2nd amendment use in Ferguson

[itsa pain]

To keep this on point with the OP, these residents are buying up guns because they are in fear, and many are finally realizing the importance of the 2A. Note it is times like this that also remind us that waiting periods to buy guns are bad policy.

To discuss the whole rioting versus police.... let's remember that the police are often hamstrung and cannot protect everyone. People should arm themselves to protect themselves from violence. It's not just riots like this, but it's a good general life principle.

Armed civilians guarding a business:

The police can quickly be outnumber, politically impotent, or withdraw for their own safety - leaving residents on their own.

We have already seen/heard many reports of serious personal and property crimes. Some innocent people have been shot by criminals. Many businesses burned or looted. Lots of property crimes, including overturned police cars. Mobs are very dangerous.

Why do police need "military gear" and "look like the military"? Because protesters now act like terrorists.







While a person has a right to peacefully protest - does anyone here actually support this or ANY protests you've seen in your life? Aren't they overwhelmingly 1) nonsense, 2) destructive to businesses and residents, 3) cost taxpayers millions of dollars, 4) result in significant criminal activity such as assaults, drugs, vandalism...? Have there been any legitimate protests on US soil in our lifetimes that did not turn into rioting and looting?

All this concern about a militarized police force is largely nonsense. They have always had lethal weapons. Now they simply use less than lethal weapons and have armored vehicles - which serve to de-escalate violence. Heck, Wells Fargo went from state coaches with armed guys riding "shotgun" to Armored Vehicles with armed guys riding "shotgun." Where is the outrage?

The police used firehoses to disperse crowds in decades past. Now they use other less than lethal devises. Big deal.

Police are generally quite restrained, use less than lethal force, and the show of force is always to de-escalate violence. The police have always had military equipment. In the 1930s-50s, the police adopted the Thompson submachine gun and the .3006 Browning Auto Rifle (BAR) to combat crime. They also had scoped hunting rifles and lethal shotguns. Big deal. It's no secret cops have guns. Now they just have better armor to protect them. I take little quarrel with that. As long as they are restrained what's the issue? My only real concern is the increase in violent no-knock raids, which I feel are unlawful.

General principle in life: If you don't want to get shot or arrested, don't attack cops or commit serious and dangerous crimes... follow that simple advice and your life will be quite tranquil.

Now, if the police really do become tyrants, we should raise this issue.

But given the fact that a few thousand poorly equipped, illiterate and uneducated Taliban can drag the United States through a 12 year stalemate - I'm quite confident if the day ever came for Americans to really stand up and be counted, 100 million educated, organized, and well-equipped gun owners would do just fine, MRAPs or no MRAPs.

In the meantime, the way I see it is that the LEO simply are in a lose-lose situation.

If they ignore these urban areas and don't patrol or respond to crime - they are called names which I can't repeat here.
If they patrol and make arrests and defend themselves and shoot violent people - they are called names which I can't repeat here.
If there is a riot and the police turn up to stop rioting - they are militarized and called names which I can't repeat here..
If they use less-then-lethal force (firehoses, tear gas, pepper spray, rubber bullets) to disperse crowds - they are brutal names I cannot repeat on THR.
If they abandon areas and withdraw - they are cowardly names I cannot repeat here.

This whole area of discussion is largely about control. One side hates law enforcement for reasons that are prohibited from discussion on THR...

When the police first started using BAR's and Thompsons you could walk in a hardware store and buy one. Now you cant so what you said is meaningless. I do not understand your comparison with wells fargo they cannot arrest you or close off streets or break down your door at 3 AM with the wrong address in hand. Then playing good cop bad cop we are made to feel better by saying you are concerned with them getting out of control which I think they are you would justify it anyway. What they did to the occupy kids no matter what you think of them as they were peaceful was a disgrace. In fact they are more brutal to the occupy people because they do not have to worry about violent riots

 

[Zach S]

In the meantime, the way I see it is that the LEO simply are in a lose-lose situation.

If they ignore these urban areas and don't patrol or respond to crime - they are called names which I can't repeat here.
If they patrol and make arrests and defend themselves and shoot violent people - they are called names which I can't repeat here.
If there is a riot and the police turn up to stop rioting - they are militarized and called names which I can't repeat here..
If they use less-then-lethal force (firehoses, tear gas, pepper spray, rubber bullets) to disperse crowds - they are brutal names I cannot repeat on THR.
If they abandon areas and withdraw - they are cowardly names I cannot repeat here.

Definitely a thankless job in the public's eye.

I once considered a career in LE, the paycut ruined it for me... Now that I've lost my job and had to settle for one that pays 25k a year, I'm considering it again.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

While a person has a right to peacefully protest - does anyone here actually support this or ANY protests you've seen in your life? Aren't they overwhelmingly 1) nonsense, 2) destructive to businesses and residents, 3) cost taxpayers millions of dollars, 4) result in significant criminal activity such as assaults, drugs, vandalism...? Have there been any legitimate protests on US soil in our lifetimes that did not turn into rioting and looting?

Why, yes! Yes I have seen PLENTY of peaceful protests!

They happen ALL THE TIME, as a matter of fact. People just don't give them much attention because they're (insert drum roll here) peaceful.

Examples?

- The "Million Man March" was peaceful.

- The 1963 D.C. Civil Rights March where MLK gave his famous "I have a dream" speech was peaceful.

- The anti-war people I've seen protest over the years were peaceful.

- The pro-life protests I've seen over the years were peaceful.

- The pro-abortion protests I've seen over the years were peaceful.


There are scads of peaceful protesters each and every day in this country.

 

[Red Wind]

I once considered a career in LE, the paycut ruined it for me... Now that I've lost my job and had to settle for one that pays 25k a year, I'm considering it again

I would go for it if you are mid thirties or under. It's a fine, noble career. In my experience, there are dozens of good cops to every bad,rogue one. And that is in South Florida!

I spend 2 months every year in the mountains of western North Carolina/Eastern Tennessee. Since 1949, North Carolina has been my second home.So if you want to become a LEO, I can't think of a better place. Wonderful,normal, down to earth people.

You will not regret it,IMO.

ETA. Excellent post,Chief!

 

[barnbwt]

"Have there been any legitimate protests on US soil in our lifetimes that did not turn into rioting and looting?"
Nonsense. Not even worth countering. We have a right to peaceably assemble, get over it.

I would go for it if you are mid thirties or under. It's a fine, noble career.

Agreed, though I think the pay is too often too low to attract fine, noble officers reliably. Seems like funding increases almost always go towards new equipment or more officers, rather than toward those already there for the purpose of improving the quality of the force.

In the meantime, the way I see it is that the LEO simply are in a lose-lose situation.

If they ignore these urban areas and don't patrol or respond to crime - they are called names which I can't repeat here.
If they patrol and make arrests and defend themselves and shoot violent people - they are called names which I can't repeat here.
If there is a riot and the police turn up to stop rioting - they are militarized and called names which I can't repeat here..
If they use less-then-lethal force (firehoses, tear gas, pepper spray, rubber bullets) to disperse crowds - they are brutal names I cannot repeat on THR.
If they abandon areas and withdraw - they are cowardly names I cannot repeat here.

This whole area of discussion is largely about control. One side hates law enforcement for reasons that are prohibited from discussion on THR...

I think you might misunderstand where most (okay, I can only speak for myself) of these people are coming from. You present your scenarios as either/or law enforcement action, when a great many people think the police are not the proper tool for addressing those situations in the first place. There is no need for police militarization if Guard forces are very sparingly brought in to restore order when things get beyond police capabilities, but officers understandably hate to relinquish command or be shown 'deficient' in serving their communities. But they aren't peace-makers, they are peace keepers. If the peace is lost in spite of their efforts, other tools should be brought in. If you give the peace-keepers the tools, tactics, mindset, and mission of the peace-makers, you end up with a far more assertive situation ('making' vs. 'maintaining')

Different tools for different jobs. You don't use a shoulder plane for delicate work, and you can't expect a hand plane to effectively surface a tabletop. Of course, you can always use a jack plane that does a decent job of both tasks, sort of...

TCB

 

[leadcounsel]

They happen ALL THE TIME, as a matter of fact. People just don't give them much attention because they're (insert drum roll here) peaceful.

Examples?

- The "Million Man March" was peaceful.

- The 1963 D.C. Civil Rights March where MLK gave his famous "I have a dream" speech was peaceful.

- The anti-war people I've seen protest over the years were peaceful.

- The pro-life protests I've seen over the years were peaceful.

- The pro-abortion protests I've seen over the years were peaceful.


There are scads of peaceful protesters each and every day in this country.

These are fair points - and I support the 1A and right to peacably protest. While some of these do turn into riots - it's the rioting ones in which I was referring. The rioting that costs lives and money...

Poor word choice/explanation on my point. I would have assumed that mistake was beyond obvious, given the photos, context, and explanation that I went into...

In other words, if hundreds of angry mobsters are descending on your neighborhood, looting, shooting, and throwing firebombs... are the police in MRAPs a welcomed presence or are you just as happy sitting in your living room with your AR15 hoping it all goes away...?

 

[Nom de Forum]

To keep this on point with the OP, these residents are buying up guns because they are in fear, and many are finally realizing the importance of the 2A. Note it is times like this that also remind us that waiting periods to buy guns are bad policy.

Yes, it would be great “to keep this on point with the OP” but unfortunately “the OP” never was on point with the overall situation and ramifications of what is happening, why it is happening, and what are the complete (not the narrowly discussed by some) Second Amendment aspects of the situation. The biggest Second Amendment aspect not really discussed is that it it exists because the Founding Fathers were more worried about Soldiers and Police mistreating The
People, not The People violently reacting to the perception of mistreatment from Soldiers and Police.

I agree waiting periods (beyond an instant background check) are a bad idea. However, it would be really ironic if the damnable multi-day background checks some places have prevented or at least delayed the rioters from arming themselves with weaponry they believed put them on a equal footing with the Police who appear to be an Army ready to wage war.

Armed civilians guarding a business:

I have seen these guys before. They are the guys who think only they will be doing the shooting and only other people will be getting shot. How noble their deaths will be because they defended the easy ability to get a tattoo in that neighborhood. How easy it is for most people to forget, unlike in video games, the dead don’t come back to fight another day so you better be very sure something is worth dying for.

Why do police need "military gear" and "look like the military"? Because protesters now act like terrorists.

Change the clothing of the subjects and that photo could have been taken at anytime in the last 100 years. Protestors today do not act like terrorists. Any terrorist who acted like the photographed amateurs would be a very incompetent terrorist. How about you avoid the hyperbole since it doesn’t add to the credibility of your opinion?

While a person has a right to peacefully protest - does anyone here actually support this or ANY protests you've seen in your life? Aren't they overwhelmingly 1) nonsense, 2) destructive to businesses and residents, 3) cost taxpayers millions of dollars, 4) result in significant criminal activity such as assaults, drugs, vandalism...? Have there been any legitimate protests on US soil in our lifetimes that did not turn into rioting and looting?

The mere fact you ask these questions is an indication you have very little knowledge of the history of this country. There have been many peaceful and violent protests that the majority historical opinion has judged to be justified and necessary.

All this concern about a militarized police force is largely nonsense. They have always had lethal weapons. Now they simply use less than lethal weapons and have armored vehicles - which serve to de-escalate violence. Heck, Wells Fargo went from state coaches with armed guys riding "shotgun" to Armored Vehicles with armed guys riding "shotgun." Where is the outrage?

The police used firehoses to disperse crowds in decades past. Now they use other less than lethal devises. Big deal.

Police are generally quite restrained, use less than lethal force, and the show of force is always to de-escalate violence. The police have always had military equipment. In the 1930s-50s, the police adopted the Thompson submachine gun and the .3006 Browning Auto Rifle (BAR) to combat crime. They also had scoped hunting rifles and lethal shotguns. Big deal. It's no secret cops have guns. Now they just have better armor to protect them. I take little quarrel with that. As long as they are restrained what's the issue? My only real concern is the increase in violent no-knock raids, which I feel are unlawful.

An inappropriate show of force often doesn’t de-escalate but provokes greater violence. People often get angrier when they feel a retaliatory action is out of proportion to what caused it. I thought BSA1, barnbwt, and I made posts that sufficiently explained the factual errors and reasoning in your previous post that stated essentially the same thing as nonsense above. Go back and read them.

Now, if the police really do become tyrants, we should raise this issue.

Who makes that determination. You? Perhaps that is what the people in Ferguson have determined. Who decides who is right and who is wrong? They say only the winners write the history that tells who was right and who was wrong. You can't have winners unless you start a fight or refuse a fight. I guess the people of Ferguson decided to start a fight. I think they are going to end up bigger winners than Ferguson Police.

This whole area of discussion is largely about control. One side hates law enforcement for reasons that are prohibited from discussion on THR...

Nobody participating in this discussion hates law enforcement and I doubt many of the protesters in Ferguson hate law enforcement. I am sure some people in Ferguson hate what some people think law enforcement is entitled to do in the name of law enforcement.

 

[Trent]

Why, yes! Yes I have seen PLENTY of peaceful protests!

They happen ALL THE TIME, as a matter of fact. People just don't give them much attention because they're (insert drum roll here) peaceful.

Examples?

I've been in a few in my day...




8,000+ gun owners 'storming the capital building' in Springfield back in 2012 to lobby our representatives.

Nothing was hurt except the pride of the anti-gunners... they managed a lousy one busload of paid supporters following our visit.

Cops didn't interfere, people were civil, and not a single store was pillaged.

 

[leadcounsel]

8,000+ gun owners 'storming the capital building' in Springfield back in 2012 to lobby our representatives.

Nothing was hurt except the pride of the anti-gunners... they managed a lousy one busload of paid supporters following our visit.

Cops didn't interfere, people were civil, and not a single store was pillaged.

And that is how it's done. An uneventful peaceful protest - with certainly a lot of armed people but no show of force.

I too have been in various peaceful protests. My statement above was badly worded and misunderstood.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

These are fair points - and I support the 1A and right to peacably protest. While some of these do turn into riots - it's the rioting ones in which I was referring. The rioting that costs lives and money...

Poor word choice/explanation on my point. I would have assumed that mistake was beyond obvious, given the photos, context, and explanation that I went into...

In other words, if hundreds of angry mobsters are descending on your neighborhood, looting, shooting, and throwing firebombs... are the police in MRAPs a welcomed presence or are you just as happy sitting in your living room with your AR15 hoping it all goes away...?

I'm pretty sure I understood your underlying point, though.

Riots happen as part of a "mob mentality". When large groups of angry people get together, you have to be careful in dealing with them because they DON'T respond as logical, reasonable individuals would. A triggering event can cause a violent, cascading reaction that has none of the usual checks & balances and restraints that inhibit individual behavior.

Once this happens, there are essentially three ways to handle the mob: containment, crowd dispersal tactics, or an overwhelming violent response in kind. All have their drawbacks but, almost certainly, taking the path of overwhelming violent response has the far more dire consequences. Containment and crowd dispersal tactics are the lesser of the three, but have their own drawbacks which must be weighed as well.

 

[wojownik]

In other words, if hundreds of angry mobsters are descending on your neighborhood, looting, shooting, and throwing firebombs... are the police in MRAPs a welcomed presence or are you just as happy sitting in your living room with your AR15 hoping it all goes away...?

I'll digress for a second, to get this back to an on-topic THR theme ...

While I still don't see the MRAP as tactically useful in every circumstance, the MRAP is just an indicator of a larger issue. I lived though the DC riots in 1991 and remember watching the rioters flip a police car. Aside from search and recovery missions, bomb disposal, etc ... the presence of a big truck like the MRAP does has a pacification factor to it. I can imagine the rioters on the street I was might well have quieted down some if an MRAP appeared (more likely, they'd just appear on another street). FWIW, I was hunkered down keeping a female friend relatively calm, armed only with a Louisville slugger youth bat, and a big law text book (the book probably would have hurt more than the bat).

Local police and sheriff each have multiple MRAPs where I live now. I just see them as big freaking trucks that will cost too much to maintain, and can't even fit on many of the side streets in this area.

So, the MRAP is a bit of a red herring to me. On the other hand, concern is growing in Congress and in other political circles about other military hardware migrating into law enforcement under the 1033 programs - including full-auto M16 rifles (including to one sheriff's department I'm aware of that barely can meet training requirements for semi pistols), M79 grenade launchers, etc. I got to observe a few local PDs in their new tactical finery - BDUs, tan boots, helmets with night vision, vests, 6+ magazine loadout, mix of AR-15 semis and M16s from 1033. Overkill in a civilian context, or not?

For THR purposes, the real incongruity here is that while the civilian police are being so militarized, many state and local governments continue to explore new ways of limiting civilian rights to normal capacity pistol and rifle magazines. It's a situation that now has the attention across the political spectrum - liberal, conservative and libertarian.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I see the use of Molotov cocktails. Make sure you include a good trap/skeet gun in your collection.

Woody

 

[MtnCreek]

I see the use of Molotov cocktails. Make sure you include a good trap/skeet gun in your collection.

Woody

This must have been brewing for a while. Form 4's are around 8 months wait.

 

[Trent]

I see the use of Molotov cocktails. Make sure you include a good trap/skeet gun in your collection.

Woody

"PULL!"

For THR purposes, the real incongruity here is that while the civilian police are being so militarized, many state and local governments continue to explore new ways of limiting civilian rights to normal capacity pistol and rifle magazines. It's a situation that now has the attention across the political spectrum - liberal, conservative and libertarian.

This is the crux of the matter, and one we can use to our advantage.

"If police feel the need to carry X/Y/Z to defend themselves against normal criminals, why are you so insistent on neutering my ability to do the same for my family, given that I face the very same potential threats."

 

[Nom de Forum]

For THR purposes, the real incongruity here is that while the civilian police are being so militarized, many state and local governments continue to explore new ways of limiting civilian rights to normal capacity pistol and rifle magazines. It's a situation that now has the attention across the political spectrum - liberal, conservative and libertarian.

The editorial in todays Arizona Republic, a source not known for promoting a liberal or anti-gun agenda, is about the worrisome trend of militarizing the police.

http://www.azcentral.com/story/opin...tarizing-police-fails-serve-protect/14215145/

Trent -

This is the crux of the matter, and one we can use to our advantage.

"If police feel the need to carry X/Y/Z to defend themselves against normal criminals, why are you so insistent on neutering my ability to do the same for my family, given that I face the very same potential threats."

We could attempt to use it for our advantage, but it will never do anything to change the rants of rabid anti-gun zealots. Their first rebuttal will be some nonsense about how the police have "proper training" on when and how to use guns and that we don't. This tactic could get us hoisted on our own petard by those people neutral or apathetic to firearms ownership. Those people could perceive us as just as disturbingly unrealistic in our evaluation of the threat level as the police. I think we as responsible gun owners and defenders of the 2A should minimize expressing fear as our need for owning guns. Fear makes you look weak; confident and friendly expressions of the positive and non-fear related aspects of owning and using firearms is much more effective in swaying the neutral and keeping the apathetic apathetic.

 

[hso]

This has become a broader and more pointed debate outside not only beyond the original question of use of the 2A by private citizens but out of scope for THR.

Separate threads on the more in scope issues should be started so folks can debate those with the exuberance.