Why must we demonstrate a need? In a free country, we should be able to buy/own whatever we want, unless it can be proven--under strict scrutiny--that something is very bad for the country/jurisdiction and that a ban would actually do substantially, measurably more real-world good than harm. Of course, the 1994 AWB proved the opposite, so the antis automatically lose right there; the parallels with Prohibition and the failure of the "War on Drugs" can also be brought up. We must not allow the concept of the government being able to demand that citizens prove that they need something to enter the conversation at all, because it goes completely against the nature of our rights as a free people, as well as the Constitution that defines the US federal government (it is the government that must justify its needs to us, not the other way around). The burden of proof should be on those who wish to infringe on our rights, not on us.
As for whether police officers are bound by duty to protect & serve, the answer is both yes and no. They are required to enforce the law and apprehend suspects, and by these actions they do indeed protect & serve, as their cars commonly advertise as a sign of goodwill. They are not, however, required to directly, physically defend citizens from harm (most officers would, I'd expect, but it is not required), and for the most part (with the more dire, critical cases) this is moot anyway because they almost always won't be there while the harm is being done; this is not their fault because there is no practical way for them to be present when they (and their guns) would be needed the most. This is a good basis for the argument that citizens potentially have the same defensive needs as police officers. The odds may be different because the latter must sometimes seek confrontation in the line of duty, but the needs for the worst-case scenarios are the same. This is supposing that a debate even reaches this point, which it should not because of what I said earlier--it's not about justifying a need on our part.
As for whether police officers are bound by duty to protect & serve, the answer is both yes and no. They are required to enforce the law and apprehend suspects, and by these actions they do indeed protect & serve, as their cars commonly advertise as a sign of goodwill. They are not, however, required to directly, physically defend citizens from harm (most officers would, I'd expect, but it is not required), and for the most part (with the more dire, critical cases) this is moot anyway because they almost always won't be there while the harm is being done; this is not their fault because there is no practical way for them to be present when they (and their guns) would be needed the most. This is a good basis for the argument that citizens potentially have the same defensive needs as police officers. The odds may be different because the latter must sometimes seek confrontation in the line of duty, but the needs for the worst-case scenarios are the same. This is supposing that a debate even reaches this point, which it should not because of what I said earlier--it's not about justifying a need on our part.
Last edited:
