• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

By Golly, the Barney Fife Solution - I think it could work!

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
but as long as they are on government duty they should not be armed with lethal force. once they are not on government duty then the 2ndA applies. no government employee should have lethal force
I disagree with the above part. Employment does not suspend constituional rights. I do however absolutely object to the gov't claiming a monoply on the use of force and, as I said, civilian gov't employees being granted exemptions to 2A restrictions to which the citizens they police are subject.

I specificy civilian employees as the military is obviously subject to an entirely different set of rules in UCMJ.
 

papa bear

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2010
Messages
2,222
Location
mayberry, nc
I disagree with the above part. Employment does not suspend constituional rights. I do however absolutely object to the gov't claiming a monoply on the use of force and, as I said, civilian gov't employees being granted exemptions to 2A restrictions to which the citizens they police are subject.

I specificy civilian employees as the military is obviously subject to an entirely different set of rules in UCMJ.

I'll agree with that in part. there should be more restrictions on government entities. but that is where we separate. once you put on the power of government, you are the government, and there fore should be limited.
that could be said part of what the second Amendment was about, the limiting of the government
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
Cops are citizens too, and should think of themselves as citizens first and cops second (that "civilians" thing from cops irritates me) and as such, I have no issues with them being armed how and where the citizens they serve can be armed. No more and no less, with at least the same level of accountability and in many instances, moreso as they are an enforcement arm of gov't. The problem IMO is cops having a different set of rules as to what and where they carry. If cops weren't exempted from so many of the same firearm laws citizens must follow, we'd have constitutional carry nationally in a week (why yes, I am feeling a bit hyperbolic today).

I fear that you are forgetting that it is not just the law-abiding who are citizens. Understanding that blows your argument all to smithereens. Either that or you are saying that there ought to be restrictions in place. If so, I hope you are also saying that there needs to be action to enforce those restrictions on not just the easy targets but the very difficult ones too. (You know, the non law-abiding ones that seem to cause the most harm.)

In this country we strip away some rights from some people, but once they attain citizenship it's difficult to take it away from them. That and most of the Constitution talks about "The People", not just "The Citizens". I strongly urge folks to go live for a while in a country where only some of the people are citizens and the rest have no rights or protections.

stay safe.
 

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
I fear that you are forgetting that it is not just the law-abiding who are citizens. Understanding that blows your argument all to smithereens. Either that or you are saying that there ought to be restrictions in place. If so, I hope you are also saying that there needs to be action to enforce those restrictions on not just the easy targets but the very difficult ones too. (You know, the non law-abiding ones that seem to cause the most harm.)

In this country we strip away some rights from some people, but once they attain citizenship it's difficult to take it away from them. That and most of the Constitution talks about "The People", not just "The Citizens". I strongly urge folks to go live for a while in a country where only some of the people are citizens and the rest have no rights or protections.

stay safe.
Love engaging with you on the forum, Skidmark. You respectfully challenge and make me think.

You are correct. When I wrote "citizens" I should have written LAC within the jurisdiction.

I amend my comment to be that non-military LE should not be authorized to carry weapons or places that LAC of the jurisdiction cannot carry (as a practical matter, with limited exceptions to the places or events such as those requiring a security clearance -presidential protection comes to mind but then that can be a slippery slope). Whether non-citizens or felons, etc should have restrictions diffferent than LAC I think is a different discussion or at least much further into the weeds on this than I intended to venture.

I await the next shredding... :)
 

Maverick9

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,404
Location
Mid-atlantic
I fear that you are forgetting that it is not just the law-abiding who are citizens. Understanding that blows your argument all to smithereens. Either that or you are saying that there ought to be restrictions in place. If so, I hope you are also saying that there needs to be action to enforce those restrictions on not just the easy targets but the very difficult ones too. (You know, the non law-abiding ones that seem to cause the most harm.)

In this country we strip away some rights from some people, but once they attain citizenship it's difficult to take it away from them. That and most of the Constitution talks about "The People", not just "The Citizens". I strongly urge folks to go live for a while in a country where only some of the people are citizens and the rest have no rights or protections.

stay safe.

True, mil and LE are people too. Mil should be armed, but why are they disarmed on base? I think the military knows they are turning out some (many) psychopathic killers, but that's just a guess and that's come back to haunt them.

LE should be issued revolvers as duty weapons and have a shotgun or AR locked securely in the trunk and maybe need a rotating access code to get to them. Off duty they have no special rights or endowments and they can carry what they wish.

Sure we can't stop LE from having BUGs or something or carry bullets around but we make the it the default and go back to sanity, force in numbers, patience. They better see the writing on the wall because someone is gonna get PO-ed that has political clout. Either that or they need to build a LEO-prison to keep them safe but let them know they can't be doing that. Some LEO will shoot a congressman or his kid (or his dog) and that will be it.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Military are not armed on US soil/base because the government does not trust them. With all the military pride the members of our government just do not trust people on base to be armed. Plus they get the added rush of control over a certain set of people that can do nothing about it.
 
Top