Anonymous #1 10w

SECOND AMENDMENT SAYS YES all humans deserve the right to defend themselves from tyrannical governments like ours

1

Anonymous #2 10w

1. Military is stupid because war is an indication of a weak leader. If you cannot solve a problem with diplomacy then you are unfit to lead. 2. Law enforcement should be democratically organized by the society they are responsible to protect. Our current law enforcements only duty is to protect capital (property of the state) neighborhood watches are not great because a lot of them are racist, however the blueprint of a neighborhood watches is good because the individuals in that community -

0

Anonymous #3 10w

Are able to make their needs directly known to whatever the governing body is and the protections are community-driven rather than state driven.

1

Anonymous #3 10w

For 1: War and violence is unfortunately largely cyclic and some might argue inevitable. To have a military isn’t just about attacking adversaries but to also defend the people And 2: I think abolishing uniformed policing is a bit extreme. Crime isn’t just robberies or petty theft, there is always the threat of much greater things like organized crime, murder and terrorism. A trained and uniformed policing system is still one of best options for this.

1

Anonymous #2 10w

I think we should address that historically, police reform and funding doesn’t solve crime and only strengthens the power police have. We should do our best to create a policing system based on understanding the communities they police, professionalize it as a job and create effective training, and change policing mentality from attacking crime to protecting communities from it

1

Anonymous #2 10w

I agree with you because I do believe that there is a place in society for law enforcement, however what we are seeing a disconnect between what they should be doing in theory and what they are doing in practice. Think about it like this: police don’t do anything to prevent crime the only punish after the fact. It is more productive to meet an individuals needs as a measure to prevent crime. Most crimes only happen when you can’t survive. If we divested money from LEO and put it into-

1

Anonymous #3 10w

Social programs, crime will drop substantially. Now obviously you can never get a 0% crime rate as that is a cost of a society that promotes liberty and free will. Which is where a democratically organized protection service (law endorsement) would have a role in society. Police should make you feel safe, but would you rather live in a neighborhood where you don’t hear sirens every day, or a neighborhood in which you do? Mind you this question isn’t about crime, it’s about attitudes towards LEOs

1

Anonymous #3 10w

I do agree with this as well. I do believe we should defund policing and put it towards viable solutions that stop crime from happening in the first place. I support the idea of re-imagining modern policing rather than trying to build off what already in place. Policing today can trace its roots back to Southern slave patrols and anti-union enforcers of the rich. I think we should shift towards community policing on top of addressing socioeconomic factors that create crime-

1

Anonymous #2 10w

In the first place. The non-stop funding of police should end while we work to change the warrior mentality of policing to a protective mentality. Only then do I think people of all backgrounds could actually feel like police are there to protect them and be supporters in a community

1

Anonymous #2 10w

Completely agree

1