The Benchmade Controversy

Past a certain point I have to agree. Up to a point though, I think people are trying to lighten a very serious issue. And there are also going to be some fringe psychopaths in every group.

Ok. Got it. I wasn't sure in the context above.

Old Spice, you're perspective is always refreshing.

Collin,
The mass shooting problem has nothing to do with firearms, try thinking of a solution that doesn't include them either.

"I am still discussing issues of steels and performance at this stage."
--Cliff Stamp

"Cause geometry cuts, .....steel determines the level and the duration"
--Roman Landes

"But in general, I'm all about high performance, Ergos, safety. That's why I've been accused of 'designing in the dark' "
--Sal Glesser

Quote
C Amber

I also don't like the militarization of police. But I prefer it to see it from the opposite way. I don't think they should be as heavily armed as they are in many cases, but then I wonder if it wasn't necessary in order to deal with the level of crimes people committed / aggression they are capable of manifesting. (I'm thinking the infamous LA case where the bank robbers had body armor.)

Radley Balko’s book, "Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America’s Police Forces", presents an interesting history of this. IMS, he argues that the militarization is the result of the drug war and federal grant programs more than actual or perceived need. I think you, and everyone else in this thread, would enjoy the book.

Thank you Tarantella! It sounds interesting. I'll add it to the Amazon wish list.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Always in search of a good choppa'

Thank you Tarantella! It sounds interesting. I'll add it to the Amazon wish list.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Always in search of a good choppa'

Quote
tarantella

Quote
C Amber

I also don't like the militarization of police. But I prefer it to see it from the opposite way. I don't think they should be as heavily armed as they are in many cases, but then I wonder if it wasn't necessary in order to deal with the level of crimes people committed / aggression they are capable of manifesting. (I'm thinking the infamous LA case where the bank robbers had body armor.)

Radley Balko’s book, "Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America’s Police Forces", presents an interesting history of this. IMS, he argues that the militarization is the result of the drug war and federal grant programs more than actual or perceived need. I think you, and everyone else in this thread, would enjoy the book.

Already know it.

Part of the problem with the 2nd amendment is it’s somewhat vague nature.

My view is that the primary purpose of the 2nd amendment is not hunting, self-defense, or sport. The primary purpose is defense against tyranny, the ability to overthrow a government that is not abiding by the constitution.

So any law preventing citizens from owning military-grade weaponry (yes this includes all small arms and everything up to tanks, SAM’s, LAW’s, etc.) is unconditional. If the armed forces and the police use it, it should be available to any citizens who can afford to purchase it. Intentionally inflating prices to prevent this would also be unconstitutional.

In lieu of being able to afford anti-vehicle weapons, people should be able to make shaped charges and EFP’s as a stand-in for actual rockets. Many modern tanks still can’t survive a direct hit from an appropriate EFP, and they’re much cheaper than a real LAW rocket system.

I’m perfectly comfortable with the idea of me or my neighbors being able to equip an emergency militia force if the need arises, including explosives, tanks, planes, etc. In fact I find that idea much more comfortable than the current state of affairs, where we (citizens) are mostly outgunned by both the police and the military.

In the past it was generally not like this, citizens had direct access to the same weapons that the government did. Only in recent decades has this changed, and I haven’t heard a single argument as to why it’s necessary or constitutionally-appropriate.