Why don't we demand that states with 10 round magazine limits apply them to police too?

[RPZ]

Why? Because it won't fly. Proponents will simply say well "Laauuuuw Enforcement has a compelling neeeeeed to have laaaarge capacity magazines to counter the fiiirepower of heeeavvily aaaaaarmed criiiiminals".

 

[Kleanbore]

Whether restrictions that apply to private citizens are reasonable is one issue.

But to contend that they should applied to sworn officers is luscious. The duties of law enforcement officers officers and the rights of others are not identical.

 

[Spats McGee]

. . . . to contend that they should applied to sworn officers is luscious. . . .

Umm, luscious? I tend to think you mean ludicrous.

Damn autocorrect.

 

[CapnMac]

Umm, luscious? I tend to think you mean ludicrous

Dunno.
They might have meant "lushiness," the condition of being or persisting in being a lush (e.g. dipsomaniacal)
I know this thread keeps driving me to drink (and dam' stingy about the ride home after).

 

[RPZ]

In being a lush? Or just being lush?

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

...And they found a way to circumvent that by politicizing judges. Over time, they threw enough money at the system and worked from "behind the scenes" and got what they wanted. Now it mostly just serves to put on a show to get us to accept whatever they are going to do. It's a SCAM

Well...I read through all that, and I'd comment on more than I'm going to except it would be an exercise in futility and there's far too much material there for me to wax futile for that long. So I'll limit myself to this, for now.

Nobody "found a way to circumvent" anything with the ( Supreme Court) judges. The way was deliberately planted in the Constitution itself in the very process of selecting the judges.

The President nominates. The Senate approves. And the term is for life.

There's "politicizing" literally written all over this. And it's been going on for nearly 2 1/2 centuries, now. This "politicizing" was recognized from the very beginning and is ultimately why the Constitution was written the way it is.

Even FDRs stacking of the deck, and Congress' response to that, was how the system was deliberately designed to work.

As for "scam (ing)"...that's part and parcel of what governments do. This is why our Constitution came into existence the way it is. It's a recognized characteristic of all governments, and nothing new under the sun. You can't ever eliminate it...but you CAN institute the means to fight it.

 

[entropy]

Why don't we demand that states with 10 round magazine limits apply them to police too?

Let's start with this; It would give the enemy aid and comfort, in that it would further convince gun banners that, since we are demanding the police go to a ten-round limit, that they are winning the fight.

Then, why hamstring cops even further than they already are? WIth riots (Ferguson) and "civil disobedience" (Blocking the freeway in St Paul over the shooting and verdict in the Philando Castile incident) breaking out dang near everytime a cop uses their gun, why reduce the magazine capacity?

Instead, how about hitting closer to home and demanding Secret Service and Senatorial security details be limited to 10 rounds? Well, for one, it'd never happen. About as likely to happen as the email my Dad sends me every so often that suggests that the law of the land become that Senators and Congresspeople have to use the same health benefits as everyone else. (It'd be more to the point if they'd have to use the VA health system-I mean they are govt. workers...)

 

[hso]

All the logical, and many illogical, arguments have been made and camps have formed so there's no value in this going on.