Replies

As it is now, the rules of engagement are more stringent for are armed services in a war zone than they are for our police in our neighborhoods. That’s just wrong... Our military ground forces cant shoot unless they are being shot at. Shoot an unarmed civilian and go to jail.

That paragraph is logic free.

If you want to compare military rules to police rules to determine appropriateness, you first have to determine whether military rules of engagement are appropriate...and no, they aren't. They are what you would expect from a military with Obama as CIC.

Constitutional protections do not apply there, the Law of War does.

If you truly wish to see where your rules take you, look at any city such as Detroit. Measure what you want to do against the "Broken Windows" theory of law enforcement.

The criminals will be safer, but the citizens? Much less so.

So you have to decide...is society being run for those who follow the law, or those who choose to be predators?

"Whether someone is armed or not" as a measure of lethality is about the shallowest form of analysis I can imagine. In fact, from what I've read about the ability of thugs to shoot...being in front of the gun may be the safest place.