David VanDusen said:
I'll keep it short because people don't like to be destoryed by walls of text.
I've noticed in the last few years that gamers are a very very fickle former subculture. That is why I actually would like to have their opinion on this matter.
I just got done doing a little research for a speech class, and in the process I discovered something I had only ever heard in rumors or passing but never took the time to personally look into. As it turns out, via local courts and the United States Supreme Court, the Police in the United States are not legally nor do they have a "Consitutional Duty" to protect the people.
Simple google searches can provide dozens of case info pages so I won't ramble, but it does force the hand of that other discussion which is so popular here which is Gun Control. I've noticed that a lot of people from other countries have an even stronger negative opinion about Gun Control and the rampart problem in the US than liberals here do.
What I wonder via everyones thoughts is whether or not the problem is too few trained armed citizens (which is a constitutional right here and strongly supported and dictated by the founding fathers) or the absence of police obligated by law and review to do a proper job (or in general) of protecting the public.
Any thoughts?
You have to understand that the police are generally provided by the state or town and as such can have varying mission statements. The only authorities the federal goverment can speak for are things like the FBI that are organized and budgeted federally.
Your correct that The Constitution does not say anything about the police, because The Federal Goverment was never intended to be as powerful as it is now, that kind of stuff was up for the states to work out in their own back yard (so to speak). Things like the FBI are fairly recent developments and have been contreversial for that reason. I think Hoover started the FBI's predecessor in like 1924 (the name eludes me) and the FBI itself didn't exist until 1935. It represents a changing mentality (for good or ill) from that of the founding fathers of the country who were very much into the general independance of the states and their right to set their own policies, handle their own policing, and so on.
It wouldn't surprise me if many towns don't have anything in their police mission statements defining the police as existing to protect the public. Heck, down here in New England it's sort of "chic" to be authentic and to keep as many guidelines like that as archaic as possible... which mixed results. Back in the old days a lot of "common sense" was assumed that doesn't exist nowadays, especially with a larger population and an evolved legal system of contridictory precedents. As I learned in Criminal Justice classes there were some areas where Murder was not officially a crime (and this was used as a defense) because nobody thought you should have to actually write that down as a law because nobody would be stupid enough to think otherwise....
To be honest I think the whole "police as public servants" thing has caused more problems than it has solved. In general the police exist to maintain order and enforce laws. A lot of problems seem to come from those responsibilities becoming entertwined with other things that have lead to moral and conceptual questions about what the police should and should not be able to do, and/or how they do their job.
One thing to remember is the old statement "this is a nation of laws, not one of justice" which people oftentimes quote ironically, while missing the entire point. Justice is a subjective thing especially seen through the eyes of people. This is why we have laws that are intended to be enforced uniformly accross the board to maintain order and keep society running. The idea to make it so that one person does not get 10x the punishment of another for the same crime due to what the people that happen to be there think is just at the time.
Aa far as gun control goes, I am VERY pro-gun, which is perhaps odd to some people because I am also very pro-law enforcement (well, usually). I see the right to bear arms as an important part of our system of checks and balances. For all the powers I believe the police have, I think one of the things that prevents them from getting out of hand is simply that anyone they go up against could be armed. What's more it's possible for them to deal with an armed individual, or a small group of armed individuals, but in the case of a popular revolt in response to a law or something truely unfair the police are going to be powerless. Not to mention the simple fact that even on a small scale ANY law ultimatly has to be enforced by the guy on the street who knows the risks involved. Plenty of bad laws that wound up on the books never wound up bothering anyone because no police officer with half a brain was going to risk getting a shotgun lobotomy for some politician's pet project. If you read lists of "dumb laws" that nobody knew exist or were on the books...
I believe in leaving law enforcement to the professionals, not to armed mobs of civilians, but at the same time I like those professionals to be repectful and properly wary.
I think a lot of other countries with very strong criticism of US gun policy are that way out of jealousy even if they don't term it that way. Simply put none of those nations, no matter how seemingly free, would ever allow the populance to arm itself, and the populance knows it. This comes to a head once in a while where you see people in various countries complaining over how the goverment ignores he people despite all these protests and such. The reason is that without an armed populance there is no teeth behind it. Non-violent protest has it's root of power in the threat of violence, which is what people like Martin Luthor King Jr. tapped into in making what amounted to shows of force, likewise all those hippies succeeded like they did because of groups like the SLA (left wing terrorists that kidnapped and brainwashed Patty Hearst) and various acts of micro-terrorism all through the country that helped carry things like "The Anarchists Cookbook" to infamy. In the US we do have toothless protests by those who forget this (look at Wall Street), but the potential always exists. The goverment pretty much knows the nation exists by the will of the people in a very direct fashion. A lot of people talk about how armed civilians would have no chance against planes and tanks, but also forget that we have an army of volunteers as opposed to a caste or one made up largely of political appointees. Not to mention that if the military ever did unleash enough force to stop a popular revolution the nation would be leveled, the winners would not wind up with a country anywhere near like the one they wanted. I mean if you start carpet bombing cities and driving tanks through all the buildings you wind up ruling over say the rubble of Beirut, not a wealthy and powerful country.
