Police and Citizens

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Push wanted me to elaborate…

I believe in, and support, the 2nd Amendment.

Often, when there are discussions of the 2nd Amendment…the limits of Police Power relative to the Citizenry seem to almost (inevitably?) come up.

Questions:

  1. Should a Police Force be “stronger” (in general) than the Citizenry, but limited in it’s powers? (Sort of what most are now, I would think). [/quote]

No, the police only deal with very small percentages of a population. So in my opinion every populace in total should be able to “out gun” a police force. In large scale situations we have the national guard and federal agencies that can step in. Still, in total, the US should be able to “out gun” the government. Obviously the military favors the government, however, I believe in the event of breakdown at the national level the military would not (at least in total) fight for the government. That’s besides the point, but I’ll elaborate if asked.

More, see above.

In my opinion, no. Citizens should always be more powerful as a check to government power.

The way I see it is pretty simple. There are 3 branches so no single branch of the government is more powerful than the others. To me the second amendment is the same thing. A check on the power of the central government.

[/quote]

Why would the citizens need to have parity with the state? An internal conflict would be asymmetric. Additionally, if gun ownership was so widespread as to be nearly universal the state would literally no longer exist as it would not hold the monopoly of force.

24

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Why would the citizens need to have parity with the state? [/quote]
In order to overthrow a tyrannical government if the need should ever arise.

[quote]
An internal conflict would be asymmetric. [/quote]

I don’t believe that’s true.

[quote]
Additionally, if gun ownership was so widespread as to be nearly universal the state would literally no longer exist as it would not hold the monopoly of force.[/quote]

I don’t agree. Universal ownership in and of itself would not end the state. It would take a collaborative effort of the owners to remove the state from power.

25

[quote]pushharder wrote:
It, the federal government, was indeed outgunned at various times in its history and guess what? It did just fine.[/quote]

I figured as much, but don’t have the data to back it up.

26

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Well, first…have you decided there is no difference between the character of the average Middle Easterner in the areas you are thinking of and the average American?[/quote]

Define average American.[/quote]

You do it.[/quote]

Eh, you’re the one who wrote average American.
[/quote]

[/quote]

Link doesn’t work.

28

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Push wanted me to elaborate…

I believe in, and support, the 2nd Amendment.

Often, when there are discussions of the 2nd Amendment…the limits of Police Power relative to the Citizenry seem to almost (inevitably?) come up.

Questions:

  1. Should a Police Force be “stronger” (in general) than the Citizenry, but limited in it’s powers? (Sort of what most are now, I would think). [/quote]

No, the police only deal with very small percentages of a population. So in my opinion every populace in total should be able to “out gun” a police force. In large scale situations we have the national guard and federal agencies that can step in. Still, in total, the US should be able to “out gun” the government. Obviously the military favors the government, however, I believe in the event of breakdown at the national level the military would not (at least in total) fight for the government. That’s besides the point, but I’ll elaborate if asked.

More, see above.

In my opinion, no. Citizens should always be more powerful as a check to government power.

The way I see it is pretty simple. There are 3 branches so no single branch of the government is more powerful than the others. To me the second amendment is the same thing. A check on the power of the central government.

[/quote]

Why would the citizens need to have parity with the state? An internal conflict would be asymmetric. Additionally, if gun ownership was so widespread as to be nearly universal the state would literally no longer exist as it would not hold the monopoly of force.[/quote]

Not quite. You must understand, SM, that the USA was the first country in history (one might nitpick) where the people actually granted power to its government and not the other way around.

And in 1776, 1783 and 1789 the “state” did indeed exist but it surely did not hold the monopoly of force. The problem in America has never been that its government has been outgunned and therefore rendered ineffective and nil.

It, the federal government, was indeed outgunned at various times in its history and guess what? It did just fine.[/quote]

I would argue that the state did not exist until July 4th 1863. Prior to that federalism had not gained the monopoly of force over the states.

30

July 4th 1863 huh, that’s interesting.

31

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Google “average.”
[/quote]

I don’t know how using typing “average” in Google search helps me know what you think the average American is.

32

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
In order to overthrow a tyrannical government if the need should ever arise.
[/quote]

You don’t need anything like parity to defeat a conventional force.

Of course it would. Unless there was a military coup of sorts.

[quote]

I don’t agree. Universal ownership in and of itself would not end the state. It would take a collaborative effort of the owners to remove the state from power. [/quote]

If the state can no longer maintain law and order it ceases to hold the monopoly of force - such a scenario would result in a power vacuum which would immediately be filled by guys with guns - ie, a new government.

33

I don’t see how. The state did not exist because it did not hold the monopoly of force. Once it gained the monopoly of force it came into existence. Prior to that the monopoly of force was held by the individual states/colonies.

34

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
In order to overthrow a tyrannical government if the need should ever arise.
[/quote]

You don’t need anything like parity to defeat a conventional force.

Of course it would. Unless there was a military coup of sorts.

[quote]

I don’t agree. Universal ownership in and of itself would not end the state. It would take a collaborative effort of the owners to remove the state from power. [/quote]

If the state can no longer maintain law and order it ceases to hold the monopoly of force - such a scenario would result in a power vacuum which would immediately be filled by guys with guns - ie, a new government.[/quote]

-You may not need parity, but you need something. An unarmed populace can’t defeat a conventional force either. If citizens are out gunned by local law enforcement they would not be able to defeat U.S. conventional forces.

-Or civil war. Or revolution. Like I alluded to earlier, I believe in the event of a national uprising such as a civil war the U.S. military would break into factions. You could easily have two conventional forces in that situation. Not to mention international aide.

-Not if the people voluntarily accept the law and order they (through their representatives) helped create. Like I said earlier the population in total should have more power than the government in order to overthrow the government if a need should ever arise. That doesn’t mean the state doesn’t have the force required to handle isolated incidents at the local, state, or even national level.

35

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I don’t see how. The state did not exist because it did not hold the monopoly of force. Once it gained the monopoly of force it came into existence. [/quote]

Your contention is that the constitution was worthless up until the turning point of the civil war?

[quote]
Prior to that the monopoly of force was held by the individual states/colonies.[/quote]

You don’t think in the late 1700s individuals in total weren’t more heavily armed than their state/colony? I don’t know the numbers, but common sense would say they were.

36

I don’t believe a state is defined solely by a “monopoly of force”.

38

[quote]twojarslave wrote:
Cops do not need tanks. Cops should not have tanks.
[/quote]

Cops don’t have tanks. For something to be considered a tank, it requires a mounted cannon. The vehicles you see are simply armored personnel carriers. What problem do you have with police transporting their members and citizens in a bullet resistant vehicle? Do you have a problem with members of the public owning tanks? Arnie has a tank. Do you believe he needs it more or less than a police department?

39

From another thread:

It appears government thugs have used their tank to kidnap children from a school and murdered a citizen exercising his rights.

http://www.policeone.com/...during-manhunt/

40

Not at all. It was superior for the time. The Civil War brought about tangible federal sovereignty that some would argue was necessary.

I don’t know the numbers either. But armed rebellions were successfully put down - Shays, Whiskey, Fries’s.