Posted on 05/24/2016 4:30:47 AM PDT by marktwain
There was a recent domestic shooting in Maryland. The presumed perpetrator was a federal law enforcement officer. He is reported to have killed his estranged wife and two other people. His wife had a protective order against him in March, and the Federal Protective Service, of which Mr. Tordil was a member, took his service firearm and seven other firearms.
This was in Maryland, which requires handguns to be registered. From the washingtonpost.com:
Sheriff’s deputies can’t be faulted for not knowing about that gun because, thanks to the national gun lobby and the cowardice of Congress, there is no federal database of who owns what guns. Only a handful of states, including Maryland, have registries of varying thoroughness. This case underscores why law enforcement should be able to know whether a person prohibited from possessing guns has surrendered all their firearms.
This is an official Washington Post editorial, not one merely written for the paper.
The fact that this federal law enforcement officer was already violating the law by not registering the Glock pistol, is not considered important.
The purpose of gun registration has always been to facilitate the confiscation of the guns at some later time. That is what Chief Constable Colin Greenwood, who first studied the purpose of British gun laws at Cambridge, determined. The registration system initiated in the 1920’s was never effective in reducing crime, and actually diverted scarce police resources.
From A Study of Armed Crime and Firearms Control in England and Wales by Colin Greenwood, page 246:
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
“So you’re equating their military to ours in an attempt to predict an outcome?”
Actually, those numbers line up nicely with the study made in the 1990s that showed 64% of US Marines would refuse orders to fire on civilians. Those Marines who would follow orders were mostly new recruits.
You have a much more optimistic outlook than I do.
Soldiers follow orders. History has shown that they will do so even for the most horrific things. The US military is not staffed by saints.
Let me explain my optimism regarding an operation of this nature. First off it would happen during peacetime meaning that any bloodshed instituted by the aggressor spells murder. Blood that’s shed by the aggressor spells self defense. How many people are ready to murder? Especially a fellow American.
Not saying you are wrong, but go look how things are phrased in the past.
If say, the troops were told there was an emergency and they HAD to disarm the area, they will probably do it with little question.
It is a long used tactic.
An emergency being an invasion of some sort yes, I agree. A campaign of confiscation is not an emergency and legit gun owners don’t brandish weapons in their neighborhoods. Law abiding citizens are not enemies of the state. I appreciate your candor but I’ll stand behind my intuition, being soldiers will not kill a peaceful community.
And I prayfully hope you are right. I just have seen way to much to believe it.
I would recommend you read David Grossmen’s book “On Killing”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.