One for the armed...

Link?

 

this is one of the few things that i agree with you on

 

Actually, they do. "To serve and protect."

 

I can, in fact, hold my breath for two minutes. (my personal best is 2:37.)

But obviously, that's not what you meant. I'm absolutely fine with the fact that you do not have faith in your local police department. I am saddened, however, that you are attempting to spread this lack of faith to others. I feel quite safe knowing that my local police and sheriff's departments are protecting the "general good" (and, thereby, me.) Every day, when I go about my business, I do not fear being shot at, kidnapped, or robbed. I know that my life is secure. But I do also remember that those officers and deputies who are protecting the "general good" are putting their lives on the line every time they put that uniform on. I will not strip them of the honor they deserve.

In my first post in this thread I decided not to include the following link. However, I've decided now that perhaps I should. Ground Chuk, you are an advocate of the right to carry, obviously. In posting this, let me be clear in the fact that I am not equating you with the perpetrator in this story.
http://www.waff.com/Global/story.asp?S=7520666&nav=menu62_1_2
This incident occurred in my home town. This officer was killed for no reason. Why? A man was carrying a gun.

Chuk, I respect your right to an opinion and your right to express yourself. What I do not respect, however, is the way in which you go about it. Your comments are borderline anarchical and that troubles me.

Please, stop trying to be so provocative and start having sensible discourse.

 

Chuk,

I think we all know that you're very well versed in the law and that this issue is close to your heart. I have no doubts that you know the facts.

What I hope you realize, however, is that I'm not attempting to engage you in a debate of carrying a concealed weapon or not. My comments were directed toward your comments about law enforcement officers, which you did not address.

Chuk, as I stated before, I respect the fact that you have your own opinions. What I do not respect is the way in which you express them. I will not get involved in an internet shouting match with you.

Best wishes.

 

The thing is, anybody can potentially be a criminal. The stupid to smart person ratio in America is staggering, and I can think of 2/3rds of the nation simply not being intelligent and responsible enough to wield a firearm. Of course it is easy enough for a criminal to get a firearm as it is, and gun restrictions would not do anything to deter this fact. This is largely why I am against any form of gun control. It will not solve the problem it seeks to address. All it would do is impede on one of my constitutional rights, with no benefit in return. The lawmakers can't be so stupid as to think gun control will deter crime...or maybe they are.

Until I am given a valid argument for how gun control would help deter crime, I will defend my constitutional right.

 

I'm not trying to speak for Chuk here, only myself. I've had a couple of interactions with law enforcement in my life, as I imagine most people have. I also know several law enforcement officers personally. Now, I have never been arrested, and have no criminal record. However, I've been subjected to forced searches of my vehicle and person at traffic stops with no justification (and how is the "license and registration please" line at traffic stops different from the "papers please" line from the old Soviet Union?), and forced interrogations with no justification other than that I happened to be traveling down a certain road or sidewalk. Now, I've had other interactions with law enforcement which were conducted in a perfectly reasonable manner.

Of the officers whom I know personally, some conduct themselves in a completely inappropriate manner, and others take their service extremely and conduct themselves in a most honorable manner that, frankly, commands respect. The split is pretty much 50/50. It's odd to me that I don't know anyone who falls into the middle ground, but this is admittedly anecdotal, and a very small sample group.

My point is that I respectfully disagree with you that law enforcement as a whole are deserving of any particular honor due solely to their choice of vocation. I think some officers are deserving of honor because they conduct themselves in an honorable fashion and are generally honorable people, while I think others are deserving of nothing.

Again, I don't know about Chuk, but my views are borderline anarchical, at least comparatively speaking. It actually troubles me to learn that other people's views are not. History has demonstrated time and again that whenever large numbers of people are systematically killed, the constant in nearly every case is an out of control authoritarian government. It is my opinion that instilling any level of trust in any government is a dangerous thing to do, as government itself is a double-edged sword. Population density being what it is, some form of government is obviously necessary, but nothing is as dangerous to human life as unchecked government power.

 

Very well stated (as usual Symen), and I agree 100%.