If that argument is used on me, I lob it back to the player who served it. Most people aren't violent, therefore the LEO shouldn't need a weapon either.

"In his state, most citizens cannot have a firearm. But he has one, issued for his job. So he amorphously threatens something the average citizen cannot. That is the point of the author. NOt your individual moral right to have firearms."
When he said "god-given" I assumed he meant the natural birthright of all people to defend themselves. I could read it in a sinister way, though, where he's saying a god gave a select few the right to decide who lives or dies.

I also notice he says "right to kill you" instead of stop you. If someone threatens our life, we have the right to kill them only as a collateral consequence of stopping them. Maybe my bullets stops him and kills him. Maybe by luck it hits leg, his gun goes flying, and the threat is neutralized. My right to self-defense at that point does not permit me to keep shooting. I don't get to decide who lives or dies.

He has a right to defend himself and his family. I think he's confused about the other stuff...

that is not logical. go quietly and orderly into an internment camp. no thank you

I do not disagree on this point. see my above comments on bully pulpit. The officer is well aware that law abiding citizens in his state do not legally have the right to carry a firearm. He does through his privileged status. I frankly understand his sound-off. I wouldn't have suspended his twitter acct. But we can and are sounding off back as citizens. Plenty of people are speaking out against protesters calling for violence. Where are the police officers admitting they are not the police officers of my childhood?

I want to try to make an at least adequate reply to your excellent post. I have gone back and read the original tweet a couple of times, and I still come up with a different conclusion.

You mention the number of times that cop TV shows demonstrate that LE's break the law to get the bad guy. This implies that cops are 'allowed' to break the law, that the Law is beyond the law. We both agree that this is bad. On the other hand, if the people watching the shows come away with the impression that the Law is, as the saying goes '...more like guidelines...' as far as they personally are concerned, then I do not think this is all bad. Let me be clear: I am not an anarchist, but I do feel that we are in a Catch 22 situation where 'ignorance of the law is no excuse' but there is a proliferation of tens of thousands of laws, regulations, and directives that apply to each of us. I have a high regard for the Constitution; I do not think that this proliferation of laws is what the authors of the Constitution imagined it would happen. Many of the multitude of laws etc are not Constitutional, but there is no way to 'clear the board' of them - the only way to function is to blithely go on one's business, hoping no one notices/cares; flying under the radar of society, as it were. This comes down to disobeying the law on a regular basis.

Indeed, I would go so far to say that those people who are specifically empowered by society to use violence, eg LE, need to be the people who are most meticulous in observance of the law. But the officer did not say anything that was illegal or unConstitutional. He just said that he would use legal (and god given) power to do what was right - to protect his family and other people. He would do this off-duty, at the movies. I am seeing him as someone who is standing on 'my' side.

I agree that our caving to TSA is not comprehensible from the point of view of our Constitutional freedoms. Judge Napolitano was quoted today (other thread) as saying that the 4th Amendment is now defunct - per the NSA's ability to keep info on all of us for 5 years. I am not comfortable with that.

I agree that the police force must be constrained by the Law. They cannot represent the Law without having that moral altitude. (This is an idealistic statement of great hope and little reality, unfortunately. But I have posted on this before.)

So, if the cop's statement is, "I am beyond the law and I can do whatever I want." then we agree that he needs to be shut down. If he is saying, "At least I can still carry a gun around with me, and I will protect people with it." then I think he is a guy who is on my side.

Oh. Thank you for the great discussion, khalling.

Jan

I agree regarding the ad hominem but I disagree on the false choice. This is not about choosing either this confused officer over a crazed mad man. This is about-if this officer is confused on these points, how many other officers are as well? This guy just said outloud what I have had a suspicion about for some time. It's ultimately an entitlement perspective. To give an example: how many cop/detective shows are there where the good guys break the law in every episode for a "justice" ending? IF anything-you should see in those shows, episode upon episode where they don't get the crook because they are constrained by their limited powers. actually I think it would be good for ratings...but what' at work there is if I can get you comfortable with the idea of me (good guy) stretching rules-but just enough-to nail the bad guy, then what's the next thing you'll be comfortable with? Why do we stand for TSA for example? Clearly the whole concept of TSA is completely unConstitutional-but we submit under a false impression of security and I'll comply if it means you get the bad guy. Nothing could be further from the framers' intentions. The framers would argue-let a dozen bad guys go free to protect the rights of one good guy who was falsely accused. This is not a false choice, btw. It is the whole purpose (morally) behind the legal concept of due process.I'm a bit off track here...getting back, we citizens constrain our police force on purpose. Some police will lose their lives doing their job, but if we say here, we always give you the benefit of the doubt over the citizen instead of the other way around? we have opened a door to losing our freedoms. and I think this guy's mindset shows that concept in action.

I didn't start driving at 70, so I had quite a few experiences in my younger years, including having a patrolman pointing a 357 at me because my car matched the description of a stolen vehicle. Patience, reasonable behavior, and a sense of humor always seemed to work.

Correct.
If the right you are discussing requires that another person do something he wouldn't otherwise do, you don't have that as a right, you have it as a desire. Thus the "right to an abortion", the "right to housing", ad nauseum, are not RIGHTS, they are DESIRES. To fulfill them, someone must do something for you;even if you pay him; it is the element of force - even implied - that makes it illegitimate. To exercise your right to free speech, no one has to do anything [even listen]. and so on.
Rand said something on the order of "one person's want or need is not a blank check on my bank account."

DrZ - At your age [close to mine] you will receive different treatment from the police that someone who is 20 [especially males]. Yes, it does make a difference that you are courteous - but if you look at the "crimes involving cars"; speeding, DUI, transporting illegal substances, as well as cars being used to get from one crime scene to another place - the police are going to look at you or me and think "not dangerous".
walk in the young man's moccasins for a while and it will start to make more sense.

My current sheriff (the one I keep voting for) is behind my legal right to open carry, though I do not care to make timid people uncomfortable.
My pistol permit allows me to keep my weapon concealed. I also prefer the element of surprise.

Many are the scenarios I can imagine. I am simplifying because I don't want to be up all night..
1. I called 911 because I've been burglarized. I hear a noise and I go outsized with my gun. Cops arrive and point guns at me. I lay down my weapon and raise my hands, all the time yelling "I called you!" Then I do whatever the cops tell me to.
2. I'm in a grocery store. Cop or someone dressed like a cop starts shooting everyone. I'll shoot the cop or whatever he is. Freaking self-defense!
3. Maybe I just listed the two extremes. I could go on and on.
4. Wild card. It's Year 2020 and I'm in a revolutionary army shooting at gun-grabbing uniformed useful idiots of a Marxist Tyrant. I'm sure the he or she will be a DINO. Democrat In Name Only.
OMG! I'm a dino over the lower-cased clan!

I see your points. I guess where I come down to is that I would rather have *someone* 'confusedly on my side' in a movie theater than have the only one armed be the criminal-berserker.

I would like to chat with the cop - sometime when he is not venting angry slogans online.

I think that labeling him as stupid is egregious.

We have disagreed before; it is fun arguing with you (though you always leave a few bruises for me to admire afterwards). I do not think either of us expect total agreement from anyone - it is actually healthy to rationally disagree and get a sense of perspective on an issue (that you cannot get talking to your own brain).

Jan

The key word here is "should". Take a good look at world history and note how many times people have had to defend themselves against government. Sometimes without the benefit of fire arms. The period between 1914 and 1945 is a good example.

By the way, you are using the same fallacy I objected to above. Namely, changing the subject and attacking the person. The US constitution has nothing to do with the philosophy of AR who of course was not around at that time. You attack me by saying I should review the 9th amendment as if I was ignorant. Maybe you should read more and get a better understanding of the philosophy documented in AR's writing. Then you might not be changing the subject and attacking me.

No victim--no crime. The state/society is not an individual or entity. Both are a collective conceptual idea with no actual physical presence except for the gathering of individuals acting in concert, which just returns one to where's the victim.

The only thing that the framers of the constitution did was restrict congress from passing certain legislation. That is all. They did not guarantee anyone anything. The 9th amendment and most of the others outside of the 13th are virtually meaningless and serve only to undermine the original document.

Exactly!

But then you have to ask, what's the rights of a citizen when the cop points a gun at him. Does the citizen have the same right to react with shooting when threatened by the cop, if the citizen knows he's not involved in anything illegal?