Quote Originally Posted by Ronin13 View Post
Because they're a subsection of the public that should be afforded the opportunity to be on equal footing with those who break the laws. Since laws say that such and such is illegal, and criminals don't obey laws, then they will acquire that which is illegal and be at a greater advantage than those who would confront them. Case in point- N. Hollywood Shootout: Bad guys are armed with assault rifles (yes, real assault rifles- full auto), police are armed with pistols and shotguns- obviously outgunned. As such it became department policy to meet the threat and put LE on equal footing, so all LAPD patrol units had .223 rifles assigned to them. Best tools for the job, so they can do their job effectively. As much as loss of life is terrible, no matter who it is, shouldn't those more likely to confront criminals have a factor that mitigates risk as much as possible? Even if we're not able- due to stupid, unconstitutional laws- then why basically put everyone at risk? I don't expect you to understand my viewpoint or opinion on this, I'm simply trying to explain that we, normal everyday folks, do not go out of our way to confront, detain, or otherwise stop violent, aggressive criminals, it's discouraged. But LE does, and by denying them what we're unjustly denied for the sake of principal (or so you can get them to start petitioning those who didn't listen to OUR grievances) only creates a greater and unnecessary risk for their job. We entrust LE with enforcing laws, and arresting those who break the law... but f**k them, they can't have the equipment they need to do the job because we have been hamstrung by our legislators. Sounds more like jealousy than justice to me. YMMV.
Trust me i understand your view point but from a constitutional stand point this subsection that is above the law is just plane wrong. If the law makers want to limit the public it should apply to the LEOs also because they are nothing more then the public. The 2A is to put us on a level playing field with the government if the need ever arose. If the erosion to the constitutions applied to everyone LEOs included, like they are supposed to be, do you think we would see this erosion? Your view is for the protection of the LEOs and the public and it is a good one, my view is from the documents created in the founding of our country stating that we are all equal. I see it as means to an end of the BS laws that have passed around the country also.