Happy New Year - Armed Police on the Streets of Dublin

by Ballybough resident Tue Jan 02, 2007 00:17

Did you ask the officer why he was carrying the weapon? I'm sure he wouldn't of had a problem informing you.

by Dublin citizen Tue Jan 02, 2007 13:26

Well, given the degree of authoritarianism that stifles the Gardai, they're above the law according to themselves. Needless to say, they are not accountable to anyone and there is not an independent complaints commission to investigate cases of Garda brutality/mis-conduct. Look at what they did in Rossport- they beat peaceful protesters about.

by Con Carroll Tue Jan 02, 2007 14:17

I spoke about this last night with a known Dublin city Councillor, only to be told that I should be care-ful in what I was saying
New years Eve 10 p.m. there were armed cops out-side the north star hotel Talbot street

what have elected politicians done about this scenario which people are witnessing.
aslong as it is confined to people living in the Sheriff st area or Ballybough doest the state give a dam.?

these shootings only play into the right wing agenda of Mc Dowell. Williams Sunday World, Jim Cusack of Sunday Independent.

indeed non of us should be surprised that certain elements of the criminal world involved in heroin, cocaine in Dublin act with impunty by certain members of the Gardai.

by Dublin Citizen Tue Jan 02, 2007 15:03

Yep and dont forget Paul Reynolds in your list also. He is one of those Gardai lick asses that has come on the Radio in the past defending the Gardai in situations where there is no defense for such brutal behaviour by members of An Garda Siochana.

I've actually come to the conclusion that the PSNI are more accountable towards people than some members of the Gardai are. The Gardai abuse their powers, use upmost force against protesters and approach you as if you are guilty until proven innocent.

by ArmedGdaiNeeded Tue Jan 02, 2007 16:18

We live on mean streets people.

Many of the people who distribute drugs and guns around our streets and towns would not give an ounce of condsideration in ploughing through an unarmed garda checkpoint killing any uniformed officer who tried to stop them.

The unarmed gardai are entitled for their place of work like anybody else to be a safe one, having armed officers back them up is a deterrant against people who would wilfully harm them and not give it an ounce of thought.

God has nobody here seen the results form operation anvil, which are in effect armed checkpoints. Something like 600 firearms seized last year.

Many people here who like to buy their 10spot of grass once a week obviously dont see the handguns/shotguns and ak47's that enter the country with their "herbal plants" or "wonga".

by Arise Tue Jan 02, 2007 16:44

'Many of the people who distribute drugs and guns around our streets and towns would not give an ounce of condsideration in ploughing through an unarmed garda checkpoint killing any uniformed officer who tried to stop them.'

In Fairness when was the last time this happened. Lets face it, when looking at the behaviour of the gardai there is what would the result of having more armed gardai be? Well obvisiouly the 'badies' would get armed too to protect themselves. Looking at the gardai record with treating people in their custody and on the streets its inevitable this terrorism would increase.

Also interesting that the armed gardai are all on the north side. Will we be seeing any armed gardai at check points in Ranelagh? Prehaps outside Mcdowells office?

by anasastro Tue Jan 02, 2007 16:51

It is a worrying factor of today's society. As Aristotle rightly asked, "who shall guard the Guardians?" When I was in Eastern Europe, the presence of heavily armed, grim looking police patrols did have an effect. Friends of mine say that they dont like to be near a patrol on their own, and you can see people visibly quickening their steps as they walk past these 'attack machines'. We are small country however, and possibly with the ever more visible drug operations in the country, perhaps this brazen attitude is designed to match the attitudes of the drug lords??

by Fairytale land Tue Jan 02, 2007 17:44

God the opinions on this website really are of those living in a fairytale world.

Contrary to what alot of people here think the work of a Garda is not all issueing fines and holding back peaceful protestors. Working in any of the garda stations in west or north dublin stations on any night is an extremely dangerous occupation.

People in Ireland carry guns and knifes. It is necessary to have armed patrols working 24/7. Why ? To respond to an armed incident. Like the police who shot the pitbull who had attacked the 5yr old girl in England. Like the ERU who shot dead the two armed robbers in lusk. Like the armed Gardai who arrested the Ira man who had taken a family hostage in Rochestown in Cork.

Armed robberies occur all over Ireland every day, very few are reported.

by AAD Tue Jan 02, 2007 18:13

"Like the ERU who shot dead the two armed robbers in lusk. "

Except one of them wasn't armed.

by Dublin Citizen Tue Jan 02, 2007 18:41

Fairytale land,

What does the term 'Garda Siochana' mean?- Protectors of the peace, thats what.

A bit of good old fashioned Police work involves disarming an armed person through the use of brains and not brawns. Any nutter can use a gun but what are the consequences of arming someone? Someone somewhere is going to get shot and its the dead man's word against the Gardai's word. And you know how favourtism works here in this country...... In the Case of these new generation of Gardai, it sadly appears that the only thing they seem to know about is the use of brut ignorance. If you are pulled over for as little as speeding, they hound you like as if you are an animal. No other European Police force does that. In other words, they are free to treat you in whatever degrading way they want and at the same time, they never have to answer for this.

by Perseverance Wed Jan 03, 2007 18:56

There are six million people on the island of Ireland. So a few armed guards appear every now and then at check points. That's a "few" as compared to the "many" violent crimes we now see every day.

by Joseph K. Wed Jan 03, 2007 19:27

"We can only assume that the Garda with the automatic rifle..."

It's not an automatic rifle, its a submachine gun. And there is a big difference, assault rifles are designed to maximise the probability of killing people.

"has given some thought to the effect of high-velocity bullets whizzing around on the children and motorists nearby, in the event of him deciding to use such a deadly weapon in a built-up area."

If he did have to fire, why would you suppose he would miss? And aren't you suggesting by this that there could be a scenario where he might have to shoot someone?

"Look at what they did in Rossport- they beat peaceful protesters about."

That has nothing to do with anything. I agree with you, it's horrible what they're doing there and the Gardai do wrong things sometimes, which I'm not trying to and dont want to justify, but really, it has no relevance here. This isn't about the evils of the Gardai.

"Also interesting that the armed gardai are all on the north side. Will we be seeing any armed gardai at check points in Ranelagh? Prehaps outside Mcdowells office?"

I saw one in rathgar a few days ago, with more than one armed Guard. And when I was so privaleges to be inside McDowell's estate thing a few years ago there were armed Gardai by a car outside his house. It's not really the same though I guess.

"Except one of them wasn't armed."

As far as I understand it he was armed with a sledge hammer.

"No other European Police force does that."

Give me some evidence, they have to me. Also we have it way better than the US.

by A10 Wed Jan 03, 2007 23:45

Designed for maximum killing of people???It is a close quater battle weapon,designed for killing alot of people in as quick of time possible.It is inaccurate as most sub machine guns are,and a totally unnecessary weapon in the hands of a police force.
Even the average US police officer who has more chance of being involved in a shootout,cannot tote such a weapon.And rightly so.wonder why our unarmed police force rambo wing has such a weapon in a built up area???????

by . Wed Jan 03, 2007 23:56

That should be the way.... Why not arm the Gardai, they have never had it better for them than ever before. Anyone who says a word against their policy to their faces is threatened with arrest and the usual 'whats your name and address' bit. Offended? Why dont you not tell Sargent Conor O'Reilly all about that?

by Dublin Citizen Thu Jan 04, 2007 01:55

With all do in respect, I am not anti-establishment but I would question the way with which the Gardai act sometimes. Obviously I support the notion of an unarmed police force because it uses the concept of more 'People-friendliness'-remember back 10 years ago or so where the public had a good relationship between the gardai talking to them on the street and having a goog joke or two? I doubt youll ever see that again... Unfortunately, they have become more unfriendly approaching you in a very strict way anytime they see you walking the street minding your own business and stopping you just to be frisked. Even if you are found to be carrying nothing, they will just be on their way without even giving you an explanation why you were being frisked.

The Rossport issue changed my perception of the Gardai, however. It has some relevance here because let me explain why. If rogue members of the Gardai who policed that protest went unchallenged regarding their apparent misconduct then theres a good possibility that they will turn up again on the bad side of public opinion at another event: be it at a checkpoint, a stop and search etc. People have complained about Garda detectives acting outside their powers during searches and during numerous other protests etc. There has to be an independent Garda complaints commission set up to deal with complaints about the conduct of high ranking members of the Guards. Otherwise, they are like the American Police.

As regards arming them, I strongly believe that at this point and time, they do not deserve that well wanted privilege. If the complaints process at present is not fair enough to handle small scale complaints from genuine upholders of law and order then there is a good chance that once someone is mistakenly shot, there would be noone held to account for that either and that the Garda who fired the fatal shot would have his/her word favoured against the dead persons word. Thats the way the superintendents generally go... Not all of them, however.

by jim travers Fri Jan 05, 2007 00:04

In response to an article: Armed Gardai on our streets

I suppose it does look a bit intimidating to see a Garda standing on one side of the road with a gun by his side, ready and waiting ,but there again it is far better to see a Garda rather than a gun man or a vigilante displaying a self gratifying sense of authority as he or she uses the power over life or death at the point of a gun. It is dangerous times we live in and its people who have no respect for others that justfies the unfortunate presence of our Gardai being armed on our streets. Gone are the days when the very sight of a blue uniform was enough to encourage you to move on, or turn with the old laugh and joke as you stumbled out of the pub jesting at the people who are just doing their job and who also know a sense of humour, despite their obligations to carry out their duty.

When an elderly person or young child is killed or injured as a result of thugs and their activities, there is no point in shouting where where the Gardai when the bullets where flying. The vast majority of our Garda are unarmed , this in itself is a credit to their standing, in a society that is becoming increasing violent and lawless. The vast majority of people just want to live in peace, work and raise their families but there are a small minority of people who just want to use their violence and modes of violence to enhance their own being on the backs of those who just want to live. There is a saying : you are damned if you do and you are damned if you don't. Unfortunately the Gardai find themselves in this prediciment. Oh yes there are crooked Gardai, violent and law breaking Gradai but they will also be subjected to the law in which they were entrusted to uphold.

I was stopped at a chackpoin with armed Gardai on either side of my car. if the car in front of me contained two thugs who just happened to have guns at hand and who possibly wanted to die for their cause or their criminal activity, then I would be very thankful that the Gardai were there taking the brunt of the action so that I could go home and tell my wife and family about the situation that had unfolded. I would be able to sit in my local and tell my friends the story of the shootout, not forgetting that possibly one of the Gardai present was not given the same privledge of returning home to his family and telling them his story.
It time to cop on to all of this bashing nonsense and use our opinions and comments in order to improve our Gardai and not bash them into the ground and then ask "where were they when they were needed".

They may not be perfect and I may have all the concerns and worries many other people throughout the lenght and breath of this land also have, but one thing is certain, if they were not there then God save us all.

by Irwin Stelzer Fri Jan 05, 2007 01:03

The point is not about whether individual Gardai are good/bad/indifferent (although clearly in my opinion a good proportion are thugs), the point is that the latest wave of gangland crime is being cynically used to strengthen the forces of the state - to normalise the idea of Gardai wandering around with guns. Will the guns serve to stop or even curb the crime? No, there is no evidence for that whatsoever.

What's happening is a two way ploy - 1, the guns on the street is a populist move so the government is seen to take a "strong stance" on the issue of gang violence, and 2, it allows them to legitimise the idea of armed Gardai.

Waves of crime, or probably more accurately, waves of heightened perception of crime, have always been used by establishment capitalist politicans for those two purposes. Again and again, fear of crime is whipped up by a combination of media and establishment politicans, with being hard on crime becoming a political football with traditionally FF and FG promising to double, then treble the number of prison spaces / Gardai on the street / armed Gardai / fill in repressive measure as appropriate. The addition is this time that Rabbitte's New Labour is also getting in on the act.

I'm not saying that the issues of shootings etc aren't very serious and tragic - but they are being abused by the politicians. Their "solutions" are neither genuinely aimed at solving the problems, even from their perspective, nor are they actually going to have any impact.

What they will do is legitimise increased force by the Gardai. I think that is one thing that anyone who has ever been involved in any movement which in any way came up against the power of the state, would be firmly opposed to. The prospect of Conor O'Reilly and goons up in Rossport being tooled up with guns isn't as far fetched as it may seem. It clearly isn't going to happen this time around, but imagine in five or ten years time if there has been a spate of shootings and plenty of armed Gardai. Imagine the talk about armed paramilitaries (IRA) being behind the campaign and the need for the Gardai to defend themselves against any eventuality. Conor O'Reilly: "I want my shooting party"...

by bejaysus Fri Jan 05, 2007 14:08

Previous post on the UZI SMG:
"Designed for maximum killing of people???It is a close quater battle weapon,designed for killing alot of people in as quick of time possible.It is inaccurate as most sub machine guns are,and a totally unnecessary weapon in the hands of a police force."

The UZI has a somewhat "bad rep" from gangster movies as the weapon of choice for raving lunatics and gangsters. This is unfounded as I'm about to show, and while it is a close quarter weapon it is not designed for "battle".
Neither is it necessarily inaccurate. If you fire it in "Full Auto" it will of course empty it's clip at the rate of 600 rounds per minute in a matter of seconds, and with minimum accuracy. In the hands of a trained marksman however (and I would assume the ERU would be so trained) the weapon will be fired in Semi Auto (releasing one round per trigger pull) with deadly accuracy. For those still predisposed in believing hollywood some stats comparing the UZI to the H&K MP5 favoured by law enforcement all over the world:

H&K MP5:
Cartridge 9 × 19 mm Luger
Action Roller-delayed blowback, closed bolt
Rate of fire 800 round/min
Muzzle velocity 270 m/s (886 ft/s)
Effective range 200 m (219 yd)
Feed system 15- or 30-round detachable box magazine

UZI:
Cartridge 9 mm Parabellum, .22 LR, .45ACP, .41AE
Action open-bolt, blowback
Rate of fire 600 round/min
Muzzle velocity ~400 m/s (~1,310 ft/s)
Feed system 10 (.22 and .41AE), 16 (.45ACP) 20, 32, 40 and 50 round magazines

And for those still not convinced that the UZI is not a random baby killing machine, fear not. The UZI is being phased out of the ERU in favour of? -The H&K MP7A1. This should please the anti israeli contingent who object to the idea of being protected by Israeli hardware.

Now to armed guards and my case scenario.
The nature of lawlessness has changed and the police force must change with it. I love the idea of an unarmed police force, but in metropolitan areas this is increasingly becoming untenable and unrealistic. Take the following scenario:
You/your wife/your child/you father are walking down (insert streetname here) and you are set upon by a gang of five youths who proceed to beat the daylights out of you for whatever reason (there doesn't necessarily need to be one these days...). Let's just say they're armed with baseball bats. A lone guard on patrol happens upon the situation and calls on them to stop. They tell him to mind his own business and go away for his own safety. Realistically, how can the guard now bring order to this chaos armed with his little baton and on a good day some pepper spray? Is he going to go into hand to hand combat against 5-1 odds? Is he going to summon Siochanas the God protector of poor bastards getting hammered into pulp to smite the miscreants? No. He's going to call for backup and retreat to a safe distance and twenty minutes later his colleagues can mop up my still twitching corpse.

This is an extreme scenario but it's not unheard of in this country. If he were armed with a simple 9mm pistol he's now in the position to bring the situation under control from a safe distance while waiting for the backup to arrive. He doesn't even necessarily have to shoot anyone, but he has the upper hand and the criminals need to to carefully reconsider their options. The gun in this case is a deterrent, and is unlikely even to be fired. The police force should always have the upper hand. This is called law enforcement, ladies and gentlemen, and maybe it's time we had some of it.

And before people start shouting at me that this would motivate petty criminals to arm themselves it's BS. Any petty criminal who is willing to use, and has the possibility to get, a sidearm is likely to have one - it's a lot easier/safer/faster to mug someone with a gun rather than, say, a knife.

by A10 Fri Jan 05, 2007 19:53

After using the UZI in the German army[yes,they have/had them.]I can tell you it is neither accurate or reliable.It is NOT designed as a accurate weapon as it's sights are rudimentry at best.It is a stamped steel weapon,mass produced,to equip troops quickly and cheaply.It is a battle weapon designed to kill at close range effectively.

A trained marksman as what the ERU are NOT!!![At least to an international SWAT/SF unit.]Would spurn the use of an UZI for urban police work.The trend is to riot shotguns/handguns or carbine type weapons.
Second;the Uzi is available generally in 9mm,the other calibres you mention are only available in civillian semi auto versions in the USA.None apart from the 9mm are issued to military forces.

Also,the UK police forces have the HK MP5 and I would rate their training waaaayyy above the Irish ERU in firearms skills.Why are they issued the HK in semiauto only????
REASON; It is an unsuitable weapon in an urban enviroment to use full auto fire.The chances of innocent parties being hit by uncontrolled FA fire is too great. There is a world of difference between a battlefield where you dont care where your shots are going,so long as it is killing the othe sod who is trying to do you in ,and a police shooting incident,where precision and accuracy is called for not spray and pray lead hoses.Which either UZI or HK are.
Plus if you go by the ERUs catolouge of disasters[and they are supposedly the "elite".god knows what an average SB flatfoot is like with one of these then?]like Abbylara,the Bankraid where they shot one of their own,Galway house seige,and God alone knows how many other coverd up fukups.You would understand why people would be worried about them toting full auto around our streets.

by bejaysus Fri Jan 05, 2007 22:06

Hope you enjoyed your time in the Bundeswehr.

Did I say that the UZI was handcrafted with loving care by Israeli virgins? No, of course it was mass produced to cost effectiveness - you've described almost any successful weapon there. It is however reasonably accurate, although not on a par with the MP5. And yes, it has been used by the israeli military to clear out bunkers and such during the six day war for which it is ideally suited. I wouldn't define that as battle, but I guess it depends on your definition.

I don't know to what extent the ERU are trained but I doubt they're handed a gun at the end of training and told "Here, read the owner manual" I admit that I would prefer to see an MP5 (which is incidentally used by SWAT precisely because of it's accuracy) slung over the shoulder of the Garda in the picture, but the UZI is not as unsuitable as you make out.
Yes, I would imagine the UZI in question is a 9mm and completely agree with you regarding the civilian calibre models.

Again the MP5 is a superior weapon, and again I don't know about the relative training comparing ERU to the UK Police but I imagine their budget is a little higher given their current domestic situation, and again I would agree that Full Auto fire is absolutely not to be used in a civilian environment. You see, this is why the UZI comes with a fire selector on the left side of the receiver - you set it to semi auto so the recoil doesn't make you shoot down helicopters.
There is a big difference between a battlefield and a police shooting incident, and on an open battlefield is where you don't want the UZI.
Allow me to quote a respected knowledgebase to counter your informed knowledge on your "spray and pray lead hoses"

"The MP5's accuracy, reliability, and wide range of accessories and variations have made it the submachine gun of choice for military and law enforcement agencies worldwide for over thirty years. Users include counter-terrorist groups, special operations forces and police forces."

Gee, who'd have thought.....

by barry Mon Jan 08, 2007 15:40

wonderful and all as the idea of reasonably accurate sub machine guns in the hands of reasonably well trained gardai from the reasonable wing of the force is:

semi-auto doesn't mean one round per trigger pul, that's what single shot means...
semi-auto does mean semi-auto, ie you pull the trigger and several bullets come out (between 3 and 5 depending) and the weapon pulls up and to the right, intended to hit target even when initial aim is poor, you get trained to aim low and to the left.

so one hit per trigger pull, a good ratio means 2-4 bullets for creating collateral damage, a politically acceptable term when it's in iraq but not likely to be so in dublin (eeven if the collateral damage occours in a sink estate).

but, bejaysus, and the rest of ye...

why is michael mcdowell (et al) willing to allow an billon euro per annum income to arm dangerous and anti-democratic criminal gangs when that source of income can be removed at the stroke of a pen.

an eye to the good of society and a politician brave enough to acknowledge that the emperor has no clothes is needed to end the prohibition of all drugs.
Licensing and medical supervision may at least allow the 'scourge' of drug (ab)use to be mitigated rather than having to fight it out on the streets, assault rifle v's sub-machine gun...

by bejaysus Mon Jan 08, 2007 19:37

You know, a ten second search on any decent search engine would have spared me this. Incidentally this is the second time I reply to a post that completely missed, or ignored, my point.

"semi-auto doesn't mean one round per trigger pul, that's what single shot means..."
Wrong. It's a common misconception, but a misconception nonetheless.

"semi-auto does mean semi-auto, ie you pull the trigger and several bullets come out (between 3 and 5 depending)"
Burst fire is considered fully automatic fire. Check:
http://en.allexperts.com/e/s/se/semi-automatic_firearm.htm

"you get trained to aim low and to the left."
This is wrong on so many levels I actually threw up in my mouth a little bit when I saw it. Sort of makes me think of farmboys getting two weeks of gunnery training before being sent to the front during WWII, it might have been applicable then.

"so one hit per trigger pull, a good ratio means 2-4 bullets for creating collateral damage, a politically acceptable term when it's in iraq but not likely to be so in dublin (eeven if the collateral damage occours in a sink estate)."
If they're being trained to aim low and left then they'd be better off with a flame thrower.

Drugs? I thought so.....

by A10 Tue Jan 09, 2007 00:57

If Bunker clearing isnt part of a battlefield or battle,please inform us what it is then????If u are nuts enough to do this,instead of using a flame thrower or posting a couple of WP grenades in the slit,fair fuks to you.Paper medal and mahogney suit coming up.We were instructed that the UZI is a close quaters weapon designed for defence, Armourd personel carrier crew,or tank crews.IE for those who are not frontline soilders and need a compact self defence weapon.Sure you would want it on an open battlefield,but then again I was in a LEO2 Main battle tank.By rights we would have preferred a russian style AKSU,somthing that fired a proper round ,not a pistol round if the worst came to the worst.
As somone who was involved in CP training I agree with you the HK is an ideal weapon IN TRAINED HANDS!!! And I do not meanERU.
That is paticulary why the HK is issued to SO19 in semi only!!! There is too damn much of a risk of somone going and losing it and cutting loose on Full auto,and yes,the SO19 is MUCH better trained than our lot,and yet they are still issued semi auto weapons only...would that give you pause to think??also Fullauto is NOT the way to go in a civillian enviroment,if you need to hit the target again,pull the trigger again.YOU are responsible for every bullet that leavs the gun.So you had better have a damn good reason why you decided to cut loose with either UZI or HK in rock n roll mode,and wasted the bad guy with 20 9mm slugs,the three civvie hostages,the mother and child in the third floor apartment three blocks away,and the granny six blocks away.
Can we say excessive force,and reckless discharge,and major lawsuit against the Police dept???
Yes,intresting quotes from JANES there.
BUT it doesnt matter WHAT the gun is rather WHO and WHAT training they have.If they are somone in a SWAT unit and fire over 8thousand rounds per annum through their personal sidearm and triple that thru a full auto smg,fine ,maybe.
But if it is ERU/SB training of fire off the 30 issued rounds once a year,for your new rounds.Sorry NOT AHOPE do I want somone like that running around with a full auto weapon.If the best the UK has to offer in cops can use semi autos so can ours.Sure we are the BEST in everything in Ireland,so why do we need FA in a civillian enviroment??No reason whatsoever.

by barry Fri Jan 19, 2007 18:24

so i appear to have missed your point eh?

i spent my time since indymedia.ie came back up trying to find your point. it would appear to me that you are soley pissed off by the misrepresentation of the capabilities of the UZI sub-machine gun.

was there more to it than this?

it would appear to me that you more than missed my point which is to question why all the forces of law and order in this state (and every other "non-rogue" state out there) have one and only one position relating to organised crime: to ensure that billions of dollars/euros/pounds/roubles/yen flow into the hands of violent armed criminals.

why is this?
is it because the only way that a modern democratic state can build up a massive heavily armed domestic security service is to ensure that there are well financed, well armed, well motivated criminals out there to terrorise the population?

ps, apologies for not realising your were at a gun fetishist ball, i didn't mean to upset you by referring to full-auto, burst and single shot as automatic, semi-automatic and single shot. looks like i don't deserve to be allowed to play with guns then, maybe that's why i never got into the army...

by De Menezes Wed Jan 24, 2007 03:25

Pictures from Buckingham Street tonight .

Looked liked they had Heckler and Koch assault rifles, if you're into that type of thing.

Makes you feel wonderfully secure having these guys wandering around in paramilitary gear setting up road blocks, questioning drivers and pedestrians. How long before they kill someone unarmed and innocent with one of those things?

It has happened in every other country where the cops are routinely armed witn this sort of gear, hasn't it?

Still it'll be someone from the inner city who doesn't read the Irish Times or the Indo, so that's alright then.

by JohnBoy Wed Jan 24, 2007 09:38

Seriously...some of the nonsense posted by people on here is appalling and hilarious in equal measures.

Sure let the police try and patrol the streets with a baton and a can of Mace. That way they can't attack us peaceful citizens....but sure we can all say a prayer and hope the criminals with the high-powered weapons don't take on the guards.

Wise up, for Christ's sake.

by libertarian Wed Jan 24, 2007 12:04

Why don't we all the right to bear arms?

by John Boy Wed Jan 24, 2007 12:07

Because we're not all charged with being guardians of the peace.

I expect a deluge of "But the guards do this...the guards do that....McBrearty...criminals" etc etc but the fact of the matter is that they have to do a job that none of us would fancy.

I certainly wouldn't fancy patrolling many places armed with sweet F.A. when the criminals swan about with a veritable arsenal.

by libertarian (iosaf) - "from my cold dead hands" Wed Jan 24, 2007 14:25

The right was held by all freemen through Hellenic civilisation and the Roman Empire (where it first became codified). The right was transformed into a duty by the 1689 English bill of rights. At roughly the same time the right to carry arms previously enjoyed by gaels & scots was withdrawn. It is thus significant that the 1689 English bill specified that only card carrying members of the protestant established church got to get tooled up.

When one talks of the right to bear arms almost everyone confines their debate of the concept to the US Constitution's 2nd amendment, which as we all know appended (or amended indeed) the bill of rights which started the USA 1791. Most yankee kiddies of medium educational attainment will tell you the militias had got their right from the duty of the Brit prods. But!!! "B. McAffee & Michael J. Quinlan, writing in the North Carolina Law Review, March 1997, Page 781, have stated "... Madison did not invent the right to keep and bear arms when he drafted the Second Amendment--the right was pre-existing at both common law and in the early state constitutions." Others offer a different view; Robert Spitzer has stated: "Nothing in the history, construction, or interpretation of the Amendment applies or infers such a protection. Rather, legal protection for personal self-defense arises from the British common law tradition and modern criminal law; not from constitutional law."Heyman has similarly argued that the common law right of self defense was legally distinct from the right to bear arms."

* In Cuba the have that right. But of course they don't have the right to freedom of movement.

* In the Spanish state we do not have that right, & so I have to keep my piece buried in the garden but well oiled just in case.

* & of course in Mexico the right is extant which is why before he did lecture tours & calenders, Marcus used an effin big gun on the feds.

by John Boy Wed Jan 24, 2007 14:42

But that's a long long time ago.

I was talking in terms of the present day.