Another example of why 2nd Amendment is so important

[bucs90]

Just for 2nd Amendment discussion, I'm watching National Geographic Channel right now. A really great show is on, Alaska State Troopers. If you haven't seen it, it's really good, those are brave men, working in a tough environment.

Anyhow, the AHP was working a fatal accident when dispatchers notified the troopers of a domestic violence incident occurring. One trooper stated they had to go, and a trooper left the scene en route to the domestic violence call. The trooper stated to the camera "We are going to a domestic violence call, in which the male is trying to kick down the victim's door and the suspect is known to be armed". The trooper then said "We're about 45-50 minutes away, hopefully we can make up some time", then a few minutes later while getting updated information he says they are now 32 minutes away.

And there you have it. That victim was in immediate danger. The Alaska troopers were at least 45 minutes away. Should that victim have the right to own a handgun for self defense?

Some are gonna say "Well, sure, in Alaska, that far away..........but inner city NY or Chicago the cops aren't far away, they don't need guns", since NYC and Chicago ban handguns. So is a person's Constitutional rights now determined based on population density? Do I have more of a right to bear arms in Alaska than Chicago?

 

[shintao]

Just for 2nd Amendment discussion, I'm watching National Geographic Channel right now. A really great show is on, Alaska State Troopers. If you haven't seen it, it's really good, those are brave men, working in a tough environment.

Anyhow, the AHP was working a fatal accident when dispatchers notified the troopers of a domestic violence incident occurring. One trooper stated they had to go, and a trooper left the scene en route to the domestic violence call. The trooper stated to the camera "We are going to a domestic violence call, in which the male is trying to kick down the victim's door and the suspect is known to be armed". The trooper then said "We're about 45-50 minutes away, hopefully we can make up some time", then a few minutes later while getting updated information he says they are now 32 minutes away.

And there you have it. That victim was in immediate danger. The Alaska troopers were at least 45 minutes away. Should that victim have the right to own a handgun for self defense?

Some are gonna say "Well, sure, in Alaska, that far away..........but inner city NY or Chicago the cops aren't far away, they don't need guns", since NYC and Chicago ban handguns. So is a person's Constitutional rights now determined based on population density? Do I have more of a right to bear arms in Alaska than Chicago?

As long as states have the legalese to gun rights, you will live under inequality, however that works out for you.

Several things are happening here. Less tax dollars, less cops, more crimes, priority of crimes.

If I call 911 and say the predator has a gun, I shoot to #1 on list and they are here within a minute.

If I call and say a neighborhood robbery of peoples property is taking place by 6 predators, I will spend 45 minutes while they load the stash, have to repair the car to get it to start, and drive towards the police at the donut shop in town, and I get an officer two days later to fill out a witness form. That is a true example. The PO asks if I would walk over and take down the license number and a description of the car.

People definitely need the right to keep & bare arms and use them by force to stop crimes that infringe on the general welfare and pursuit of happiness of Americans. Formost to defend their families and neighbors.

 

[The Infidel]

People definitely need the right to keep & bare arms and use them by force to stop crimes that infringe on the general welfare and pursuit of happiness of Americans. Formost to defend their families and neighbors.

 

[uscitizen]

Umm domestic violence case.. Many times both involved may shoot the officer.
And one already has the others gun or somesuch.

 

[gekaap]

I always thought that the second amendment was important because of the need for to be able to call upon the militia. I think this question is pretty much irrelevant. The second amendment was ratified over 200 years ago. Should we discuss the importance having a house of congress answerable to the legislatures of the states? At least that question is more recent than the 2nd amendment.

 

[Toro]

Just for 2nd Amendment discussion, I'm watching National Geographic Channel right now. A really great show is on, Alaska State Troopers. If you haven't seen it, it's really good, those are brave men, working in a tough environment.

Anyhow, the AHP was working a fatal accident when dispatchers notified the troopers of a domestic violence incident occurring. One trooper stated they had to go, and a trooper left the scene en route to the domestic violence call. The trooper stated to the camera "We are going to a domestic violence call, in which the male is trying to kick down the victim's door and the suspect is known to be armed". The trooper then said "We're about 45-50 minutes away, hopefully we can make up some time", then a few minutes later while getting updated information he says they are now 32 minutes away.

And there you have it. That victim was in immediate danger. The Alaska troopers were at least 45 minutes away. Should that victim have the right to own a handgun for self defense?

Some are gonna say "Well, sure, in Alaska, that far away..........but inner city NY or Chicago the cops aren't far away, they don't need guns", since NYC and Chicago ban handguns. So is a person's Constitutional rights now determined based on population density? Do I have more of a right to bear arms in Alaska than Chicago?

Where any black people involved?

 

[MikeK]

And there you have it. That victim was in immediate danger. The Alaska troopers were at least 45 minutes away. Should that victim have the right to own a handgun for self defense?

That type of situation (typical home defense) clearly calls for a shotgun. If you wish to establish the need for a handgun you need to present a situation that calls for concealed carry while abroad in public.

Some are gonna say "Well, sure, in Alaska, that far away..........but inner city NY or Chicago the cops aren't far away, they don't need guns", since NYC and Chicago ban handguns. So is a person's Constitutional rights now determined based on population density? Do I have more of a right to bear arms in Alaska than Chicago?

The time and distance factors are irrelevant. If a psycho is kicking your door down in an urban environment where the police are a few minutes away it only takes a few seconds to force entry and commit murder.

 

[Flopper]

Although I wish there were no guns in America, that will never happen. I believe that if all guns were abolished by law the good guys would not have guns and bad guys would.

 

[Ernie S.]

I always thought that the second amendment was important because of the need for to be able to call upon the militia. I think this question is pretty much irrelevant. The second amendment was ratified over 200 years ago. Should we discuss the importance having a house of congress answerable to the legislatures of the states? At least that question is more recent than the 2nd amendment.

Are you avoiding answering the question or are we to assume that you think the right to bear arms is obsolete?

Alaska or New York City, the response time is immaterial. If there is a threat to your life, it is urgent and immediate. What difference does it make if it took 45 minutes or 3 minutes to reach your lifeless body.
In the vast majority of cases, the police don't arrive in time to save a life. They only arrive in time to notify the coroner.
Over the years I've had numerous people ask me why I carry a gun. I tell them I carry a gun because cops are too damned heavy.

The truth is that when every second counts, the police are only minutes away.

 

[Ernie S.]

Although I wish there were no guns in America, that will never happen. I believe that if all guns were abolished by law the good guys would not have guns and bad guys would.

An interesting side note I put here only because you wish there were no guns in America.

The vast majority of gun crimes are committed by the owner of just one gun. People who own several weapons are more likely to have obtained their guns legally and to use them responsibly. Is it not then logical to require everyone to own, say 3 guns?

I wish there were no need for guns in America, but as long as criminals have them, you can bet your ass, I will not surrender mine.

 

[westwall]

Just for 2nd Amendment discussion, I'm watching National Geographic Channel right now. A really great show is on, Alaska State Troopers. If you haven't seen it, it's really good, those are brave men, working in a tough environment.

Anyhow, the AHP was working a fatal accident when dispatchers notified the troopers of a domestic violence incident occurring. One trooper stated they had to go, and a trooper left the scene en route to the domestic violence call. The trooper stated to the camera "We are going to a domestic violence call, in which the male is trying to kick down the victim's door and the suspect is known to be armed". The trooper then said "We're about 45-50 minutes away, hopefully we can make up some time", then a few minutes later while getting updated information he says they are now 32 minutes away.

And there you have it. That victim was in immediate danger. The Alaska troopers were at least 45 minutes away. Should that victim have the right to own a handgun for self defense?

Some are gonna say "Well, sure, in Alaska, that far away..........but inner city NY or Chicago the cops aren't far away, they don't need guns", since NYC and Chicago ban handguns. So is a person's Constitutional rights now determined based on population density? Do I have more of a right to bear arms in Alaska than Chicago?

As long as states have the legalese to gun rights, you will live under inequality, however that works out for you.

Several things are happening here. Less tax dollars, less cops, more crimes, priority of crimes.

If I call 911 and say the predator has a gun, I shoot to #1 on list and they are here within a minute.

If I call and say a neighborhood robbery of peoples property is taking place by 6 predators, I will spend 45 minutes while they load the stash, have to repair the car to get it to start, and drive towards the police at the donut shop in town, and I get an officer two days later to fill out a witness form. That is a true example. The PO asks if I would walk over and take down the license number and a description of the car.

People definitely need the right to keep & bare arms and use them by force to stop crimes that infringe on the general welfare and pursuit of happiness of Americans. Formost to defend their families and neighbors.

Having been on many ride alongs I can gurantee you that there is no way a cop will respond in one minute to your call. 10 maybe, but one you're dreaming. There are the very rare times when a cop will hear or see a crime going down, but the knife has allready been thrust or the bullet allready fired by the time they can get there. It's great when the cops can get there within a few minutes, unfortunately the attack usually only takes a few seconds.

 

[liebuster]

I have yet to hear a plausible argument for more gun control.

The very idea of having a law to stop people who break the law is completely and utterly insane

 

[bucs90]

I always thought that the second amendment was important because of the need for to be able to call upon the militia. I think this question is pretty much irrelevant. The second amendment was ratified over 200 years ago. Should we discuss the importance having a house of congress answerable to the legislatures of the states? At least that question is more recent than the 2nd amendment.

Are you avoiding answering the question or are we to assume that you think the right to bear arms is obsolete?

Alaska or New York City, the response time is immaterial. If there is a threat to your life, it is urgent and immediate. What difference does it make if it took 45 minutes or 3 minutes to reach your lifeless body.
In the vast majority of cases, the police don't arrive in time to save a life. They only arrive in time to notify the coroner.
Over the years I've had numerous people ask me why I carry a gun. I tell them I carry a gun because cops are too damned heavy.

The truth is that when every second counts, the police are only minutes away.

As a former cop, I applaud that statement "cops are too heavy".

I assume you mean it literally, and as an theory, as in they are too slow to get there. One, yes, there are too many fat cops allowed to keep working the street. I'd say it's almost in line with society at large. Probably 40% of cops are very overweight. Police Departments SHOULD be in line with military standards, like Army, AF, etc, and make their folks be fit for combat, and in my opinion, even MORE SO than the military. Yes, I said it right, cops should be held to a HIGHER fitness standard to be fit for combat than the military.

Why? Well, an Army/Marine infantry guy knows when he goes to war, it's war. Hell on Earth. They better be combat fit. BUT, a LOT of military jobs are non-combat. I'd say most are. Where combat fitness isn't really crucial.

But cops? EVERY day could be combat day. They don't know. Sure, it happens far less often than in Baghdad, but the possibility exists EVERY day for EVERY cop. Even a desk cop, on his way to work, may be near an armed robbery call that he then responds to, in shirt and tie and slacks, and who knows, he may encounter armed combat 10 minutes after his coffee and bagel at home.

So in my opinion, ANY cop who is not in combat fitness shape EVERY day is failing society. If my kids are ever in a Columbine High School shooting situation, and they are hurt because some fat ass cop was too tired to engage, well, theres gonna be problems. UNFORTUNATELY...................unions and lawyers have sued their way into eliminating most strict fitness standards for public police employees, so thank them while also blaming the individual cops who are fat.


As for the analogy, yes, police departments are "heavy" as in slow, because of few officers covering a lot of ground, in cars, in traffic. AND....when an armed suspect is around, they'll likely wait for a backup officer to arrive.

In fact, most police departments official training for high school shootings, IN PROGRESS, is for the 1st officer on scene to wait for a 2nd officer, then go in to engage. Can't blame them, as it ups their odds of success. And I thank the brave cops out there who do that job.



BUT FOLKS..............its on YOU to protect yourself. The police are basically life's "backup weapon" in terms of self defense. YOU are your primary defense. Cops are secondary.

2nd amendment is a necessary tool for self preservation.

 

[bucs90]

I have yet to hear a plausible argument for more gun control.

The very idea of having a law to stop people who break the law is completely and utterly insane

Historically, one of the first things a dictator or tyrannical regime try to do is disarm their citizens. History proves this fact again, and again, and again.

When the government begins pushing hard to to disarm citizens, trouble looms.

 

[bucs90]

One of the best analogies I've ever heard regarding guns is this:

Gun Shop vs Prison.

A gun shop has the highest concentration of guns to persons of anywhere in the world.
A prison has the lowest concentraion of guns to persons of anywhere in the world (most prison grounds have no guns at all, even on officers, since a riot would risk losing the guns).

Yet, a gun shop is the most peaceful, least robbed, polite places you'll ever go. A prison the most violent, vile place you'll ever visit.

DO the math.