BF2S Forums No obligation to police the community?

usmarine wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

On the Benjamen Franklin equation where an increase in security can cause a decrease in liberty, does this type of system decrease liberty? I think its funny that people will cry up and down about infringing the second amendment but won't bat an eyelash at the idea that Marshall law might be declared in a US city or that other civil rights would be infringed. I say take the bill of rights as a whole, you can't pick and choose.

you have to evolve as a society, and that includes your laws.  its a fine balance sure, but you cant just go by what was said a couple hundred years ago. (women couldnt vote, slaves, the indians, etc)

just going blindly off the constitution and bill of rights is just like countries blindly following the koran.

True enough, life changes, technology changes, but the idea in the quote provides some measure to view todays policies while attempts are made to strike the balance. I look at the quote as a statement of pessimism, a "not-so-rosey" colored glasses to analyse policy. To me marshall law is over kill, I even question the efficacy of underage curfews where the consitutional rationale for permitting curfews is that minors don't have rights. To me that's a joke on all of us and lays the foundation to dare to ask the question of whether marshall law could be applied in this situation. IMO its an ubsurdity, and a slippery slope that's already been rooted in American policy.

Last edited by Diesel_dyk (2009-03-23 16:22:54)

Hey!  Schenectady has an official song!

In Schenectady
Our Schenectady
What a warm and friendly place it is to be
Nestled among plains and hills
With a beautiful river that always gives us thrills
And stores and shops with all that one might need or wish to see
And legends and tales and lots of history
Oh Schenectady
Our Schenectady
Let us now plan and help to make it grow
If we will all do our best
Then others can do the rest
For places to study and learn in
Places to work and earn in
Places to live in happiness

source, you can't make this stuff up!

Hang on a sec... I thought the police were always the good guys and were always right? Someone please post that the police probably had reasons for their actions, or all will not be right with the forum.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Braddock wrote:

You've raised a good point here, it is interesting how vehemently opposed many Americans are to things that Europeans would view as inherently positive (e.g. socialised medicine) and how blase they are towards things that Europeans would view as inherently sinister (e.g. big brother style policing as was seen in the days of the Stasi and the KGB).

Perhaps it is only because we have truly seen the sinister side of such things in our recent past while Americans haven't really, not on any significant scale at least. What do you reckon?

That's a good theory, although Britain apparently forgot those lessons with their camera prevalence.

It looks like Ireland still remembers though.

I think this story should have its own thread, but this thread has turned this way so I'll post it here

What do you guys think of this? Gun Fire Detection system

I'm no fan of big brother and video surveillance but to me this seems like a good use of technology. IMO Why limit the 2nd amendment, instead put in a detection system to alert police to gun fire in an area.

On the Benjamen Franklin equation where an increase in security can cause a decrease in liberty, does this type of system decrease liberty? I think its funny that people will cry up and down about infringing the second amendment but won't bat an eyelash at the idea that Marshall law might be declared in a US city or that other civil rights would be infringed. I say take the bill of rights as a whole, you can't pick and choose.

Holy crap Deus Ex much.


Then again, if it has the same impact as it did in the game, it pretty much just means a skyrocket in the production of sound suppressors for guns on the black market and knife crime.

People should have the right to carry unconcealed weapons I think the 2nd amendment remains as consistent to this age. That would dramatically minimize gangs and everything else that goes on.

I wonder how long it will be before there are armed gated communities for wealthy working people... and a barren wasteland of tent cities and apocalyptic conditions surrounding these armed communities...  is that what they meant by change?  lol

Warhammer wrote:

People should have the right to carry unconcealed weapons I think the 2nd amendment remains as consistent to this age. That would dramatically minimize gangs and everything else that goes on.

Study by John Lott/David Mustard of University of Chicago(1997 Journal of Legal Studies) studied impact of Right to Carry Concealed Handgun Laws on Crime rate between 1977 and 1992: Reduced murder 8.5%, reduced rape 5%, and reduced severe assaults 7%. During that time, if right to carry had been common in US, there would have been 1,600 less murders, 4,200 less rapes, and 60,000 less severe assaults.

Vermont 1980(most freedom to carry concealed weapons): murder rate: 22% of National Avg., robbery rate: 15% of National Avg.

Trained Concealed Carry Permit Holders shoot innocents in error 1/3 as many times as Police annually.

Effect of "Shall Issue" Concealed Handgun laws in US: multi-victim public shootings down 84%, death in said shootings down 90%, injury in said shootings down 82%

Dade County, Florida created a tracking system to track the frequency of crimes committed by their 21,000 Concealed Weapon Permit Holders in 1987, between then and 1992, 4 crimes were committed by permit holders, none involving injuries, no innocents were harmed by a permit holder. The program was abandoned in 1992 because there were too few crimes to render it useful. The entire state of Florida recorded a total of 18 crimes by permit holders between 1987 and 1994. As of 1998, there was one incident when a permit holder shot someone after a traffic accident, but the shooter was determined to be acting is self defense. As of 1998, no permit holder had shot a police officer, while there were several cases of permit holders saving the life of an officer.

The Supreme Court and various lower courts have held that "police are not obligated to protect individuals from crime".

I can email all sources to anyone who wishes to dispute this information. (I am doing a research paper on the topic of Gun Control)

Last edited by nickb64 (2009-03-24 23:09:12)

Nice to hear from a local.