The Second Amendment

[Samuel Dravis]

Indeed. But these conditions can be controlled; fire is not going to burn through a decent gunsafe until people have plenty of time to clear the area, etc. Similarly, a kitchen knife has the ability to be a murder weapon, but the only restriction we have on it is simply being careful and keeping it in a place unreachable by those too young to be responsible for its use. If they were more dangerous, like guns, they should be put in a 'knife-safe', not banned from use. An incredible number of things are dangerous, but there are safety regulations to compensate for that.

 

I can get HCl acid, for example, and that is inherently dangerous. However, if I take proper precautions and know how to handle it, the danger is negligible. Same situation with guns, in my opinion.

[Nancy Allen``]

Actually knives are a regulated weapon with good reason. There's a police campaign against them that says 'blood and guts one end, no bloody guts the other'. That pretty much sums it up.

 

With some weapons, we'll use sniper rifles as an example, they wouldn't be any good for hunting. Something like an AW50 or a Barrett, they'd turn what you were shooting at into paint. The AW's a magnum, 50 calibur, and the Barrett's used against vehicles. You could use them on a rifle range, if you wanted to disintegrate the targets. So with more viable options out there, the Dragunov PSG-1 and SSG three that come to mind, why would you want something heavier? Same for assault rifles, you think an AK would be good for hunting? Tell you what, those who can take one out and go full auto at a hundred yards out, see how many times you hit the target. You'd have much better success with an MP5.

[Samuel Dravis]

Actually knives are a regulated weapon with good reason. There's a police campaign against them that says 'blood and guts one end, no bloody guts the other'. That pretty much sums it up.

I certainly agree that knives are dangerous. My point was that knives have uses not exclusive to stabbing people in the gut. Pens have been used to stab people; people have been killed with baseball bats. We have to depend on people to use these items in a responsible manner. If they do not, they are (and should be) prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

 

With some weapons, we'll use sniper rifles as an example, they wouldn't be any good for hunting.

The purpose is pretty much irrelevant, in my eyes, except if you're buying it to blow someone away. I doubt someone would make that known, if so.

 

Something like an AW50 or a Barrett, they'd turn what you were shooting at into paint. The AW's a magnum, 50 calibur, and the Barrett's used against vehicles. You could use them on a rifle range, if you wanted to disintegrate the targets. So with more viable options out there, the Dragunov PSG-1 and SSG three that come to mind, why would you want something heavier? Same for assault rifles, you think an AK would be good for hunting? Tell you what, those who can take one out and go full auto at a hundred yards out, see how many times you hit the target. You'd have much better success with an MP5.

I don't care if it's good for hunting. In fact, I don't even care if I hit the target all that much, as long as it's done in a safe area. It's my money, after all, and if it's done safely then it should not be prohibited.

 

And why should you care what I do, either? I think the people who would be trained and are willing to go through the background checks are the least of anyone's worries. You talk of the crimes but, as I said, the people who use registered weapons in crimes aren't very common at all, and I am ONLY endorsing ownership of these weapons to people known to be responsible, trained and certified.

[Achilles]

While I agree that gun safety and regulation are probably subjects worthy of our examination, I'm struggling to grasp what significance they have within the scope of this discussion.

 

The question comes down to this: If the government, for whatever reason, decided to suspend citizen rights, declare martial law, and began rounding up U.S. citizens that they determined to be dissidents, would you want to fight back? If yes, would you want to be limited only to weapons that the government had told you that you were permitted to have prior to the change, or would you want to something comparable to the weapons that they would potentially use on you?

 

As Samuel Dravis points out, rigorous gun laws would seem only to place restrictions on the law abiding citizens.

 

I'm only seeking to address the points as I see them. I've yet to make up my mind one way or another, so I'm very much interested in reading any logical argument that can counter these points.

 

Thanks.

[Nancy Allen``]

To answer your questions, yes I would fight back, and something like the restricted weapons would be nice but my line of thinking is if you need their weapons to fight then odds are you won't be able to do much in the first place.

[Achilles]

Assuming that those weapons were restricted to you. If they weren't previously restricted then the chances are higher that you might have one.

[Web Rider]

I certainly agree that knives are dangerous. My point was that knives have uses not exclusive to stabbing people in the gut. Pens have been used to stab people; people have been killed with baseball bats. We have to depend on people to use these items in a responsible manner. If they do not, they are (and should be) prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

 

That depends entirely on the blade in question. Blades are in general, designed for cutting, slicing, or stabbing. And the intended target of such a blade is usually determined by it's size and shape.

 

Guns are exactly the same, their purpose depends entirely on the gun in question. What do you do with a 50 cal sniper rifle? You blow people's heads off. You don't go deer hunting.

 

IN regards to the argument that we should have any kind of gun "just in case" the government decides to do something bad, stop and think about that for a moment. If you're not going to trust an organization made up of people who have big guns, WHY are you going to trust a myriad of unorganized, untrained, normal people to have the same guns?

 

To counter, since the government is made up of people, in order to prevent the government from doing anything crazy, wouldn't it be better to not let people have guns?

[John Galt]

Guns are exactly the same, their purpose depends entirely on the gun in question. What do you do with a 50 cal sniper rifle? You blow people's heads off. You don't go deer hunting.

 

No, .50's are perfectly good deer rifles. Not .50 BMG, except under extreme circumstances (I have heard of it, though), but the smaller .50 Beowulf, .50 AE, and .50 muzzleloader are very good deer rounds.

 

Besides, the 2nd Amendment has NOTHING AT ALL to do with hunting, except guaranteeing access to firearms. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that the populace is capable of protecting itself from foreign invasion, criminals, and, above all, government repression. Hence Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto's warning about invading the US: "There will be a rifle behind every blade of grass..."

 

IN regards to the argument that we should have any kind of gun "just in case" the government decides to do something bad, stop and think about that for a moment. If you're not going to trust an organization made up of people who have big guns, WHY are you going to trust a myriad of unorganized, untrained, normal people to have the same guns?

 

Because unorganized normal people aren't generally able to be used by the government to oppress citizens.

 

To counter, since the government is made up of people, in order to prevent the government from doing anything crazy, wouldn't it be better to not let people have guns?

 

That depends if you value stability or freedom. In dictatorial states, one of the first steps the rulers undertake upon assuming power is to confiscate weapons from the general public, in order to make overthrow less likely. After all, what generally happens when people without guns go up against people WITH guns?

[Web Rider]

Because unorganized normal people aren't generally able to be used by the government to oppress citizens.

 

no, my point was that we're focusing too much on the "big bad government". The point of giving the people guns is to equalize the people with the establishment. Sort of a MAD theory of if anyone tries something they're both screwed. But what I was getting at was that the people who abuse the system, the people who take the bribes, pass the biased laws and break all the rules of good conduct, came from that mass of "normal citizens" that we're giving big guns to. So what I'm saying is that if you give X government guy power, and give Y normal guy power, what's to say that Y normal guy isn't the guy you have to worry about rising up, rallying the people, and doing horrible oppression?

 

Some of the most powerful dictators started as revolutionaries, just normal guys with friends and guns. We fear the government because we think "with power, comes corruption". If we are giving normal people that same power, WHY do we not fear their corruption?

 

 

That depends if you value stability or freedom. In dictatorial states, one of the first steps the rulers undertake upon assuming power is to confiscate weapons from the general public, in order to make overthrow less likely. After all, what generally happens when people without guns go up against people WITH guns?

 

Ahhhh, have you seen the movie "Men with Guns" too?

In any case, that wasn't my point, my point was that if the government is where people become corrupted, and guns give people the power to do bad things, but the government if made of people, then if nobody had guns, then nobody would use them corruptly. Obviously the logic doesn't work. But it's not much better than expecting the "normal guy" to do the right thing when given power over believing the government guy to do the wrong thing when given power.

[Achilles]

So what I'm saying is that if you give X government guy power, and give Y normal guy power, what's to say that Y normal guy isn't the guy you have to worry about rising up, rallying the people, and doing horrible oppression?

Who will be responsible for keeping track of the tally? Is that a position of power? Would that person or group of people be immune to corruption?

 

Some of the most powerful dictators started as revolutionaries, just normal guys with friends and guns. We fear the government because we think "with power, comes corruption". If we are giving normal people that same power, WHY do we not fear their corruption?

Distribution of power. Which is potentially more dangerous: A great deal of power in the hands of a few or a great deal of power spread out into the hands of many?

 

Revolutionaries tend to be dangerous because the many abdicate their power to the few, resulting in the dictatorships you reference. It takes a great deal of wisdom to use power without abusing it.

 

But it's not much better than expecting the "normal guy" to do the right thing when given power over believing the government guy to do the wrong thing when given power.

I don't think the framers blindly trusted the little guy to always do the right thing (heck, if they did, they wouldn't have wasted any time with establishing state or federal governments). I do think they recognized that if one guy went off the deep end, the hundred other guys around him could put him in check before things got out of control.

 

It all comes down to checks and balances. If the people are armed, then the government has checks in place. If the people aren't armed, then the people are relying on the goodwill of those in power not to subjugate them since they have no means to prevent such an action themselves.

[Nancy Allen``]

Something that may be worth bearing in mind is that places such as Canada; where guns arn't as prevelent, and Japan have much lower crime rates.

[Achilles]

I think Kavar's already has a gun control vs. crime rate thread going.

[Nancy Allen``]

Right, funnily enough it's a related point. I'm not saying to give up the right to bear arms but maybe, just maybe, part of the problem lies in the cukture of fear where people think they have to be armed to the teeth.

[Achilles]

I'm not grasping how that relates to the 2nd ammendment. Could you please reframe you argument so that I might see the relevance?

[Nancy Allen``]

Thinking that by everyone having guns will take away the threat of them is to ignore the fact people use guns for murder, armed robbery, ect. A criminal shouldn't be allowed to have guns. Like freedom of speech the right to bear arms is not an ultimate right. For example you think Charles Manson will ever be allowed firearms again? OJ Simpson?

[Web Rider]

Who will be responsible for keeping track of the tally? Is that a position of power? Would that person or group of people be immune to corruption?

What tally do you mean? For reference, nobody is immune to corruption. Some just take longer than others.

 

Distribution of power. Which is potentially more dangerous: A great deal of power in the hands of a few or a great deal of power spread out into the hands of many?

Dunno, that's like MAD, was it better than both the USSR and the US had all kinds of nukes, or would it have been better if only one of them did? If lots of people have guns, it's MAD, if one person has guns, well, it's easy control.

 

Revolutionaries tend to be dangerous because the many abdicate their power to the few, resulting in the dictatorships you reference. It takes a great deal of wisdom to use power without abusing it.

But that happens regardless of if they're revolutionaries, not to mention that they do so under the belief that those revolutionaries are usually fighting for them, and therefore it's safe to lay down their arms.

 

I don't think the framers blindly trusted the little guy to always do the right thing (heck, if they did, they wouldn't have wasted any time with establishing state or federal governments). I do think they recognized that if one guy went off the deep end, the hundred other guys around him could put him in check before things got out of control.

true, but if there's a 100 guys who all agree on something, and there's 99 guys who are neutral, and 90 guys in the government, those 99 other people COULD stop them, but then MAD comes into play again and then it all depends on who's willing to die for their cause.

 

It all comes down to checks and balances. If the people are armed, then the government has checks in place. If the people aren't armed, then the people are relying on the goodwill of those in power not to subjugate them since they have no means to prevent such an action themselves.

If the people are armed, the government and the people are balanced. But everyone is STILL relying on good will, or a simple unwillingness to die in order to keep stability. I mean, the world didn't go to hell during the Cold War because nobody wanted to die for their cause....nobody in either government anyway. If one side rose up, the other side would strike back, and both sides would be destroyed.

 

With, or without guns, you're still relying on people doing the right thing to keep the peace. I mean, there's nothing stopping the normal guy from allying with the government in order to oppress the people.

[Achilles]

Thinking that by everyone having guns will take away the threat of them is to ignore the fact people use guns for murder, armed robbery, ect.

I guess I missed the part where someone made that argument.

 

A criminal shouldn't be allowed to have guns. Like freedom of speech the right to bear arms is not an ultimate right.

It sure seemed as though the framers thought of it as an inalienable right. I'm not sure I agree with the sentiment, but it would seem that there isn't a clear cut solution to the problem either.

 

For example you think Charles Manson will ever be allowed firearms again? OJ Simpson?

Manson? No. Simpson? Yes.

[Web Rider]

Something that may be worth bearing in mind is that places such as Canada; where guns arn't as prevelent, and Japan have much lower crime rates.

 

Japan also has a massive organize crime syndicate and near paramilitary surveillance of the civilian population. Not to mention that anyone who wants to kill finds perfectly lethal, non-gun ways to kill. Many homes even get annual government searches for guns since the non-police/military population usually isn't allowed to have them.

 

So, it's nice that crime is lower, but police state is bigger. Fair trade? The idea of people having guns was to prevent a police state/fascist government, ect...

 

Right, funnily enough it's a related point. I'm not saying to give up the right to bear arms but maybe, just maybe, part of the problem lies in the culture of fear where people think they have to be armed to the teeth.

 

There's nothing wrong with being armed. And a little bit of wariness of any organization with great power is a good thing to have. Blind faith is easily abused. Armed to the teeth shows perhaps an excess paranoia that is unhealthy. but such people who believe in such radical armaments are usually only a tiny percentage of the population....unless of course the government has proven that trusting them is unwise and thus great armament of the self is necessary.

 

Lets go to my MAD example. If the US and the USSR are toe-to-toe with each other, and neither is willing to die as long as the other is willing to shoot, at what point does it make good sense to lower your gun? If the government is willing to control, and the citizen has a desire to be free, at what point is it a good idea for the citizen to to lower their gun? Should not the one who wishes to oppress be the first to show good faith?

 

Thinking that by everyone having guns will take away the threat of them is to ignore the fact people use guns for murder, armed robbery, ect. A criminal shouldn't be allowed to have guns. Like freedom of speech the right to bear arms is not an ultimate right. For example you think Charles Manson will ever be allowed firearms again? OJ Simpson?

I don't recall anyone arguing that everyone having guns will take away the threat of them. I do recall people arguing that everyone having guns will take away the will to be quick to use them.

 

Of course people use guns for bad things, that's the entire point of giving citizens guns, so the good ones can defend themselves from the bad ones. Criminals will always be able to get guns(until guns no longer exist), so, why is it a good idea to prevent the good, law-abiding citizen from having guns, which are really the only thing an otherwise untrained person can use to defend themselves from another person with guns?

 

I don't know if it's just me, but the "Bill of Rights" seems to disagree with your assertion that freedom of speech and the right to bear arms are not inherent rights of the people. And for the record, I'll trust that document over any other source.

 

As for creepy murderers like Manson and OJ? Well, they are of course, the exception to the rule....not to mention OJ used a knife and a glove in the kitchen.

[Nancy Allen``]

Going back to the topic of mutually assured destruction, the problem is that people such as Kennedy, Kruschev, Regan and Gorbachav were considered intelligent enough to be considered worthy of national leaders, and they had numerous top level advisors to guide them through the Cold War. The average person on the street doesn't know the first thing on how to react to the saber rattling that occured, the way they would react, rightfully so, when confronted with a gun would be to draw their own weapon and shoot in self defense. How many times would that have to happen in a society where everybody had guns before they got the message that having a free for all is not the answer? Thousands? Tens of thousands?

 

Also this bears repeating. Senior Constable Jessica Evan is with the Victoria Police in Geelong, and is looking at joining either the Special Operations Group or Criminal Investigation Bureau. I asked for her comments.

 

In the police force we are trained to do everything possible to preserve life, including drawing your service revolver\automatic and aiming it at the threat in the hope of being able to intimitate them into a state of nonagression and compliance. However we cannot save people from doing stupid things no matter how much we would like to, we can only do our level best to convince them not to, and in a situation where we believe our lives or the lives of others are in imminent danger then the procedure is to aim at the largest portion of the upper body, the head, the chest, and keep firing until the target is no longer a threat. This is because the first bullet does not always finish the job. Now every time a police firearm is discharged there is an inquiry into the shooting to judge whether or not it was justified. Every shooting has to be shown that it was the correct course of action, that's common sense. But as much as we dread the thought of having to use our weapon on a living thing if you refuse to do so because you worry about being moral, or you stress over being moral when you need to draw your firearm, then you are no good to anyone.

[Achilles]

What tally do you mean? For reference, nobody is immune to corruption. Some just take longer than others.

You made reference to a system where both gov't and civilians had the same number of guns. Someone would have to keep count, wouldn't they? Or am I not understand you correctly?

 

But that happens regardless of if they're revolutionaries, not to mention that they do so under the belief that those revolutionaries are usually fighting for them, and therefore it's safe to lay down their arms.

I don't think that this applies to either the french revolution or the american revolution. No doubt that it has applied in many others, but I don't think we can safely say that it occurs in all of them.

 

If the people are armed, the government and the people are balanced. But everyone is STILL relying on good will, or a simple unwillingness to die in order to keep stability. I mean, the world didn't go to hell during the Cold War because nobody wanted to die for their cause....nobody in either government anyway. If one side rose up, the other side would strike back, and both sides would be destroyed.

 

With, or without guns, you're still relying on people doing the right thing to keep the peace. I mean, there's nothing stopping the normal guy from allying with the government in order to oppress the people.

A lot of good points here, but what's the alternative?

[Web Rider]

You made reference to a system where both gov't and civilians had the same number of guns. Someone would have to keep count, wouldn't they? Or am I not understand you correctly?

no no, I was just making a comparason using some random numbers. The idea is that everyone has guns but some people won't use theirs and such. Which upsets the "balance" between citizen and government

 

I don't think that this applies to either the french revolution or the american revolution. No doubt that it has applied in many others, but I don't think we can safely say that it occurs in all of them.

hence why I said "usually". Most modern revolutions have been by a guy who gets people's support and then becomes a dictator.

 

A lot of good points here, but what's the alternative?

 

Dunno, proof of good will? Or is that like asking for proof of God?

 

 

Going back to the topic of mutually assured destruction, the problem is that people such as Kennedy, Kruschev, Regan and Gorbachav were considered intelligent enough to be considered worthy of national leaders, and they had numerous top level advisors to guide them through the Cold War. The average person on the street doesn't know the first thing on how to react to the saber rattling that occured, the way they would react, rightfully so, when confronted with a gun would be to draw their own weapon and shoot in self defense. How many times would that have to happen in a society where everybody had guns before they got the message that having a free for all is not the answer? Thousands? Tens of thousands?

 

Well, we've had guns for quite a while and we're not all dead yet. So I think you're giving the average person too little credit. I don't consider all of them the brightest bulbs in the bunch, but I think most understand the basic concept of MAD, that if you've got a gun and he's got a gun, you could die, and most people don't want to die. I honestly don't think people want a "free for all", nor do I support the idea of everyone having ANY gun they want. But I don't think people in general, there are exceptions, want to go around shooting stuff up. They want to defend themselves from the 1/100000 people who DO want to shoot stuff up.

 

Also this bears repeating. Senior Constable Jessica Evan is with the Victoria Police in Geelong, and is looking at joining either the Special Operations Group or Criminal Investigation Bureau. I asked for her comments.

 

In the police force we are trained to do everything possible to preserve life, including drawing your service revolver\automatic and aiming it at the threat in the hope of being able to intimitate them into a state of nonagression and compliance. However we cannot save people from doing stupid things no matter how much we would like to, we can only do our level best to convince them not to, and in a situation where we believe our lives or the lives of others are in imminent danger then the procedure is to aim at the largest portion of the upper body, the head, the chest, and keep firing until the target is no longer a threat. This is because the first bullet does not always finish the job. Now every time a police firearm is discharged there is an inquiry into the shooting to judge whether or not it was justified. Every shooting has to be shown that it was the correct course of action, that's common sense. But as much as we dread the thought of having to use our weapon on a living thing if you refuse to do so because you worry about being moral, or you stress over being moral when you need to draw your firearm, then you are no good to anyone.

 

I'm not....entirely sure what you're trying to get at here....that guns are a good way of preventing more violence....but only when used by cops? That doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. if it's the gun, then it shouldn't matter who uses it. If it's not the gun, then it's the cop.....and it's not because the cop has a gun, but because it's a cop telling you to stop.

[Nancy Allen``]

The Wild West gives a good indication of what happens when everyone has a gun. Again, this isn't saying there shouldn't be a right to have guns but there needs to be some regulation.

 

What she's saying is that police are trained and disciplined in the use of firearms. Times the discipline the military has by a hundred and the discipline special police (SWAT) has by a thousand, keeping in mind that soldiers are trained to kill and police are trained to use force to prevent killing when at all possible, and it's pretty clear that the athorities that people demonise are maybe a little more necessary than first thought.

[Web Rider]

The Wild West gives a good indication of what happens when everyone has a gun. Again, this isn't saying there shouldn't be a right to have guns but there needs to be some regulation.

Yes, the Wild West is a great example of people with guns, without controls. We've changed VASTLY from then, in many ways our youngest children are smarter than many "cowboys". So I don't think the Wild West is an accurate representation of what would happen in the modern world given most or all people had guns. Especially with laws regulating who can have a gun and where they can take it.

 

What she's saying is that police are trained and disciplined in the use of firearms. Times the discipline the military has by a hundred and the discipline special police (SWAT) has by a thousand, keeping in mind that soldiers are trained to kill and police are trained to use force to prevent killing when at all possible, and it's pretty clear that the authorities that people demonise are maybe a little more necessary than first thought.

 

As have many normal citizens. I'm sure that the citizen's training is nowhere near as rigorous and effective as a cop's or a military person's training, but the point is we're not simply handing out guns willy nilly. And most people with guns treat their guns with great respect, and there are exceptions, just as there are police and military who abuse their powers. My uncle is a shining example of abuse of power. Why is nothing done? Who knows.

 

But I haven't argued that police aren't necessary, what I have argued is that police and military are tools of the government to maintain control. It does not take a degree in history nor a masters in human nature to know that defenseless people are always taken advantage of by the strong. And in a world where might makes right(the government is powerful, this is why what is says goes), and guns=might, guns in the hands of civilians are necessary to prevent people who would abuse their power from taking advantage of those who don't, won't, or can't defend themselves.

[Jae Onasi]

Moderator Mode....

 

Actually giving it some thought I think you're right. Every man woman and child should be given as many guns as they want to shoot each other with or see how they go taking down the police and military. If they're so determined to attack what they see as a corrupt organization let them give it their best shot.

 

Nancy, you need to mark humor as 'humor' or something. At face value this is off-topic at best and flippant at worst. Neither is respectful to the thread-starter. Quit doing that please and stay on topic. Off-topic posts will be deleted.

 

 

Wow, what a great way to totally not read anything I said and come out with: Everybody needs to go kill everyone else. It's not funny, it's not cute, it's not even sarcastic. It's RUDE. If you're not going to put forth an argument, don't be childish.

If you think I'm wrong, prove it with a counter argument, not some immature bull about everybody should have guns so they can fill their urge to kill everybody.

 

Web Rider, you're flame-baiting/flaming, particularly the 'don't be childish' comment. This is a friendly discussion forum. If you have issues with a post, take it to that person in a PM or report the post and the staff will address it. It doesn't matter how frustrated you are, you aren't allowed to jump on someone publicly. This is your warning--don't flame-bait/flame again please.

[Nancy Allen``]

We've changed VASTLY from then, in many ways our youngest children are smarter than many "cowboys".

 

I would like to hope so. Given the way some people are without guns however you would have to be an absolute fool to let them anywhere near a firearm.

 

I'm sure that the citizen's training is nowhere near as rigorous and effective as a cop's or a military person's training, but the point is we're not simply handing out guns willy nilly.

 

That's exactly why there are people, special people, that we grant greater powers.

 

And most people with guns treat their guns with great respect, and there are exceptions, just as there are police and military who abuse their powers.

 

It's because of those exceptions, and there's more that may treat the weapon itself well but care nothing for human life than you might think, that there is to be gun regulation.

 

My uncle is a shining example of abuse of power. Why is nothing done? Who knows.

 

I cannot speak for your uncle but what should have happened was for there to be an investigation by Internal Affairs or Ethical Standereds. Why was nothing done? Possibly lack of evidence. I can't imagine how...disappointed you are about your uncle, understandably it would lead to a mistrust in the athorities. I can assure you however that such people by the nature of the job would be rare.

 

But I haven't argued that police aren't necessary, what I have argued is that police and military are tools of the government to maintain control.

 

Exactly, they're there to maintain control. Which is why, and I'm completely serious here, people who go off about them or gun laws should see what it's like with mob rule.

 

It does not take a degree in history nor a masters in human nature to know that defenseless people are always taken advantage of by the strong.

 

I understand your concern about the government using police, military to turn the country, the world, into something like Star Wars or V for Vendetta. Since I discussed what Constable Evan had to say, being both Australian and an Aboriginal, a prime example would be the 'stolen generation' when children were taken from their parents and something similar has been brought into place. A couple of things to keep in mind with this. One is that the police are not basically kept in a cage until the government uses them like the military is. They actively keep the peace, enforce the law, ect. The other thing is things such as Iraq were bad, to be sure, and soldiers went along with it. Were they ordered to do something such as slaughter an entire village that they knew was not the enemy I would give people in the armed forces enough credit to know that such an act was wrong and they wouldn't go through with it.