SergeGainsbourg
Member
- May 22, 2011
- 94
- 14
- 6
- Thread starter
- #61
I am not advocating in any way violence against police or any government entity, so I agree with that. The NRA can teach people how to defend themselves with legal firearms.
The NRA already does that. However, the NRA will only teach/train law abiding citizens who are willing to abide by the generally accepted laws and ways of doing things. As someone who was an NRA certified Pistol and Home Firearms Safety instructor for several years myself, I am familiar with the NRA's programs. A lot of the more "militant" factions out there won't come in for training with the NRA because we aren't going to go down the mental and intellectual roads they want, nevermind the physical ones.
In terms of police crime, I think we have had an epidemic in this country to the extent that police crime is part of our vocabulary....
.....Now do you really think there's hardly any police crime?
Yes I really do believe there's hardly any police crime. I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I will suggest that in many cases what is called "police crime" is in reality qualified professionals doing the best job they can in a truly shitty situation. However, with the millions of LEOs out there on the street every single day, and the billions of interactions they have with the general public, the percentage of those that can even marginally be called "police crime" is so incredibly small as to be almost non-existant on a statistical basis.
I'll give you a good example.... I'm going to forget the gentleman's name, but some years back in Boston a man called the police claiming that an african american gentleman had shot this man's wife as they were sitting in their car on a Boston street in an attempted carjacking. He gave them a description and the police started a manhunt for the individual. Well, when it turned out that the man had actually shot his wife himself, the african american community in Boston went berserk, claiming racial profiling and all this other prejudicial garbage. My thought..... "Well, who the hell else do you think they're going to look for when that's the description the supposed victim gives to the police; and at that time most of the carjackings in Boston were being carried out by people who fit that description?" NOW, if they'd failed to do an investigation to find out the particulars of the shooting, and not determine that in fact the husband was lying, that would be one thing, and I'd be in agreement with the uproar. However, in the short term what the hell else were they supposed to do?
If you compare the US police with those of the European democracies, there is a big difference. I think there is a large group of people that find police chronic misbehavior not only acceptable, but also admirable.
My only point is that if ordinary citizens of the communities that have been disproportionately targeted by the police would fully exercise their Second Amendment rights, then perhaps the police would think twice about abusing their power. Now if you're right and the number of violent action by the police is very small, then these "good apples" have nothing to worry about, but meanwhile, the "bad apples" (see New Orleans police department for an example of a department of bad apples) will have to think twice. This was the founders goal of the Second Amendment, no?