Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jorgelito
While every citizen is afforded, the right to defend themselves (through the bearing of arms), it is not the only, singular solution. Rather, it is a component of a more comprehensive plan composed of an armed citizenry (properly trained), better community ties between police and citizens, community welfare (safe parks, schools, centers of activity) - providing outlets and safe alternatives.
It is one thing to tell the people to rise up against the gangsters, but you need to have a framework in place so that these people aren't left hanging in a vulnerable position.
So in other words, a problem like this would need to be attacked at different levels: addressing societal ills, resources, law enforcement, parenting, community, self-defense, neighborhood watch, neighborhood diligence.
I think that is reasonable.
|
I agree 110%. The community must be given the resources, the confidence and the
drive to help combat this problem on the ground level. Without community involvement, all of the police presence in the world isn’t going to help. Conversely, the community needs the teeth of law enforcement to back them up.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mixedmedia
Are people not allowed to own guns in New Jersey?
*edit* all I've found is a proposal to make it so that citizens cannot buy more than one handgun a month? Is this a problem?
|
I am a supporter of the Second Amendment. I believe in the right of the people to keep and to bear arms.
However…that is not without it’s limitations. For example…I see no need for John Q. Citizen to own an assault weapon. (AR-15, AK-47…what have you) Those are
offensive weapons, whereas handguns are
defensive weapons. Those that were in the military will know what I’m talking about. All of that said…I do
not feel that it is unreasonable that citizens cannot buy more than one handgun a month. Average Joe isn’t going to buy any more than that. Even a
collector shouldn’t feel inhibited by this simple restriction.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Astrocloud
The article says nothing about caseload.
The police are arresting people and the prosecuter is not charging them. Here let me quote, underline and bold. Forgive me for not doing this before:
Quote:
|
The police director, Garry F. McCarthy, worries that the prosecutor’s approach undermines his crime-fighting strategy of focusing on the small group of criminals responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime.
|
|
Bud…seriously….you’re losing me here. I consider myself…a
fairly intelligent man, but I’m having trouble following your thinking. Help me. Way up yonder, you posted that you felt that the fault lay with law enforcement. Ok…I wanted to know how you would handle it as a law enforcement administrator.
Now it seems that you’re placing the blame on the prosecutor's office. I would think that you would
want to focus on the small group of criminals responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime.
Look...from my personal experience...and you can take it or leave it...the cops have no friends. None, zero, zilch, nada. They are in a constant battle with street crime (a given), then again with the very public that they are trying to protect, and yet again with the very judicial system that they are trying to work within. There is no way to come home clean, and it doesn't was off. It blows big huge sticky chunks...trust me.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Astrocloud
If people are going after witnesses -the absolute most dumbest thing you can do is give in and stop the process. This is essentially "giving in to terrorism".
|
That’s easy to say. These people live in abject fear of these hoodlums. If they do testify against one of these “gangstas”, and his “homies” come to extract their pound of flesh, then, as you say, who's left to protect his loved ones?