Second amendment vs militarized police departments.?

2016-11-04 2:42 am
So I have a question on why Americans want to be allowed to carry assault or automatic weapons but on the other hand they don't want their police agencies to be militarized or have such weapons. The question is if civilians want to get their hands on automatic or assault rifles, why can't their police departments be militarized in order to take down a threat like a like a civilian that turns against other people with their own assault rifle or militarized weapons? I'm not against the second amendment and I actually support it and I'm also a American. But why limit police agencies to just handguns and regular non-armored police vehicles?

回答 (6)

2016-11-04 2:50 am
Because the police work for the government. So when the government becomes tyrannical, the police can be turned against us.
2016-11-04 5:49 pm
Who says we want to limit police to handguns?

Without being militarized, they have access to body armor, shotguns, and a variety of rifles including AR-15s.

They also usually have SWAT teams with tactical training. They've had these since the 60s at least.

What police don't need for policing are giant armored military vehicles like the MMPVs.
2016-11-04 2:56 am
huh ?

the only ones who do not want the police to have weapons

are the very same idiots that are against the 2nd amendment
2016-11-04 2:50 am
Don't ever think we don't have what it takes if we need it, and people need jobs.
2016-11-04 2:43 am
Cool
2016-11-04 2:43 am
Say what? They already do have them.

收錄日期: 2021-04-21 23:57:32
原文連結 [永久失效]:
https://hk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20161103184210AAoRIDR

檢視 Wayback Machine 備份