3 ms·
Police 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/w
by staunch 12y ago
Police 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.