When seconds count, the police are only minutes away, but they are doing really important work, writing summonses and raising revenue.
Common sense from the ComPost???
Are there pigs flying somewhere?
That statement is asinine. The police cannot protect you when someone is breaking into your home at 3 am, and they will tell you so.............
Haven’t there been court cases that said that the police are NOT responsible for an individual’s safety?
What really needs to be studied is how this new republic reject finds a forum to spew his liberal tripe.
How is it possible for a person to write eight paragraphs of coherent historical discussion strongly supporting the need for the government to recognize an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, and then conclude with five sentences that directly contradict every point just made?
I guess only someone with a graduate degree in journalism can be that foolish.
On a side note, many of my state’s gun laws were enacted during Reconstruction to disarm blacks. Racist Democrats supported them then, and Democrats (who may still be racists) support them today. It’s just a little surprising to see an article in a major national newspaper that supports these gun laws even while explicitly acknowledging their racist purpose.
It all depends on how any particular government agency chooses to define “reasonable and necessary.” I’m willing to bet their definition is a lot less 2nd Amendment friendly than I would be happy with.
More racebaiting from the Compost.
Nah, don't think so. Ever heard of a police artist? They're the guys who come out after a crime and draw those really neat chalk lines around the folks who waited on the cops to protect them.
No...it don’t need to be relooked at. It was a different time and a different era. It has nothing to do with life as it is today. So give it a rest....let it go......get a life!!!
“Firearms pose threats to modern-day urban dwellers — crime, suicide, accidents — that may outweigh any self-defense they provide. Unlike 19th-century rural Americans, we can call on professional police.”
Check the founders’ context again. It was the militia at Lexington and Concord, a loose confederation of like-minded and equipped individuals. The overarching concept of the Second Amendment is defense against tyranny. It is the individual’s responsibility to be armed. It is the government’s responsibility do defend the country (calling on the militia if needed). That an armed society is more polite (criminals have less traction) is simply a joyous byproduct of individual taking on the responsibility of personal and familial defense.
“...a ship can get you work. A gun can help you keep your ship.”
“Unlike 19th-century rural Americans, we can call on professional police.”
Because all Americans live in cities today.
Oh, wait. They don’t.
My parents live less than a mile outside a city, and have had to wait several hours for law enforcement to tend to a wreck on the road in front of their house. Good thing nobody was breaking into their house.
> Unlike 19th-century rural Americans, we can call on professional police.
I haven’t had that good a laugh in a long while.
Nothing beats the 3 S’s (Shoot, Shovel and Shutup.)
Did you see the story posted here last week, about a Covina CA woman who was killed by burglars, while she was on the phone begging the 911 operator for help?
“reasonable and necessary” is a cover for pretty much unlimited restriction in this case. Don’t grant the WP any Constitutional common sense.
“Firearms pose threats to modern-day urban dwellers — crime, suicide, accidents — that may outweigh any self-defense they provide. Unlike 19th-century rural Americans, we can call on professional police.
In the D.C. gun case, the Supreme Court should find that local governments may enact reasonable and necessary restrictions on dangerous weapons. To be sure, if the justices also back an individual right to keep and bear arms, that will be harder for legislators to do. But as a matter of historical interpretation, the court would be correct.”
The entire Colfax incident that the writer recounts is one proof why people need to keep and bear arms. Then the writer contradicts the entire premiss of the article by the above-quoted statement.
Has human nature somehow changed or improved since the Colfax massacre? The massacred blacks had no access to police promptly arriving on the scene, but today we do...
What comes to my mind are the images of a local SWAT team waiting outside Columbine High School until the shooting stopped before taking “effective” action...
Many departments BARELY require a GED for the police accademy!
Professional Police with one the highest rate of domestic violence of other careers?
Professional Police who are routinely shown to tamper with evidence and manipulate testimony. (ie drop guns, stepping too close to a suspect to induce a trip which causes arms to fling up and the officer can claim self defense, tasering anything that moves, absurd swat overtraining, police who routinely violate civil rights...)
If the police do manage to “get to you” in time, you become expendible as long as they have contained the perpetrator in your house.
It has always been open season on Black Republicans.