't get too big for their britches. It's for ensuring that they don't forget who pays their salaries and that they're public servants, not masters.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by whitewave
Read the constitution. Guns aren't for duck hunting. They're for ensuring that the government doesn't get too big for their britches. It's for ensuring that they don't forget who pays their salaries and that they're public servants, not masters.


Bingo. And the point is that the militarization of the police, as well as the increasing federal control of the entire US military- as opposed to more STATE control- has thrown the arms balance WAY beyond anything the US Constitution ever intended.

The feds and the police are just way too powerful, and from that vantage point are widening the gap even further with impunity. MicroUAV's with machine guns and cameras flying outside your window, and super robots armed to the metal teeth making decisions autonomously on whether to terminate a human or not. What is this crap?

Too bad the UAV's won't go down quite as easy as they do in Halflife2.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join