Why are the police to

[melm00se]

be trusted when it comes to the ability to own a firearm.

But not to be trusted when it comes to policing communities?

[pwb]

1. I don't trust any of them ever.

So there's that.

[sop]

2. "To Protect and Serve" has become to protect corporations and serve out punishment.

Policing in America has been violent and racist from it's very beginnings. In many neighborhoods police are nothing less than terrorists attacking those they're supposed to be protecting. And nothing has been done to curb it because those who would prosecute bad cops on the local level have been forced into a dependent professional relationship with the police.

[RotorHead]

3. We could reduce police interactions....

...and thus possibilities for abuse, accidents or errors, by STOP PASSING MORE AND MORE MALUM PROHIBITUM LAWS, AND START RESCINDING THE EXISTING ONES.

But NO-ONE wants to have a rational discussion on THAT topic....

[yagotme]

4. There's a LOT that I don't trust to own a firearm...

[LiberatedUSA]

5. I've heard the line of reasoning...

...that the cops, who we protest for shooting people, should not be trusted with better guns than everyone else.

Let me work that reasoning out to what its ultimate conclusion would be; which shows it is faulty.

1 - Police abuse you, violate your civil rights and have stepped over the legal line.

2 - Person decides to shoot at those abusive cops with an AR-15 and have lots more in their home.

3 - For this exercise, we will say the only guns the cops have are revolvers. No military tanks or even tear gas.

4 - So back up arrives. Are they going to first ask the original cops if the shooter has a legitimate reason for shooting at them, such as for civil rights violations? No, they aren’t going to do that.

5 - So now we have a person with all the semi-autos in the world in their home, but surrounded by cops with revolvers.

6 - This only ends one way. Eventually the suspect will get tired and hungry, surrounded with the power and water cut off. Prison or the morgue.

And that is the point. It does not matter if you have better guns than the cops, the same guns as the cops or worse guns than they have, if you shoot at them (even if they were in the wrong) it always ends the same. Prison or the morgue.

So my question would be, exactly how does gun ownership prevent police abuse? The answer is, it doesn’t. Police abuse will be addressed through legislation and law enforcement reform.

And yes, even if the person making the argument about gun ownership and cops is not saying it, the implication is that if you have the same guns as the cops, you can fight them off if they step over the line.

No you can’t. No one can. That one SWAT dude in the state of California years ago that killed a bunch of people still died in a fire in a cabin in the woods when they surrounded him. His sniper and SWAT experience didn’t save him against multitudes of cops after him.

[friendly_iconoclast]

6. Do you have an argument against gun ownership that isn't made from straw?

If so, I'm sure we'd all like to read it.

[LiberatedUSA]

7. All I am saying is...

...anyone that thinks their guns will protect them from abusive police, is an idiot.

Have your guns, but know that your gun ownership won’t prevent police from abusing you. If anything, it will encourage cops hell bent on looking for someone to beat on. Since the cops do have the same semi-auto weapons, along with military tanks and tactics, well...you get the idea.

Not sure why you all get so riled up anyway; there is no way this Supreme Court is going to allow the old assault weapon ban to pass, let alone the new version; especially one with no granddaughter clause or a mandatory selling the gun “back”. Even if it did, red states will ignore it the same way blue states did with marijuana; they are already passing legislation that says exactly that. When funding is threatened to be cut, the Republicans will remind everyone that Trump tried to cut funding to states refusing to enforce federal immigration laws and was shut down in federal court; which means precedent has been set on not being able to deny funding to states that ignore federal laws they don’t like.

So really, not sure why you all get so jittery any time someone belts out a post you don’t like.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

8. Wish I could rec this,

but instead, here's this:

And just for the record, I don't own, nor have any desire to own any firearms.

After 35 years in the Armed Forces, owning firearms is waaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyy down on my do to list.

[friendly_iconoclast]

10. You are arguing against a stand I have never taken. Kindly remove *your* words from *my* mouth

Wherever did you get the idea I think guns can protect the public against bad cops?

For that matter, where on DU have you seen anyone saying anything like your example?

Point them out, and I'll argue with them myself.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

9. re: "Person decides to shoot at those abusive cops..."

Is there somewhere that you've read of anyone on DU advocating this?

I, personally, don't favor having the average cop be better armed than the average citizen. I think both groups, citizens and law enforcement, must work together. Things almost always escalate badly when ultimatums are issued.

Ludlow, Colorado 1914, Cleveland, Ohio 1970...

I object to arms issued to the regular cops disproportionately more deadly than is typically needed. SWAT can have M-16s. The average cop in a patrol car doesn't need one.

A line is crossed when cops become "special" citizens.
The assumed immunity is a deal breaker.
Allowing cops with excessive force complaints to carry while off duty is uncool.

[friendly_iconoclast]

11. "Is there somewhere that you've read of anyone on DU advocating this?" Like I said, purest straw

Once again, it is demonstrated that the fringier one's political beliefs, the more likely you are
to hold evidence-free conspiracy theories.

It holds true for both right and left.