To play devil's advocate, if regular citizens are not allowed to possess them, why should off duty LE.
To play devil's advocate, if regular citizens are not allowed to possess them, why should off duty LE?
Let's put it this way. If the Constitution were followed, why shouldn't every citizen be just as armed as the police.
so there would be much more friction in employing the military against The People than LE being employed. Different mindsets, too.
--- End of line (MCP)
This may actually turn out to be a pivotal, though relatively unremarked upon, event.
One of the big questions - if the country were to be headed to a hot Civil War - is what side LE would take: The People or The Government? I have always suspected that the police - if they felt they were a "protected class" - would side to a large degree (TBD what "large" would mean) with The Government. Decisions like this tell LE they're not a protected group. So if not protected, with whom does LE align? I suspect decisions like this (and this won't be the last) works in The People's favor.
We'll see (though I hope we won't see; my hope is that we figure things out before everything goes kinetic).
Don't have the same worries about the military: historically our military has rarely ever been used in a domestic crisis (except local, temporary issues, of course) so there would be much more friction in employing the military against The People than LE being employed. Different mindsets, too.
--- End of line (MCP)
This may actually turn out to be a pivotal, though relatively unremarked upon, event.
One of the big questions - if the country were to be headed to a hot Civil War - is what side LE would take: The People or The Government? I have always suspected that the police - if they felt they were a "protected class" - would side to a large degree (TBD what "large" would mean) with The Government. Decisions like this tell LE they're not a protected group. So if not protected, with whom does LE align? I suspect decisions like this (and this won't be the last) works in The People's favor.
We'll see (though I hope we won't see; my hope is that we figure things out before everything goes kinetic).
Don't have the same worries about the military: historically our military has rarely ever been used in a domestic crisis (except local, temporary issues, of course) so there would be much more friction in employing the military against The People than LE being employed. Different mindsets, too.
--- End of line (MCP)
Everything that I have always read has been the older LEO will for the most part will abide by the Constitution and for the most part the younger officers will do as they are told.
Why do the police get to have extra rights?
... and for the most part the younger officers will do as they are told.
There should be no difference between the governments possession and citizens possession of firearms, types, designs or capacities.
They say we cannot ban guns but there’s no constitutional right to magazines or ammunition.
If we didnt have them you would be speaking the Kings English...
They say we cannot ban guns but there’s no constitutional right to magazines or ammunition.
you truly are clueless