4 ms·
That makes sense. Now, the general point I think would be that at a smaller scale we're hearing accounts of local police (or perhaps state police) riding aroun
by datashovel 12y ago
That makes sense. Now, the general point I think would be that at a smaller scale we're hearing accounts of local police (or perhaps state police) riding around in tanks shooting tear gas into groups of citizens.
Where are the accounts of organized groups of citizens riding around in tanks firing tear gas at who they believe to be oppressive police force? Are those available in the free market?
I guess I'm trying to figure out where the line is supposed to be drawn in terms of who gets what kinds of arms? I'm sure alot of folks would argue that as soon as a local police force is given particular types of weapons, it's perhaps assumed that citizens will have same or similar weapons available to them to organize to protect themselves from oppressive government.
EDIT: Or more precisely, as soon as certain types of weapons are turned against its own citizens, is it right that those citizens don't have the same or similar weapons at their disposal to protect themselves?
- staunch 12y agoPolice militarization is an issue with or without the second amendment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Meneze... One thing I think you're missing is that citizens only really need to have modern weapons (not every weapon) to be in ultimate control. There are 1,000+ armed citizens for every police officer. As for what the second amendment should mean, the supreme court has spent the last 100 years hearing arguments in every direction. You might guess that your "nukes" argument is about as old as nukes (and before that people just used other examples). If you want to learn more about it here's a good place to start Wikipedia'ing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
- datashovel 12y agoAgreed. This is a highly nuanced and multi-faceted space in general. Specific to US and what Obama is proposing, how do you think they'll be framing the question in order to understand what the right answers are?
- staunch 12y agoHopefully they'll look at the problem facing police and help them solve it using more brains and less brawn. Personally I look at this all through the lens of technology. George Holliday using his new Sony Handycam to show the world the beating of Rodney King was merely the initial trickle of justice. The torrent is coming and only genuinely good police officers will survive it.
- datashovel 12y agoGreat observation. I agree. I'm excited to see how technology will continue to transform this space in substantial ways.