It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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...
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!"
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?"
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.
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.
Originally posted by fmcanarney
An armed society is a polite society.
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.
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.
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.