Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
6/21/2017 8:25:40 PM
Posted: 4/23/2001 4:23:15 AM EDT
in America have become un-authorized standing armies, armed with implements of war, the very implements that a militia would be armed with as a deterrent to would be tyrants!!!! Question is: What should Americans do to correct this in-justice sweeping over modern day America? Being that around 50% of police deaths are due to suicide with some taking spouses and children out before they do themselves, this represents a public safety issue, should the police even be armed?
Link Posted: 4/23/2001 4:30:26 AM EDT
They might begin with using dic-tionaries. After that, round up the militia wanna-be types and get back to business. Standing armies and armed police are not only perfectly constitutional, but I think they're a good idea as well.
Link Posted: 4/23/2001 5:57:07 AM EDT
Yes they should be armed. I think a little more research into the applicant would go a lot farther to public saftey.
Link Posted: 4/23/2001 6:05:16 AM EDT
Originally Posted By andreusan: Being that around 50% of police deaths are due to suicide with some taking spouses and children out before they do themselves, this represents a public safety issue, should the police even be armed?
View Quote
Care to back up that claim with some hard evidence????
Link Posted: 4/23/2001 6:38:11 AM EDT
It is true the Constitution does not specifically prohibit standing armies, but the Framers view of them was clear. It is one of the reasons the US sought independence from England. Article 1, Section 8 provides Congress with the power to "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years." The two year appropriation was certainly a way to provide federal funding for the training of an army in times or war, but was to prevent standing armies in times of peace. But of course, Congress will just appropriate money every two years if need be. I seriously doubt the Framers intended it to be that way though, as many of them were publicly outspoken against standing armies. "...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." -Alexander Hamilton "What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." -Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts The truth is that the Constitution provides a way to fund organizing, training, and arming a force indefinately, but it is not the army. It is the militia. Part 13 of Article 2, Section 8 empowers Congress "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." So here is the force that the Framers intended to regularly provide funds to train and arm. The People. So where’s my M16? [:D] SOL
Link Posted: 4/23/2001 7:57:04 AM EDT
OneRobertFour- Forget it, the only evidence Andreusan needs is his opinion. You probably haven't been around long enough to see if for yourself, but this guy is just a troll. You'll see post after post with the same basic themes, blind regurgitation of 'facts' he got out of some militia pamphlets. I'd guess he's a security guard somewhere who's bitter because he failed the police psycheval, but that's just a guess :).
Link Posted: 4/24/2001 9:57:41 PM EDT
-What Son of Liberty said... P3[pyro][BD]
Link Posted: 4/24/2001 10:48:45 PM EDT
Yeah we should be armed. I'm so curious...I hear about all these para military police agencies in this country. Christ, we don't even get to carry slugs in our 12 gauge shotguns. Lord knows we don't get to carry any rifles. I work for an elected official...I work for the kindler, gentler police.
Link Posted: 4/24/2001 11:07:39 PM EDT
Who is this guy? Where did he get his stats...not from any of the ones we received are his claims anywhere true??? Let's see the police are suppose to have no guns, rifles, or shotguns, and dope dealers and gangs will freely give up theirs...Right??? I hope the guy that began this post doesn't own a gun....he is the type that doesn't need one! [:X*]
Link Posted: 4/24/2001 11:21:57 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DocSwat: {snip} Let's see the police are suppose to have no guns, rifles, or shotguns, and dope dealers and gangs will freely give up theirs...Right??? {snip} [blue]Well, hey, England seems to think that such an approach is eminently superior to our uncivilized ideas, and it's working just fine, is it not? [red][size=4] P.R.K.
Link Posted: 4/24/2001 11:50:41 PM EDT
Yes, good old England where I lived for two years. Free of crime, not when I was there. But, don't take my word for it....here are some stats: [:O] http://www.gunsandcrime.org/crvsgraf.html and for the rest of the story: Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and Wales, 1981-96 Compares crime in the United States and England with respect to crime rates (as measured both by victimization surveys and police statistics), conviction rates, incarceration rates, and length of sentences. Crime rates as measured in victim surveys are all higher in England than the United States. Crime rates as measured in police statistics are higher in England for half of the measured crime types. A person committing serious crime in the United States is generally more likely than one in England to be caught, convicted, and incarcerated. Incarceration sentences are also generally longer in the United States than England. 9/98. NCJ 169284 Appendix tables 26 and 27 were revised on 7/11/00. quote]Originally Posted By prk:
Originally Posted By DocSwat: {snip} Let's see the police are suppose to have no guns, rifles, or shotguns, and dope dealers and gangs will freely give up theirs...Right??? {snip} [blue]Well, hey, England seems to think that such an approach is eminently superior to our uncivilized ideas, and it's working just fine, is it not? [red][size=4] P.R.K.
View Quote
Top Top