Yadda wrote on Sep 8
th, 2017 at 7:09pm:
It would be a simple matter, imo, to vet people who want to own a firearm for their own protection.
.....if our parliamentarians would allow peaceful, law abiding citizens to own firearms for that purpose.
Only allow firearm ownership to,
1/ those who DO NOT have ANY 'drink-driving' conviction ever,
2/ those who DO NOT have ANY illicit drug possession or use conviction ever,
3/ those who DO NOT have ANY criminal conviction in the last 20 years,
.....and, are persons who are over 25 years of age.
QUESTION;In a society where citizens aspire to enjoying freedom and living in a peaceful society,
should
police officers [
who essentially, 'serve', and protect, the political state] be the only persons in open society who we [as a society] permit, in law, to possess firearms for the purpose of their own defence/protection ?
Is that appropriate, or sensible [from the standpoint of the citizen who cherishes his/her freedoms] ?
I ask, because our history has shown, that there are many 'criminals' among the ranks of the police force,
among the ranks of people, whom the political state today, chooses to give possession of firearms to.
Police officers who are users of methamphetamine ['ice'] ? [a police officer in W.A. was a user, and he was in possession of a Glock pistol]
Police officers who are murderers ? [in Australia, police officers have murdered their spouse, with their government issued service pistol]
Police officers who are rapists ?
Police officers who are pedophiles and users of child pornography ?
Police officers who are wanna-be drug barons ?
Police officers who are corrupt, in their dealings with crime gangs ?
......persons who were
police officers, have been convicted, of all of these
criminal offences.
Obviously not all police officers are involved in such criminality, as is mentioned above.
But these are 'the types', of some of the people [and they are
police officers],
whom our governments are authorising, to possess firearms, for the purpose of their own defence/protection ?
Sweet.