Wow, you really seem to be on this “goverments are evil and the bane of existence” kick. I’m sure somebody here could point out a few countries with minimal goverments and no existing police forces. You may want to visit one some time and see just how rosy life is there.
But they have a very low level of all homicides, and thus don’t demonstrate the kind of need for an armed police presence.
When the U.S. level of gun murders drops to N.Z.'s levels, I’ll have a very different opinion on armed policemen.
Yes, but New Zealand isn’t America. This thread is (presumably) about disarming American cops.
This is a joke, right? A rhetorical exercise? Seriously?
Um…Have you thought this idea through?
Oh. I see you have not.
Did you fall off the rings while doing your pullups and bump your head? 
And if we shit rainbows, our poop would be pretty.
Of course not! Not unless those SWAT teams were casually formed by a bunch of civilians! Pay attention man! 
Or this.
Or you could just do what my dog did when I was little, and eat some crayons. It makes about as much sense as the OP.
I hear this tripe spewed all the time and what some people don’t want to understand is that the current governments in countries like America, Australia, Britain, Canada etc are very different to what has existed in the past.
Well that’s no bloody surprise, they have neighbours trying to kill them left right and centre. Comparing the security issues faced in Israel with the US, Canada, Australia etc is building a very weak strawman indeed.
Don’t know if trolling or not but of course income inequality causes a rise in crime, getting rid of it does not magically erase all crime but it does help.
At this point, we have to retrain police forces, and we need to treat shootings by patrolmen as a tactical failure.
ETA: But that means very little if strategically, a significant minority of police forces and of white gringos generally are committed to the domination and/or destruction of indigenous Americans and blacks. Clearly the level of persecution of blacks in this country serves as a way of mocking and shaming “the half-breed in the White House,” and can be expected to continue for the rest of Obama’s term.
Bolding mine. Such an assertion would carry more weight if the “persecution of blacks in this country” could be shown to have begun, or significantly increased, when President Obama took office. It would carry even more weight if you could document that some actual killings were motivated by a desire to “mock and shame” the POTUS.
The God-given rights are enumerated as “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” give or take an Oxford comma. The RKBA isn’t predicated on the will of any Creator but the importance of a well-regulated militia to the security of a free state - that’s why the USA doesn’t maintain a standing armed force but relies on its gun-owning citizenry.
I’m guessing you’re white, straight, male, and at least nominally Christian.
If you weren’t any one of those things, you’d very likely have a drastically different view of government.
Given your views, I’m also guessing you don’t know much about Captain America.
If a poll survey could be done of violent criminals: *“Should police officers be banned from carrying firearms?”, *I’d imagine around 99% would say YES!
Ambivalid, that’s worth a warning. The entire post was awful snarky but the third sentence is what gets you dinged. You may not insult other posters in Great Debates. You should know that.
All of this is wrong.
The phrase you refer to is from the DoI - not authoritative. Even if the DoI were authoritative, the phrase is not meant to be exhaustive so your characterization that those enumerated is what the God-given part is limited to is misleading. Further, it’s not God-given, but endowed by each person’s creator.
The RKBA is independent of the well-regulated militia in the 2nd amendment. The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause.
The USA does maintain standing armed forces.
I’m genuinely confused. Is this satire?
I believe **Shodan **is saying that the guy who died in NYC wasn’t killed because he was selling single cigaretts. That was the starting point for the interaction with the cops, but it wasn’t the root cause of his death. Whether you think the police acted properly or improperly, I tend to agree with that assessment.
I still think the evidence supports improper police actions, potentially rising to the level where murdrer charges are apprpriate, but IMO it is grossly inaccurate to say that he was murdered for selling individual cigarettes.
Then please move this somewhere it can be appropriately responded to why don’t you?
The entire thread is fucking ridiculous, the OP no less than bordering on trolling.
Yep. this is not a “Great” debate. Hell it’s not even a pitiful debate. Altho it is PIT worthy.