It's your fault for gunsplaining to him. How can he have a reasonable conversation with you when you try to explain things to him? You big meanie.
yes. again, police aren't there to protect anyone. they literally have no legal duty to protect anyone. that's why we see cops who A) shoot unarmed suspects or B) fail to stop armed suspects and they rarely face the consequences this is so because of assholes like Scalia: Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/...ot-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html The cops refused to respond to an abused wife's 911 call to enforce a restraining order when her husband showed up. The abusive husband kidnapped and murdered their children. Cops said tough shit, and Scalia agreed.
indeed cops are not your friends (when on duty at least) and I avoid them at all costs. That said it really is a "can't live with em' can't live without em'"" situation for the most part. Also quality of policing varies greatly from location-to-location. Cops are assholes in my county. Next county over they are more chilled out, etc.etc.
YES! The voice of reason: The Babylon Bee (satire...I say again satire/humor much like The Onion) must have read my mind: https://babylonbee.com/news/democra...orego-armed-security-to-protest-gun-violence/
If only there were an amendment that established a right to self defense against someone who’s trying to harm us or a tyrannical government, a right to bear arms perhaps?
Absolutely. But it shows just how bizarre this conversation has become. Maybe the altRighties like @Captain X and Poodle are hoping they'll kill each other off.
It’s also not very libertarian either, the government is going to provide guns? How bout we provide the homeless, uh, you know, housing instead? But I’m sure I can provide you with examples of bizarre lefties as well.
And you call yourself a historian and Constitution buff. The right to self defense is a right that predates the Constitution and did not require specifying in the Constitution. It's one of those inalienable rights the framers were so fond of. It existed as early as Roman law and possibly earlier. And furthermore, that's not what the 2nd Amendment even does. The 2nd Amendment, as with all of the Bill of Rights, is a limit on the federal government.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...proposes-arming-homeless-people-with-shotguns So the Republican position on guns has gone from completely retarded to... What ever is worse than that. A Republican Senate candidate has said the government needs to be providing free guns and ammo to homeless people. Yes, homeless people. He claims this would help reduce crime and says there is no way this could cause greater danger to public safety. Yeah, because giving firearms to drugged out mentally ill people is just such a winner of an idea that no one could see this causing harm to the public. Completely lacking from any proposal by this guy is any suggestion to feed or house the homeless or provide tgem with mebtal care or even doing anything to increase the supply of affordable housing. At least he wants to give crazy homeless people guns, I guess that is something.
It does say in the article " Office policy requires deputies to try to confront a gunman as quickly as possible, without waiting for backup." So he didn't do his job. I actually feel bad for the guy, it's a no win situation. You've got a handgun vs an AR 15 so you're outmatched, and you have no idea how many people are involved in the shooting. What if you shoot a kid who isn't involved? Or, if you do nothing, you get labelled a coward and probably lose your job. Shitty deal.
I like the idea of students being politically active but this is just... . http://www.fox5ny.com/news/chicago-students-trash-walmart-during-walkout-over-gun-violence
The Alderman had it correct. They spent years trying to shame big box retailers into opening stores in the black south side of Chicago and the main reason stores that used to be there went away was 1) Low sales due to low income in black communities (the reasons for this are many and varied), 2) High theft rates which stores always hate, 3) Riots and vandalism. It can often take 30 years to pay off the cost of opening a new big box store so it only takes one or two incidence in three decades for them to say "that place isn't worth it". Especially when there are better, more profitable options for expansion open to them. This is like the rioters who burn down half of their own neighborhood then complain a year later that there are no jobs. Yes, even minor stuff matters because with retail struggling they are always looking for low performing stores to close and more likely to be profitable (meaning more affluent and law abiding) areas to invest in. Companies like Walmart are one of the few, often the only one to invest in impoverish minority majority inner cities. You have to take the jobs and the tax base you can get then slowly build from there but too often the very same people who benefit from these developments attack or protest them as gentrification or are upset because one store doesn't by itself turn around a failed inner city.
While I can have some empathy for a person in that position, the job is to protect and serve, and the officer took an oath to do that. He knew that there was gunfire inside an occupied school--an occurrence that has only one reasonable, horrific implication--and stayed out of harm's way. Want to provide security without taking on that burden? Become a mall cop.
Conservatives are circulating this meme, suggesting that in lieu of gun control, we can prevent school shootings by being nicer to kids like Nikolas Cruz. So crime is the result of society not being inclusive enough? Welcome to the Left, comrades!