They do. When it is both convenient and safe for them to do so. Do you think letting wounded people bleed out for 3 hours inside Pulse was protecting them? So you also think only police should get AR15s. Let me ask you something. When police respond to a call, who are they going to "save"? Who is currently in danger to such a degree that police feel AR15's are required? They're coming to "save" us. If the police need an AR15 to save us, and they come in large numbers, and are fighting people who were trying to kill us.... Does that not stand to reason that we should also have an AR15? After all, we're the ones who have to hold out until the big group of guys with AR15's come to save us.
so you think that citizens can determine when they are attacked by criminals? Few cops are actually attacked by criminals. They confront criminals knowing they are going up against criminals.
cops don't get to decide when they face criminals. they get a call and they respond. or they come upon trouble and deal with it
You know, if the Brady bill was good enough for the GOP deity Reagan, which limited the amount of ammo a gun could shoot before reloading, why is it not good enough for today's GOP? I mean.............according to lots of you conservatives, Reagan was perfect and could do no wrong.
Indeed they are not. Any police officer who knows about the corrupt practices of fellow police officers, and either refrain from bringing the issue to light, or actively taking steps to cover up evidence of wrongdoing, is just as guilty as those who commit the illegal act to begin with.
Police officers also kill far more innocent people than private citizens, and face no consequences for such. Often the use of deadly force is ruled as justified, even if it was not.
The supreme court has ruled that police officers are under no duty to protect any private individual from harm under any circumstances.
you are wrong. on several counts. If I call the cops that means I have already dealt with the criminals. And they generally will know 1) how many there are 2) where they are located 3) what they are armed with so if I call and say 15 thugs are breaking into the shop down the street, the cops will know to bring a bunch of cops If I am the shopkeeper, I don't know that until I am attacked.
you're rather confused and completely wrong about the laws you are talking about. 1) the brady bill had nothing to do with ammo limits 2) Reagan never supported either type of law while in Office. It was only after he became senile did he support gun laws and that was mainly due to his senility and the fact that his good friend became a wheelchair bound cripple who was used by Brady's megalomaniacal wife to push idiotic gun laws. 3) most of the GOP did not support either the Brady Bill or the idiotic assault weapons ban 4) neither law did squat to decrease violent crime
you are wrong about the supreme court. I believe most police are not corrupt or dishonest. But many are The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation. The decision, with an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia and dissents from Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, overturned a ruling by a federal appeals court in Colorado. The appeals court had permitted a lawsuit to proceed against a Colorado town, Castle Rock, for the failure of the police to respond to a woman's pleas for help after her estranged husband violated a protective order by kidnapping their three young daughters, whom he eventually killed. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/p...ve-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html?_r=0
LOL!!!! i never said the police have a "constitutional duty" to protect everyone. i simply said that its their job to help folks in danger, and they can be fired if they ignore such please for help. go ahead, watch what happens if a cop hears a woman being raped and instead decided to go to Dunkin Donuts. watch what happens next.
none of that supports the silly argument that police are entitled to better firearms than other civilians.
due to their responsibilities and training, they get better guns. deal with it. you don't have the responsibilities that police do
that sort of opinion is worthless. you are admitting that you want honest citizens handicapped when confronting criminals Tell us Ron, why do you support criminals in gun fights over honest citizens?
back to these strawmen again huh? ok, fine. why do you want it to be easier for criminals to buy guns?
your silly comment that police deserve "cooler weapons" is a concession that other civilians don't deserve the very best weapons for dealing with armed criminals you thus favor criminals over honest citizens. there is no other way to look at your position that ordinary citizens should be prevented from having the best available firearms for dealing with armed criminals
bla bla bla. why do you want to make it much easier for criminals to get guns, by ending background checks? hmm?
what does that have to do with the current direction of this thread? you want criminals to have good odds when they attack honest citizens
Nope but I am not willing to restrict the rights of honest people in an unconstitutional way and if that causes you to claim I want criminals having access. Indeed, you can use that silly line on anyone who doesn't buy into gun control schemes. But its clear, you affirmatively want citizens to be handicapped when confronted by armed criminals and your actions are direct. I don't want criminals being armed, I want honest people being armed. You on the other hand clearly want laws that are directed at honest gun owners - - - Updated - - - that's silly-if civilian police officers have them-why? same reason other civilians ought to have them
and your constant attacks against background checks, would ultimately lead to it becoming MUCH easier for criminals to access firearms. if we ended background checks, criminals such as murderers, escaped convicts, bail jumpers, child rapists, would be able to walk into Walmart and buy an AK-47 and 50-round magazine. why do u want this?
