• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is All This Really Necessary?

Is All This Necessary?


  • Total voters
    44
that is really stupid. Its like saying people who are not professional fire fighters cannot have the same fire extinguishers pros use but they can own some fire extinguishers

if you can claim cops are more likely to be attacked by multiple assailants at the same time as other civilians perhaps you can make a somewhat cogent argument that non LEO civilians can get by with less rounds. But you cannot. In fact, citizens who are not uniformed cops are far more likely to be attacked by multiple assailants than civilian LEOs

I fully agree that the fire extinguisher argument is "really stupid" - to quote you - as it has nothing to do with the Second Amendment or police officers and their jobs.

I decline to take a swing at your own created strawman with the scrawled sign "multiple assailants" pinned to its chest as it is irrelevant and was never my argument.
 
Civilians job is to monitor and operationally change through the political process, those tools and jobs which they deem may be extreme or overbearing. These professionals you speak of work for civilians, therefore it is the civilians job to moderate extensive use of military tools as they see fit, as well as moderate what empowerment the police have. Civilians also have Constitutional rights supported by the SCOTUS to protect their own lives and property under the law.

Your "therefore" is one huge bridge too far. There is a huge and substantial difference between the American people watching over public policy and claiming that they deserve the same tools as police officers have because of the performance of their jobs. One has nothing at all to do with the other and all the "therefores" in the universe do not make up that difference.

Civilians do indeed have the right to protect their own lives and property under the law and they have a myriad - or if you prefer - a plethora of ways to exercise that right irregardless if they can or cannot not have military or para-military weaponry to do so.
 
Your "therefore" is one huge bridge too far.
Hardly. Civilians run the government, police are government employees.

There is a huge and substantial difference between the American people watching over public policy and claiming that they deserve the same tools as police officers have because of the performance of their jobs. One has nothing at all to do with the other and all the "therefores" in the universe do not make up that difference.
Are you claiming the civilian population cannot regulate the weaponry of its own police force? If so, you'll need to prove your case which I already know you cannot.
 
Wow, you really don't read do you?
Really. Care to tell me what part I did not read. Maybe you should admit that you were wrong that citizens can own all the same weapons cops can and be done with it.
 
I fully agree that the fire extinguisher argument is "really stupid" - to quote you - as it has nothing to do with the Second Amendment or police officers and their jobs.

I decline to take a swing at your own created strawman with the scrawled sign "multiple assailants" pinned to its chest as it is irrelevant and was never my argument.


No rather your argument is that cops have a job to do and that entitles them to better self defense tools than people who aren't government minions. Its a pathetic argument because it ignores several obvious points

1) if a citizen can be trusted with 10 shots-why not 15

2) cops have no more right to shoot a criminal than you or I do

3) there is no rational reason to deny law abiding people POSSESSION of those weapons. Cops already have certain powers not extended to other civilians in terms of time place and manner use or bearing of those weapons

4) that civilian cops are issued said weapons destroys the argument that there is no legitimate possible purpose for other civilians to even own such weapons.
 
Hardly. Civilians run the government, police are government employees.

Are you claiming the civilian population cannot regulate the weaponry of its own police force? If so, you'll need to prove your case which I already know you cannot.

the real gut splitter will be the claim that civilian law enforcement officials are NOT civilians
 
the real gut splitter will be the claim that civilian law enforcement officials are NOT civilians

I doubt he wants to tangle with that subject today.
 
Hardly. Civilians run the government, police are government employees.

Are you claiming the civilian population cannot regulate the weaponry of its own police force? If so, you'll need to prove your case which I already know you cannot.

I made no such statement and have no idea where you would get a statement like that from.
 
No rather your argument is that cops have a job to do and that entitles them to better self defense tools than people who aren't government minions.

WRONG. I have never made that argument about self defense. I do NOT make that argument now about self defense.

My argument has been from the start and is now the same point which I have explained to you over and over and over again in thread after thread after thread when this comes up: police officers all over the world have firearms to do their job. It has nothing at all to do with the Second Amendment and it is intellectual FRAUD for anybody to try and connect the two things as they are not at all related. Officers have the firearms they do because they perform a certain job and require those tools. You and everybody else here who is not in professional law enforcement has no claim on those same tools because we do not do that job.

With all due respect Turtle, I would greatly appreciate it if you copied that and referred to it in the future when this comes up another forty of fifty times to avoid presenting anything less than my actual position.
 
the real gut splitter will be the claim that civilian law enforcement officials are NOT civilians

But you already know that reality as every authoritative dictionary you can cite tells you so in plain English.
 
But you already know that reality as every authoritative dictionary you can cite tells you so in plain English.

actually having been a federal law enforcement officer I prefer the laws of the USA over the colloquial non-authortative definitions that have no relevance
 
WRONG. I have never made that argument about self defense. I do NOT make that argument now about self defense.

My argument has been from the start and is now the same point which I have explained to you over and over and over again in thread after thread after thread when this comes up: police officers all over the world have firearms to do their job. It has nothing at all to do with the Second Amendment and it is intellectual FRAUD for anybody to try and connect the two things as they are not at all related. Officers have the firearms they do because they perform a certain job and require those tools. You and everybody else here who is not in professional law enforcement has no claim on those same tools because we do not do that job.

With all due respect Turtle, I would greatly appreciate it if you copied that and referred to it in the future when this comes up another forty of fifty times to avoid presenting anything less than my actual position.

the intellectual fraud is patent

1) claiming that civilian cops are not civilians-blatant fraud

2) claiming that cops are entitled to better weapons than other civilians despite the 2A-FRAUD

3) and the real fraud-claiming that the term SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED was INTENDED and DESIGNED TO ALLOW ALL SORTS OF INFRINGEMENT.

tell me Haymarket, why do you think citizens who are not cops are not worthy of having the same level of self defensive weaponry as minions of the government?
 
More CON deflection...

Who said anything about 'on the criminal's terms'??? You try and parse the parameter to a tiny subset... :doh

But by far LEO is far more likely to be a situation of being the second one in the confrontation to know a firefight is about to break out- from that deadly 'routine' traffic stop to entering into the middle of a domestic dispute. A burglar just got life plus 20 for shooting a Lawton city cop after attempting to enter a home and the homeowner was present. Homeowner didn't testify in either trial (the shooter had a running buddy, separate trial)

Again you dodge your 'commission', your academy... I never claimed to have been LEO, just have helped train hundreds and spent a few hours talking to them... :roll:

Did I say ANYTHING about the military, you are just desperately trying to fling poo as you scuttle way... :mrgreen:

Your reprisal BS is just that, this isn't a one time deal for the LEO, it is for the Citizen, a 20 veteran LEO will have HUNDREDS of 'mopes' he put in prison and now are out and about. It is quite obvious you have no Commissioned LEO experience and don't spend much time talking to cops. Most convictions are done without a citizen being the 'star' witness as forensic evidence, LEO testimony to what was found, and video tape of the suspect interview are often all that is needed for the conviction.

So once again, what court has held your 'theory' on why Citizens should have whatever the LEO has in firepower??? :2wave:

so many words to say nothing. if you actually read Heller and Miller its obvious

I will let you figure out why
 
actually having been a federal law enforcement officer I prefer the laws of the USA over the colloquial non-authortative definitions that have no relevance

Dictionaries are in the business of providing authoritative definitions for words we use. If you can quote a law which clearly defines police officers as civilians - please do so

Since you brought up your own personal experience, perhaps you can amplify upon it and tell us what exactly you discovered in your capacity as a "federal law enforcement officer" in the way of a definition about cops and civilians?
 
Last edited:
the intellectual fraud is patent

1) claiming that civilian cops are not civilians-blatant fraud

2) claiming that cops are entitled to better weapons than other civilians despite the 2A-FRAUD

3) and the real fraud-claiming that the term SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED was INTENDED and DESIGNED TO ALLOW ALL SORTS OF INFRINGEMENT.

tell me Haymarket, why do you think citizens who are not cops are not worthy of having the same level of self defensive weaponry as minions of the government?

When every single dictionary agrees with me that cops are NOT civilians - it would seem the FRAUD is being attempted by your argument.

Since the Second Amendment has NOTHING to do with what weapons cops carry - it would seem the FRAUD is being attempted by your argument.
 
When every single dictionary agrees with me that cops are NOT civilians - it would seem the FRAUD is being attempted by your argument.

Since the Second Amendment has NOTHING to do with what weapons cops carry - it would seem the FRAUD is being attempted by your argument.
I may have missed, and I went back and looked and couldn't find it, but can you supply a link to said dictionaries? Thank you.
 
I may have missed, and I went back and looked and couldn't find it, but can you supply a link to said dictionaries? Thank you.

google search definition

ci·vil·ian
səˈvilyən/
noun
noun: civilian; plural noun: civilians
1. 
a person not in the armed services or the police force.
synonyms: noncombatant, nonmilitary person, ordinary citizen, private citizen; Moreinformalcivvy 
"family members and other civilians were quickly evacuated from the post" 4. 

informal
a person who is not a member of a particular profession or group, as viewed by a member of that group."I talk to a lot of actresses and they say that civilians are scared of them"





adjective
adjective: civilian
1. 
of, denoting, or relating to a person not belonging to the armed services or police.

____________________________________

Merriam Webster

ci·vil·ian noun \sə-ˈvil-yən also -ˈvi-yən\
: a person who is not a member of the military or of a police or firefighting force



Like 28Full Definition of CIVILIAN
1
:* a specialist in Roman or modern civil law
2
a :* one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force

___________________________________

dictionary.com

ci·vil·ian [si-vil-yuhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
a person who is not on active duty with a military, naval, police, or fire fighting organization.

______________________________________________




______________________________________________
 
I may have missed, and I went back and looked and couldn't find it, but can you supply a link to said dictionaries? Thank you.

dictionaries he cites use a colloquial definition that cops have adopted in an attempt to distinguish themselves from other citizens. Under US and International law- civilian LEOs are CIVILIANS. I know, I was a federal LEO and my boss was the chief FEDERAL LEO for a judicial district. Under the OPM he was a civilian. So are FBI special agents, US Marshals and their deputies, DEA special agents, IRS CID, ICE etc.

so we have FEDERAL and State law on our side, he has a colloquial definition that has absolutely no relevance to the law
 
When every single dictionary agrees with me that cops are NOT civilians - it would seem the FRAUD is being attempted by your argument.

Since the Second Amendment has NOTHING to do with what weapons cops carry - it would seem the FRAUD is being attempted by your argument.


the real fraud is pretending silly colloquial definitions trump the UNITED STATES CODE
 
Dictionaries are in the business of providing authoritative definitions for words we use. If you can quote a law which clearly defines police officers as civilians - please do so

Since you brought up your own personal experience, perhaps you can amplify upon it and tell us what exactly you discovered in your capacity as a "federal law enforcement officer" in the way of a definition about cops and civilians?

Federal law trumps the non-authorative nonsense you try to use to overcome the United States Code.


anyone who is under the OPM knows who is a civilian and that is someone not in active military service.
 
the real fraud is pretending silly colloquial definitions trump the UNITED STATES CODE

Are you referring to the US code that you failed to cite now but perhaps previously cited which defines combat zones outside of the USA and has nothing to do with domestic police officers and which you were thoroughly and completely refuted in using?

And the silly nonsense ignores one simple reality that overrides everything else on this issue: police officers carrying firearms has NOT A DAMN THING TO DO WITH THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

Nothing.
Zilch.
Nada.

So for anybody to attempt to use the fact of police carrying firearms to justify what weapons they can or cannot have under the Second Amendment is totally and completely intellectually dishonest.
 
Back
Top Bottom