Kut (waits for the various definitions of "well regulated."
Kut I have you beat, it only took me 7 pages to get called a statist in the "respect for LEO's" thread last fall, took you a full 8 pages to get called one here!
In all fairness, I didn't read the entire novel that is this thread. Suffice to say (as I have said before) I'll never be in agreement that all laws that don't deal with the immediate bodily harm of someone should be thrown out, sorry sovereign citizens if this offends you. There will always be the need to have laws that deal with such things that might LEAD to damage to someone's property or person (Speeding, OWI, drug use, etc.). I've heard all this before... Police should be out stopping violent crimes instead of doing traffic stops and harassing poor Jimmy for smoking a little weed.
For the running radar example, I get absolutely ZERO incentive to write speeding tickets, none. Would I run traffic while a violent domestic was going on across town? Of course not.... do I think we need to have speed limits and they should be enforced? ABSOLUTELY!!! People get killed in auto accidents all the time because of nothing more than someone speeding, somehow this is lost on people when it's THEM who is getting the ticket. It's OK though, I've only been a cop for a short while but I'm already used to everyone telling me how I should do my job. It's something I have learned that is just a reality of this line of work. You are going to constantly get armchair quarterbacked by people that do not have the first clue what the job entails, just comes with the territory when you are by nature in a position of authority.
Here is another one I love to hear: The war on drugs isn't working so let's just throw in the towel and legalize everything. So when this guy's house gets burged by the meth head down the street, I should say sorry sir this is a property issue, I'm regulated to only deal with the detection and prevention of violent crimes.. Sure that would go over great!!
As for the gun free zones, I am firmly against them. In the jail example, if the only argument is that people can't use the lock boxes for their guns like we do; my opinion would be fine use the lock box. Unfortunately I'm not in charge at the jails to grant this, but I would if it allowed people to carry to the jail and when they leave. I don't think the police should have the right to carry anywhere that a citizen doesn't which is why I find it insane that schools are gun free zones.
On the gun confiscation point, it's impossible to say how many officers would throw in the towel on that. I will stand here and say for the record as I've said before that when the day comes that I'm asked to confiscate law abiding citizens' guns, that is the last day I'm a cop, period. I have another career I can fall back on if needed (one in which I can make a lot more money). I will never sacrifice what I know is right to hold onto this job, not worth it. I took this job to be a benefit to good honest hard working people, not an enemy of them.
In all fairness, I didn't read the entire novel that is this thread. Suffice to say (as I have said before) I'll never be in agreement that all laws that don't deal with the immediate bodily harm of someone should be thrown out, sorry sovereign citizens if this offends you. There will always be the need to have laws that deal with such things that might LEAD to damage to someone's property or person (Speeding, OWI, drug use, etc.). I've heard all this before... Police should be out stopping violent crimes instead of doing traffic stops and harassing poor Jimmy for smoking a little weed.
For the running radar example, I get absolutely ZERO incentive to write speeding tickets, none. Would I run traffic while a violent domestic was going on across town? Of course not.... do I think we need to have speed limits and they should be enforced? ABSOLUTELY!!! People get killed in auto accidents all the time because of nothing more than someone speeding, somehow this is lost on people when it's THEM who is getting the ticket. It's OK though, I've only been a cop for a short while but I'm already used to everyone telling me how I should do my job. It's something I have learned that is just a reality of this line of work. You are going to constantly get armchair quarterbacked by people that do not have the first clue what the job entails, just comes with the territory when you are by nature in a position of authority.
Here is another one I love to hear: The war on drugs isn't working so let's just throw in the towel and legalize everything. So when this guy's house gets burged by the meth head down the street, I should say sorry sir this is a property issue, I'm regulated to only deal with the detection and prevention of violent crimes.. Sure that would go over great!!
As for the gun free zones, I am firmly against them. In the jail example, if the only argument is that people can't use the lock boxes for their guns like we do; my opinion would be fine use the lock box. Unfortunately I'm not in charge at the jails to grant this, but I would if it allowed people to carry to the jail and when they leave. I don't think the police should have the right to carry anywhere that a citizen doesn't which is why I find it insane that schools are gun free zones.
On the gun confiscation point, it's impossible to say how many officers would throw in the towel on that. I will stand here and say for the record as I've said before that when the day comes that I'm asked to confiscate law abiding citizens' guns, that is the last day I'm a cop, period. I have another career I can fall back on if needed (one in which I can make a lot more money). I will never sacrifice what I know is right to hold onto this job, not worth it. I took this job to be a benefit to good honest hard working people, not an enemy of them.
Thanks guys for the honest feedback and good points Bill.
I respect your opinion but I cannot agree with you on the drug thing, While I don't have statistics, I can say with pretty good certainty that probably 80 to 90 percent of the calls I get, everything from theft to battery, in some way ties back to alcohol and/or drugs either directly or indirectly. I in no way believe that making weed legal to buy at CVS would stop people from using meth, can't get there. In the meth head example, my point was that if this guy wasn't a meth head he wouldn't be breaking into the house in the first place. Believe me the police don't want to get involved in people's lives any more than they have to. However, I have seen first hand how hard drugs can instantly change what was a normal law abiding decent person into something completely different, so possession and/or distribution of drugs does lead to damage to property and/or bodily injury to persons in my opinion because I see it all the time.
The Katrina example is a good one of how somehow the ball got dropped, and I don't have a great answer for that one. I don't know all the details but I understand that in an effort to "protect" people, law enforcement actually disarmed lawful people and left them defenseless which is beyond unacceptable. As for the rank and file Officer, he/she tries to operate with a good faith belief that what they are doing is lawful and I think someone up the chain has to be held accountable that one.. but I don't know all the details. Can't say what I would have done there because I wasn't there but it's worth thinking about for sure.
While I find everything about illegal drug use abhorrent, I have questions about the government functioning as a nanny. Another point where I see a viable question for which I do not have an answer is how, say, across the board legalization in the spirit of letting the self-destructive do so, would affect the price of hard drugs, hence the secondary crimes used to finance it. My understanding is that meth costs little of nothing to produce aside from the secondary costs, like paying lawyers.
I'd ask this: How likely is it that someone can use the banned thing and not directly harm others though its use? It's hard to argue that most marijuana users harm others. Maybe a few higher accidents. Not many. And they can be held liable for their accidents. When we get into drugs like Meth, the likelihood of causing harm increases a lot. I know I've gone around with various libertarians on this, but I'd draw the line at drugs like Meth. Other hard drugs might cause a lot of harm for the user, and as long as society isn't required to pay for it, if that's what they want to do with their lives, it's not my business.