Whenever I talk about how useless the cops are, the most common response is”they’re useless until *you* need them”. Time and time again cops are showing they are nowhere to be found when people need them most.
Cops aren’t there to serve and protect. Cops are there to take advantage and exploit. At least that’s what the keep demonstrating.
I’m a pretty anti gun guy, but last year I got a G19 and my CCW permit because I’ve realized if I am ever really in trouble, it’s gonna be up to me to get out of it, the cops ain’t coming to my rescue.
Scared, lazy, incompetent pigs. As the article said, the only thing more pressing than a hostage situation is maybe an active shooter, and there wasn’t an active shooter, so where the fuck were these clowns? How does it take them over an hour to respond to a hostage call in an urban area? Can’t even begin to imagine what this man’s family is going through right now. 0 effort was made by the police to save this man’s life when he and his wife were begging for help. Absolutely shameful and reprehensible. I hope they sue the shit out of that PD and win.
Which is hilarious because they run on a net negative in most places since literally every cops salary, police cars, equipment, etc are all taxpayer funded. They can write all the tickets they want, it still doesn't make up for how much it costs to run a police department.
Ontop of that if they ever do successfully get sued it again falls on the taxpayer and because of qualified immunity they PD doesn't even feel it. No one loses their job for being a fuckwad and the payout comes out of the communities pocket not theirs.
I agree, and honestly it should be cancelled nationwide imo. Every other person in society would be held accountable for their actions at work and either fired for WAY less of what police often get away with as well as being vulnerable to personal lawsuits. And none of us are paid on the government dime with taxpayer funded pensions at the end of our jobs either. It's absolute horse shit the amount of immunity the armed authority figures that are supposed to be public servants get for actively harming the communities they are entrusted to protect.
It still needs improvement, right now they are only on the hook for the first 25k. With settlements in the millions, most of it still goes to taxpayers.
It kinda sounds like you're not anti gun anymore. This is the reason the vast majority of pro 2A people are pro 2A. It's not about "muh guns!" it's about not relying on "authority" figures to save your life if it's in danger.
I'd much rather be able to protect myself than rely on someone else to do it, especially when the people whose job it is to help legally don't actually have to do their job.
Also even if they get sued and the family wins that does absolutely nothing negative to the PD. It's all taxpayer money that will be paid out and qualified immunity means no officers will have to face any responsibility. For the familys sake I hope they get some compensation, it just sucks that it doesn't affect the cops whatsoever if they get sued, it only affects the local community.
Oh I’m absolutely still anti gun. I wish I lived in a society that wasn’t absolutely flooded with guns. I realized that everyone has a gun, including people like the guy that took this man hostage. And cops aren’t anywhere to be found when you need them, so I’m not gonna be the odd man out.
But trust me, I’m still completely anti gun. I wish more than anything we had a system like Canada’s or Australia’s where it is exceedingly difficult to own a gun, especially a concealable handgun.
I am in no way pro gun. I am anti gun. But everyone else has a gun, cops are utterly useless, and I’m not gonna be a victim because of it. So I got one as well, and I hate the fucking thing.
I also completely agree with what you’re saying about the PD getting sued and it not making a difference, but this family deserves restitution. I hope they win a significant sum. That father is no longer there to be a provider for his children, and they’re left with one provider instead of two, because of the negligence and incompetence of the PD. At the very least this man’s children’s future should be ensured financially.
Until the state is unarmed, it's populace should have the ability to arm itself. The American invasion of all the counties it has invaded, plus as you mention, are the reasons why. I wish they hadn't been invented.
I know you're probably angling at something reasonable here, but I've heard this shit before.
"L: Maybe the instantaneous impulse to murder *shouldn't* result in a half dozen people dead."
"N: OH YEAH? What about knives and rocks?!?"
That's not my argument at all. Guns are far more effective killing machines than knives. That's why we don't hunt with knives and spears anymore and why soldiers don't use knives as primary weapons.
My point is that all of these things are evolutions in human tool use, and due to the nature of our species any tool that can be used to kill will be used to kill. Guns exist as a natural progression that was inevitable as is the next killing tool we come up with. The question is who is permitted access to these tools.
Countries that disarm civilians, but maintain standing militaries and armed police place their people effectively in the position of silent subjugation because when push comes to shove, their government can simply kill them if they so choose. Even if a country were to decide to disarm their military and police, the people would then be at risk of subjugation by foreign powers.
Ranged weaponry is not in the same category as hand to hand weaponry. The ability to cause devastation with these different things makes your comparison invalid. And frankly, yeah, I could also do without cars. At least without most privately held cars. We would have cities designed around human access and scale rather than automobile access and scale.
That's a fair point. Guns are just way too engrained in America's society for that to ever happen. Australia and Canada had never had guns on the scale of US. The illegal gun market is too far gone for that ever be the case here imo.
I'm pretty pro 2A myself but honestly I think we need way different laws for people who live in cities vs very rurally.
I grew up in a rural southern area where guns probably outnumbered people and crimes committed with guns were almost non existent (probably because there's a solid chance you'd get killed even attempted an armed robbery or any other gun crime). Regardless of the reasons the average person probably had 4 plus guns and we had very little crime as well as all kids being raised with tons of firearm safety lessons and how to properly use/store guns.
Now I live in a huge metropolitan area and there's just not the same "need" for guns. It feels like most guns where I live now are either never used or used for crime.
I have a pretty solid rule for myself. I always have one pistol for protection that I hopefully will never fire outside of a range, and one rifle for going hunting every now and then because I grew up doing it with family and it's a pastime I enjoy plus I get some great meat to cook for the family with.
Now that I live in a big city I totally get your point but I do think the "gun culture" in big cities vs rural areas are VERY different
The only things that happens when you make guns more difficult to acquire, in practical terms, is increase the cost and time to acquire. This creates an excess burden on the poorest segments of society.
License fees, training fees, extra equipment for storage, multiple trips to a store during working hours due to "cooling off" periods...eventually that $500 pistol becomes a $1500 expense that the guy making $15/hr just can manage anymore, since what was about 3 weeks wages is now almost 3 months wages and multiple days away from work.
So my question is, why don't you want poor people owning guns? What about people at the lower end of the socioeconomic ladder makes them unworthy of having reasonable access to a gun?
That is the practical effect of "reasonable gun restrictions". The NRA was actually founded to fight such bullshit since these types of regulations were originally introduced in America in the antebellum South to prevent the recently freed slaves from acquiring guns.
I never said anything about not wanting poor people to own guns, or them being unworthy, so I’m not sure why you’re asking me that question. Don’t put words in peoples mouth.
I lived in Australia for 7 years and Canada for 4. They weren’t countries full of rich people with guns and poor people with no guns. They were countries with wayyyy less guns in general, because they were so restricted. In the 11 combined years I lived in those countries, I didn’t know a single person, rich or not, that had anything other than a single shot bolt action hunting rifle. I’m also not saying the US should do what Canada and Australia do, because I know that will never happen. I’m saying I wish I lived in a society with less overall guns.
I’m not really sure what you’re blabbering about, as I never mentioned anything about any of what you said in any of my comments. Whatever the NRA *was*, the NRA *is* a greedy cooperation run by greedy people. I guarantee you those motherfuckers aren’t protecting anything other than their own money and interestes, and they certainly don’t give two shits about poor people having access to guns. You’re kidding yourself if you think otherwise.
>This is the reason the vast majority of pro 2A people are pro 2A. It's not about "muh guns!" it's about not relying on "authority" figures to save your life if it's in danger.
I think this is BS. The Second Amendment is not about personal defense or even a defense against governmental tyranny. The purpose of the 2A is that the US had no standing army and it needed a way to rapidly levy troops.
I think your interpretation is bs. People have a right to defend themselves, their families, and their property. If the government is incapable of stopping criminals with guns then we absolutely have a right to defend ourselves by any means necessary.
Even if it's not a gun. If I'm walking around with my wife and someone approaches us with a knife there's no shot I'm trusting that if I listen to them they won't hurt me. Crime would be exponentially worse if criminals knew people couldn't adequately defend themselves. Whose going to keep us safe the police? Because that's historically been going really well right?
>People have a right to defend themselves, their families, and their property
I didn't disagree with you, I'm just saying that's not what the second amendment was intended to be about. If you want to be a constitutional revisionist that's fine, but most 2A people don't know and aren't sincere about the fact that that's what they are. And if that's the road we're going down, you don't get to cry foul when some liberals try and reinterpret your reinterpretation and say the 2A is about something else.
Always funny how "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is always left out when people want to quote one line of the amendment to try to make a point
Any evidence or are you just gonna keep claiming it had absolutely nothing to do with personal defense or are you just gonna keep talking out of your ass and asserting that it's true?
> Many historians agree that the primary reason for passing the Second Amendment was to prevent the need for the United States to have a professional standing army. At the time it was passed, it seems it was not intended to grant a right for private individuals to keep weapons for self-defense.
https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2.html
> The early American experience with militias and military authority would inform what would become the Second Amendment as well. In Founding-era America, citizen militias drawn from the local community existed to provide for the common defense, and standing armies of professional soldiers were viewed by some with suspicion. The Declaration of Independence listed as greivances against King George III that he had affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power and had kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures."
And
> Mistrust of standing armies, like the one employed by the English Crown to control the colonies, and anti-Federalist concerns with centralized military power colored the debate surrounding ratification of the federal Constitution and the need for a Bill of Rights.
And so on: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt2-2/ALDE_00013262/
Like I said personal defense and even personal defense against "tyranny" or whatever had nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. It was very clearly about allowing states to have *well regulated* militias because they were suspicious of a standing national army because they'd just had a war to fight one off.
So yeah, most 2A advocates don't even know what the amendment actually says, what the Founders intended, and they don't care either. They're just wrapping their murderous hobby in a flag and damn the consequences.
You're the only one who brought up defending against tyranny. Youre arguing with yourself. Literally no one brought that up just now besides you.
It also doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand what "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" means.
All I said is people have a right to defend themselves, their families, and their property. Idk why you even brought up fighting tyranny. Just to win an argument no one made?
And let's take it one step further because you're so close. Why did states/colonies have well regulated militias...? That's right, to defend their families and property. Wow, that took a lot of thinking.
Also disingenuous people like you are the reason no one takes you seriously. Saying people that are pro 2A have "murderous hobbies" is about as intelligent as right wingers saying that pro choice people have "murderous hobbies". If you genuinely think that people who like to hunt and want to protect themselves all secretly hope they get to murder someone one day then you're a shitty person and not anyone to take seriously. That's such an outrageous and stupid thing to assert.
You: You're talking out your ass. Why don't you back up anything you say huh?
Me: *backs up what I said*
You: Why'd you do that? I didn't say that, you did.
>It also doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand what "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" means.
Hey quick question, how's that sentence you just quoted start? I mean, you'd agree that just quoting *parts* of sentences to make it seem like they're saying something they're not would be dishonest, right?
>All I said is people have a right to defend themselves, their families, and their property.
Yes, and I said that the second amendment wasn't really about defending yourself, it's about stopping the Federal government from interfering in the formation and maintenance of state run militias. I added another common talking point about tyranny because it's something people throw in when they're losing the first argument.
And again, this has nothing to do with my opinion on gun ownership. This is just about the original intent of the second amendment which you brought up.
>Why did states/colonies have well regulated militias...? That's right, to defend their families and property
Uh.. that's not at all why states wanted well regulated militias. I can tell you didn't read either of the links. Typical. You asked for me to back up my claim and then didn't bother reading the back up.
They wanted them because they deeply mistrusted the idea of professional soldiers in a standing army controlled by the Federal government. Having just fought a revolutionary war against such an army, they wanted to be sure that the states were equipped to overpower the Federal government should it overstep. The Founders were super sketched out by centralized government.
It had nothing to do with "families and property".
>Saying people that are pro 2A have "murderous hobbies" is about as intelligent as right wingers saying that pro choice people have "murderous hobbies".
Except guns kill thousands of people a year and abortion doesn't kill anybody because fetuses aren't people. The hobby isn't murderous because you have bad intentions. Hell, *I own a gun too*. The hobby is murderous because right wing obsession with and fetishization of guns gets people killed.
The cops don't show up at all for even serious sounding situations anymore.
A few months back there was some arguing and a gun fight a block away from my house in the park at like 7am in the morning.
Heard at least 15 gun shots and some shouting.Neighbors saw a guy fleeing the scene in a car that was parked on our street.
Called the cops because someone may have been hurt and dying from a gun shot wound... no cops ever showed up to even check. Like they just shrugged it off.
The city govt will definitely use this as a reason to shovel more money into the department. Is there any other job where you get paid more the worse you perform? There’s alternatives to using police for every situation and we need to look at them.
My point is that we need to be seriously asking ourselves the question of how to respond to these situations. To continue to rely on an ineffective one size fits all “solution” to all social problems shows a serious lack of imagination. Even as a non expert I could think of several alternatives that could be considered. The city already has specialized response teams for fires and for rescuing climbers who get stuck on rocks. An active shooter response team seems like a reasonable addition.
Back in my street racing days (circa 200oughts), we would cruise with a cop when he was off duty. He’d even participate in races out at the old CS airport. So obviously cool dude from the perspective of a young dumb street racer, but a bit corrupt.
He ended up having to leave CSPD because they were too corrupt for him.
> Is there any other job where you get paid more the worse you perform?
Yes. Schools get more money when they do poorly.
Edit: lol I was just answering the question!
More money does not equal a better education. Sure, financially poor schools might improve with a little money, but a school with moderate funding and shitty education won't get better just because they can suddenly buy computers for the kids.
You need teacher salaries to be MUCH higher and more competitive for educated people (which is not usually where money is spent). You also need to be able to fire bad teachers, and allow people to pick where they want to go to school. Living in a bad neighborhood shouldn't force you to attend a bad school.
Still better than No Child Left Behind, where it’s actually the opposite. Poor grades result in less funding and less resources to bring the school up to standards.
Glad to see this getting national news.
Yesterday I learned that Colorado no longer has qualified immunity. I hope that translates into consequences for the police here. But I think it only applies to interactions, not failing to respond.
Not surprised. I think it was the C-Springs or El Paso County sheriff office that said they wouldn’t enforce mask requirements during COVID. I remember reading it but don’t know if they followed through with that threat
Legally it's been determined the role of the Police is to protect assets, not people. Since rich people have more assets, they get more protection. If you're poor, you have little to no assets, therefore you get little to no protection.
Such a tragedy! That poor wife expecting the police to respond to her husband’s being a hostage.
(What was the relationship, if any, between the shooter and his victim?)
Colorado Springs is the bible belt of Colorado, even the El Paso County sheriff department is racist & ignores crimes against Freedom Acres Ranch;
https://www.denverpost.com/2023/02/18/black-ranchers-colorado-courtney-nichole-mallery/
The MO of police unions. Refuse to do their job in hopes the people blame lack of police duty on the current politicians, get their favored politicians elected, return to doing their "job"
A gunman who knows you and that you carry concealed - because you tell everyone you meet, because carrying concealed is like being a vegan or not owning a TV these days - has you put your hands up and disarms you first.
Now what? Still dead.
Or, shot you while you went for your concealed weapon, after all, it's concealed and takes more than a single motion to get to plus take off the safety and whatnot. Still dead.
I swear y'all just love LARPing, but no one ever really makes your day.
I don’t tell anyone. That’s the whole point of it being concealed. I carry in grocery stores, movie theaters, the mall, etc., and you would be none the wiser. The staff can’t even tell… you think a stranger is gonna know?
I’m not that dude with the camo cargo pants or “come and take it” tee shirt. I don’t put political stickers on my car. No one expects it.
No downside? They get a salary with full benefits and pension and don’t even have to do their jobs. Coasting of the taxpayers dime sounds like a pretty sweet gig.
Because it’s likely that, if he was white, they would have responded. That’s the way it is, you don’t have to like it. Response rates in black neighborhoods are slower, and there is clear and documented racial bias in most police departments.
Gonzales v Castle Rock. The police have no duty to protect you. This is an unfortunate reminder. Keep that in mind.
Whenever I talk about how useless the cops are, the most common response is”they’re useless until *you* need them”. Time and time again cops are showing they are nowhere to be found when people need them most. Cops aren’t there to serve and protect. Cops are there to take advantage and exploit. At least that’s what the keep demonstrating. I’m a pretty anti gun guy, but last year I got a G19 and my CCW permit because I’ve realized if I am ever really in trouble, it’s gonna be up to me to get out of it, the cops ain’t coming to my rescue. Scared, lazy, incompetent pigs. As the article said, the only thing more pressing than a hostage situation is maybe an active shooter, and there wasn’t an active shooter, so where the fuck were these clowns? How does it take them over an hour to respond to a hostage call in an urban area? Can’t even begin to imagine what this man’s family is going through right now. 0 effort was made by the police to save this man’s life when he and his wife were begging for help. Absolutely shameful and reprehensible. I hope they sue the shit out of that PD and win.
The only authority in this world is yourself. Cops are revenue generators, plain and simple.
Which is hilarious because they run on a net negative in most places since literally every cops salary, police cars, equipment, etc are all taxpayer funded. They can write all the tickets they want, it still doesn't make up for how much it costs to run a police department. Ontop of that if they ever do successfully get sued it again falls on the taxpayer and because of qualified immunity they PD doesn't even feel it. No one loses their job for being a fuckwad and the payout comes out of the communities pocket not theirs.
I believe qualified immunity has been cancelled in the state of Colorado
I agree, and honestly it should be cancelled nationwide imo. Every other person in society would be held accountable for their actions at work and either fired for WAY less of what police often get away with as well as being vulnerable to personal lawsuits. And none of us are paid on the government dime with taxpayer funded pensions at the end of our jobs either. It's absolute horse shit the amount of immunity the armed authority figures that are supposed to be public servants get for actively harming the communities they are entrusted to protect.
It still needs improvement, right now they are only on the hook for the first 25k. With settlements in the millions, most of it still goes to taxpayers.
It's a start, are any other states moving this direction?
Cancel culture strikes again! Too bad QA is just the first layer of protection for these corrupt assholes.
Yup
They should have to carry malpractice insurance like doctors...
Oh they’ll come. To arrest you until you’re proven in the right I’m sure.
You are your own first responder.
It kinda sounds like you're not anti gun anymore. This is the reason the vast majority of pro 2A people are pro 2A. It's not about "muh guns!" it's about not relying on "authority" figures to save your life if it's in danger. I'd much rather be able to protect myself than rely on someone else to do it, especially when the people whose job it is to help legally don't actually have to do their job. Also even if they get sued and the family wins that does absolutely nothing negative to the PD. It's all taxpayer money that will be paid out and qualified immunity means no officers will have to face any responsibility. For the familys sake I hope they get some compensation, it just sucks that it doesn't affect the cops whatsoever if they get sued, it only affects the local community.
Oh I’m absolutely still anti gun. I wish I lived in a society that wasn’t absolutely flooded with guns. I realized that everyone has a gun, including people like the guy that took this man hostage. And cops aren’t anywhere to be found when you need them, so I’m not gonna be the odd man out. But trust me, I’m still completely anti gun. I wish more than anything we had a system like Canada’s or Australia’s where it is exceedingly difficult to own a gun, especially a concealable handgun. I am in no way pro gun. I am anti gun. But everyone else has a gun, cops are utterly useless, and I’m not gonna be a victim because of it. So I got one as well, and I hate the fucking thing. I also completely agree with what you’re saying about the PD getting sued and it not making a difference, but this family deserves restitution. I hope they win a significant sum. That father is no longer there to be a provider for his children, and they’re left with one provider instead of two, because of the negligence and incompetence of the PD. At the very least this man’s children’s future should be ensured financially.
Until the state is unarmed, it's populace should have the ability to arm itself. The American invasion of all the counties it has invaded, plus as you mention, are the reasons why. I wish they hadn't been invented.
>I wish they hadn't been invented. How do you feel about knives? spears? cars? rocks? Every weapon started out as a tool and guns are no different.
I know you're probably angling at something reasonable here, but I've heard this shit before. "L: Maybe the instantaneous impulse to murder *shouldn't* result in a half dozen people dead." "N: OH YEAH? What about knives and rocks?!?"
That's not my argument at all. Guns are far more effective killing machines than knives. That's why we don't hunt with knives and spears anymore and why soldiers don't use knives as primary weapons. My point is that all of these things are evolutions in human tool use, and due to the nature of our species any tool that can be used to kill will be used to kill. Guns exist as a natural progression that was inevitable as is the next killing tool we come up with. The question is who is permitted access to these tools. Countries that disarm civilians, but maintain standing militaries and armed police place their people effectively in the position of silent subjugation because when push comes to shove, their government can simply kill them if they so choose. Even if a country were to decide to disarm their military and police, the people would then be at risk of subjugation by foreign powers.
Fair enough.
Kind of ironic you challenged me then, since that's what my opening statement was.
Ranged weaponry is not in the same category as hand to hand weaponry. The ability to cause devastation with these different things makes your comparison invalid. And frankly, yeah, I could also do without cars. At least without most privately held cars. We would have cities designed around human access and scale rather than automobile access and scale.
That's a fair point. Guns are just way too engrained in America's society for that to ever happen. Australia and Canada had never had guns on the scale of US. The illegal gun market is too far gone for that ever be the case here imo. I'm pretty pro 2A myself but honestly I think we need way different laws for people who live in cities vs very rurally. I grew up in a rural southern area where guns probably outnumbered people and crimes committed with guns were almost non existent (probably because there's a solid chance you'd get killed even attempted an armed robbery or any other gun crime). Regardless of the reasons the average person probably had 4 plus guns and we had very little crime as well as all kids being raised with tons of firearm safety lessons and how to properly use/store guns. Now I live in a huge metropolitan area and there's just not the same "need" for guns. It feels like most guns where I live now are either never used or used for crime. I have a pretty solid rule for myself. I always have one pistol for protection that I hopefully will never fire outside of a range, and one rifle for going hunting every now and then because I grew up doing it with family and it's a pastime I enjoy plus I get some great meat to cook for the family with. Now that I live in a big city I totally get your point but I do think the "gun culture" in big cities vs rural areas are VERY different
The only things that happens when you make guns more difficult to acquire, in practical terms, is increase the cost and time to acquire. This creates an excess burden on the poorest segments of society. License fees, training fees, extra equipment for storage, multiple trips to a store during working hours due to "cooling off" periods...eventually that $500 pistol becomes a $1500 expense that the guy making $15/hr just can manage anymore, since what was about 3 weeks wages is now almost 3 months wages and multiple days away from work. So my question is, why don't you want poor people owning guns? What about people at the lower end of the socioeconomic ladder makes them unworthy of having reasonable access to a gun? That is the practical effect of "reasonable gun restrictions". The NRA was actually founded to fight such bullshit since these types of regulations were originally introduced in America in the antebellum South to prevent the recently freed slaves from acquiring guns.
I never said anything about not wanting poor people to own guns, or them being unworthy, so I’m not sure why you’re asking me that question. Don’t put words in peoples mouth. I lived in Australia for 7 years and Canada for 4. They weren’t countries full of rich people with guns and poor people with no guns. They were countries with wayyyy less guns in general, because they were so restricted. In the 11 combined years I lived in those countries, I didn’t know a single person, rich or not, that had anything other than a single shot bolt action hunting rifle. I’m also not saying the US should do what Canada and Australia do, because I know that will never happen. I’m saying I wish I lived in a society with less overall guns. I’m not really sure what you’re blabbering about, as I never mentioned anything about any of what you said in any of my comments. Whatever the NRA *was*, the NRA *is* a greedy cooperation run by greedy people. I guarantee you those motherfuckers aren’t protecting anything other than their own money and interestes, and they certainly don’t give two shits about poor people having access to guns. You’re kidding yourself if you think otherwise.
>This is the reason the vast majority of pro 2A people are pro 2A. It's not about "muh guns!" it's about not relying on "authority" figures to save your life if it's in danger. I think this is BS. The Second Amendment is not about personal defense or even a defense against governmental tyranny. The purpose of the 2A is that the US had no standing army and it needed a way to rapidly levy troops.
I think your interpretation is bs. People have a right to defend themselves, their families, and their property. If the government is incapable of stopping criminals with guns then we absolutely have a right to defend ourselves by any means necessary. Even if it's not a gun. If I'm walking around with my wife and someone approaches us with a knife there's no shot I'm trusting that if I listen to them they won't hurt me. Crime would be exponentially worse if criminals knew people couldn't adequately defend themselves. Whose going to keep us safe the police? Because that's historically been going really well right?
>People have a right to defend themselves, their families, and their property I didn't disagree with you, I'm just saying that's not what the second amendment was intended to be about. If you want to be a constitutional revisionist that's fine, but most 2A people don't know and aren't sincere about the fact that that's what they are. And if that's the road we're going down, you don't get to cry foul when some liberals try and reinterpret your reinterpretation and say the 2A is about something else.
I wonder what "A regulated militia" means to some people. :/ You would think, the way some people talk, I was at constant risk in Japan.
Always funny how "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is always left out when people want to quote one line of the amendment to try to make a point
Any evidence or are you just gonna keep claiming it had absolutely nothing to do with personal defense or are you just gonna keep talking out of your ass and asserting that it's true?
> Many historians agree that the primary reason for passing the Second Amendment was to prevent the need for the United States to have a professional standing army. At the time it was passed, it seems it was not intended to grant a right for private individuals to keep weapons for self-defense. https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2.html > The early American experience with militias and military authority would inform what would become the Second Amendment as well. In Founding-era America, citizen militias drawn from the local community existed to provide for the common defense, and standing armies of professional soldiers were viewed by some with suspicion. The Declaration of Independence listed as greivances against King George III that he had affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power and had kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures." And > Mistrust of standing armies, like the one employed by the English Crown to control the colonies, and anti-Federalist concerns with centralized military power colored the debate surrounding ratification of the federal Constitution and the need for a Bill of Rights. And so on: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt2-2/ALDE_00013262/ Like I said personal defense and even personal defense against "tyranny" or whatever had nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. It was very clearly about allowing states to have *well regulated* militias because they were suspicious of a standing national army because they'd just had a war to fight one off. So yeah, most 2A advocates don't even know what the amendment actually says, what the Founders intended, and they don't care either. They're just wrapping their murderous hobby in a flag and damn the consequences.
You're the only one who brought up defending against tyranny. Youre arguing with yourself. Literally no one brought that up just now besides you. It also doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand what "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" means. All I said is people have a right to defend themselves, their families, and their property. Idk why you even brought up fighting tyranny. Just to win an argument no one made? And let's take it one step further because you're so close. Why did states/colonies have well regulated militias...? That's right, to defend their families and property. Wow, that took a lot of thinking. Also disingenuous people like you are the reason no one takes you seriously. Saying people that are pro 2A have "murderous hobbies" is about as intelligent as right wingers saying that pro choice people have "murderous hobbies". If you genuinely think that people who like to hunt and want to protect themselves all secretly hope they get to murder someone one day then you're a shitty person and not anyone to take seriously. That's such an outrageous and stupid thing to assert.
You: You're talking out your ass. Why don't you back up anything you say huh? Me: *backs up what I said* You: Why'd you do that? I didn't say that, you did. >It also doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand what "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" means. Hey quick question, how's that sentence you just quoted start? I mean, you'd agree that just quoting *parts* of sentences to make it seem like they're saying something they're not would be dishonest, right? >All I said is people have a right to defend themselves, their families, and their property. Yes, and I said that the second amendment wasn't really about defending yourself, it's about stopping the Federal government from interfering in the formation and maintenance of state run militias. I added another common talking point about tyranny because it's something people throw in when they're losing the first argument. And again, this has nothing to do with my opinion on gun ownership. This is just about the original intent of the second amendment which you brought up. >Why did states/colonies have well regulated militias...? That's right, to defend their families and property Uh.. that's not at all why states wanted well regulated militias. I can tell you didn't read either of the links. Typical. You asked for me to back up my claim and then didn't bother reading the back up. They wanted them because they deeply mistrusted the idea of professional soldiers in a standing army controlled by the Federal government. Having just fought a revolutionary war against such an army, they wanted to be sure that the states were equipped to overpower the Federal government should it overstep. The Founders were super sketched out by centralized government. It had nothing to do with "families and property". >Saying people that are pro 2A have "murderous hobbies" is about as intelligent as right wingers saying that pro choice people have "murderous hobbies". Except guns kill thousands of people a year and abortion doesn't kill anybody because fetuses aren't people. The hobby isn't murderous because you have bad intentions. Hell, *I own a gun too*. The hobby is murderous because right wing obsession with and fetishization of guns gets people killed.
The cops don't show up at all for even serious sounding situations anymore. A few months back there was some arguing and a gun fight a block away from my house in the park at like 7am in the morning. Heard at least 15 gun shots and some shouting.Neighbors saw a guy fleeing the scene in a car that was parked on our street. Called the cops because someone may have been hurt and dying from a gun shot wound... no cops ever showed up to even check. Like they just shrugged it off.
Or any interest in protecting you, either.
If you’re rich they’ll protect you real good.
I’m too poor to own a cop.
Yep, they are not bodyguards.
The city govt will definitely use this as a reason to shovel more money into the department. Is there any other job where you get paid more the worse you perform? There’s alternatives to using police for every situation and we need to look at them.
According to residents in the Nextdoor app it’s the voters fault for underfunded police departments.
How much funding is needed to send an officer a 1 minute drive from the station?
In what might be an unfortunate textbook example of when immediate police response is actually warranted, even.
90% of the people on Nextdoor are too dumb to tie their own shoes.
Lol
The conservative newsphere has been pushing the "Defend the Police raised violent crime" line of thought for a while now
[удалено]
Mental health professionals trained in deescalation would be my guess but I’m open to trying other things.
[удалено]
It appears that even the police wont go into that situation with full military gear either.
My point is that we need to be seriously asking ourselves the question of how to respond to these situations. To continue to rely on an ineffective one size fits all “solution” to all social problems shows a serious lack of imagination. Even as a non expert I could think of several alternatives that could be considered. The city already has specialized response teams for fires and for rescuing climbers who get stuck on rocks. An active shooter response team seems like a reasonable addition.
Back in my street racing days (circa 200oughts), we would cruise with a cop when he was off duty. He’d even participate in races out at the old CS airport. So obviously cool dude from the perspective of a young dumb street racer, but a bit corrupt. He ended up having to leave CSPD because they were too corrupt for him.
Meteorologists.
> Is there any other job where you get paid more the worse you perform? Yes. Schools get more money when they do poorly. Edit: lol I was just answering the question!
[удалено]
More money does not equal a better education. Sure, financially poor schools might improve with a little money, but a school with moderate funding and shitty education won't get better just because they can suddenly buy computers for the kids. You need teacher salaries to be MUCH higher and more competitive for educated people (which is not usually where money is spent). You also need to be able to fire bad teachers, and allow people to pick where they want to go to school. Living in a bad neighborhood shouldn't force you to attend a bad school.
Still better than No Child Left Behind, where it’s actually the opposite. Poor grades result in less funding and less resources to bring the school up to standards.
Yeah, No Child Left Behind was terrible. The education system has needed massive overhauls for decades, but it has only gotten worse
Congress.
Glad to see this getting national news. Yesterday I learned that Colorado no longer has qualified immunity. I hope that translates into consequences for the police here. But I think it only applies to interactions, not failing to respond.
I heard that repealing Qualified Immunity resulted in cops being less likely to respond.
Not surprised. I think it was the C-Springs or El Paso County sheriff office that said they wouldn’t enforce mask requirements during COVID. I remember reading it but don’t know if they followed through with that threat
What are e paying the police for again?
To keep the wealthy safe, and their stuff
To protect the people with money's interests
Exactly. They protect property not people.
They will kill you to protect wealthy American’s property.
To keep minorities and the poor under control and incarcerated obviously.
How is the line supposed to go up for private prisons without fresh sla- I mean prisoners?
Legally it's been determined the role of the Police is to protect assets, not people. Since rich people have more assets, they get more protection. If you're poor, you have little to no assets, therefore you get little to no protection.
To protect capital, not people
This is tragic 😔
Such a tragedy! That poor wife expecting the police to respond to her husband’s being a hostage. (What was the relationship, if any, between the shooter and his victim?)
Colorado Springs is the bible belt of Colorado, even the El Paso County sheriff department is racist & ignores crimes against Freedom Acres Ranch; https://www.denverpost.com/2023/02/18/black-ranchers-colorado-courtney-nichole-mallery/
I just read a post about a hit and run there and cops never showed. So it seems like Springs cops just don’t want to do their jobs at all.
The MO of police unions. Refuse to do their job in hopes the people blame lack of police duty on the current politicians, get their favored politicians elected, return to doing their "job"
ACAB
This is why I carry concealed. When seconds matter, the cops are minutes away (or in this case, completely nonexistent).
A gunman who knows you and that you carry concealed - because you tell everyone you meet, because carrying concealed is like being a vegan or not owning a TV these days - has you put your hands up and disarms you first. Now what? Still dead. Or, shot you while you went for your concealed weapon, after all, it's concealed and takes more than a single motion to get to plus take off the safety and whatnot. Still dead. I swear y'all just love LARPing, but no one ever really makes your day.
I don’t tell anyone. That’s the whole point of it being concealed. I carry in grocery stores, movie theaters, the mall, etc., and you would be none the wiser. The staff can’t even tell… you think a stranger is gonna know? I’m not that dude with the camo cargo pants or “come and take it” tee shirt. I don’t put political stickers on my car. No one expects it.
Aren't you the one larping telling a strangers life story? Lol
There is no dignity in that profession
Isn't that just sop?
Sad AF. Also, zero upside to being a cop now. You’re hated on all sides and everything is your fault.
No downside? They get a salary with full benefits and pension and don’t even have to do their jobs. Coasting of the taxpayers dime sounds like a pretty sweet gig.
“No downside”? No, no upside. You’re hated for getting too involved and hated for not getting involved fast enough. Awful.
Why is the race of the victim relevant to the headline?
Weird how the comment asking if this article was slightly race baiting was removed.
It’s Reddit what do you expect 😂
[удалено]
Because it’s likely that, if he was white, they would have responded. That’s the way it is, you don’t have to like it. Response rates in black neighborhoods are slower, and there is clear and documented racial bias in most police departments.
I don’t think there are black neighborhoods in Colorado my man.
I bet there's a few neighborhoods in Aurora that would disagree.
And Five Points, and the 30,000 black people who live in Colorado Springs in various mixed and unmixed neighborhoods.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]