Welcome to DU!
    The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
    Join the community:
    Create a free account
    Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
    Become a Star Member
    Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
    All Forums
        Issue Forums
        Culture Forums
        Alliance Forums
        Region Forums
        Support Forums
        Help & Search
    
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: 2A: Group or individual right? [View all]CompanyFirstSergeant
(1,558 posts)12. Three important points...
        
          1A. Law Officers in our society are civilians.  They don't like to use the term, but they are nonetheless.  The only non-civilians in American society are sworn military personnel, and they are rarely (there are exceptions) allowed to carry firearms on US soil.
1B. Therefore any disarmament of US civilians, any restrictions on type of weapon, ammunition capacity, rate of fire, etc. must equally apply to law enforcement.
2A. The Supreme Court has ruled that law enforcement is not responsible to come to the aid of any individual person in society, that an officer's sidearm is primarily for personal defense.
2B. Therefore any firearm in common possession by law officers (who are civilians) should be available to the general civilian population, who hold equal status to law officers.
3A. Collective Rights argument - still supports private ownership, in that if a body of civilians are to respond to a call to arms, the arms have to be trained with, well maintained and available for use.
3B. In other words, they have to be somewhere, and my house is a great place to start storing them.
          
          
          
        
        1B. Therefore any disarmament of US civilians, any restrictions on type of weapon, ammunition capacity, rate of fire, etc. must equally apply to law enforcement.
2A. The Supreme Court has ruled that law enforcement is not responsible to come to the aid of any individual person in society, that an officer's sidearm is primarily for personal defense.
2B. Therefore any firearm in common possession by law officers (who are civilians) should be available to the general civilian population, who hold equal status to law officers.
3A. Collective Rights argument - still supports private ownership, in that if a body of civilians are to respond to a call to arms, the arms have to be trained with, well maintained and available for use.
3B. In other words, they have to be somewhere, and my house is a great place to start storing them.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
  Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
						
							38 replies
							
								 = new reply since forum marked as read
							
						
      
      
					
						Highlight:
						NoneDon't highlight anything
						5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
						RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
 = new reply since forum marked as read
							
						
      
      
					
						Highlight:
						NoneDon't highlight anything
						5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
						RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
					
                    
					
                     = new reply since forum marked as read
							
						
      
      
					
						Highlight:
						NoneDon't highlight anything
						5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
						RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
 = new reply since forum marked as read
							
						
      
      
					
						Highlight:
						NoneDon't highlight anything
						5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
						RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
					
                    
					
        
        My education in political theory pretty much held that the B.O.R.'s rights...
        Eleanors38
        Apr 2016
        #13
      
        
        I reject the notions of collective and/or individual so-called "rights" to guns.
        stone space
        Apr 2016
        #3
      
        
        At my age, I offer mostly moral support for those actively struggling against the tools of violence.
        stone space
        Apr 2016
        #6
      
        
        In other words, you do nothing of substance to advance your cause of gun control
        Lurks Often
        Apr 2016
        #18
      
        
        Perhaps the confusion originates in the fact that you are unable to answer questions...
        Marengo
        Apr 2016
        #29
      
        
        I used the expression "negative" in regard government's restrictions and implied duties.
        Eleanors38
        Apr 2016
        #14