Barring repeal of the Second Amendment, the police in the US have the same right to keep and bear arms as anyone else, and that right isn't predicated on training or trigger discipline.

> the police in the US have the same right to keep and bear arms as anyone else

And we have the right to make them not be police anymore.

Disclosure: I am a staunch Second Amendment supporter, well into the "extreme."

The Second Amendment does not override the employer-employee relationship - firearm possessors are not in a "protected class."

You're free to have that firearm and you may not be arrested for it - even while at your place of employ. We need not maintain your employment, however.

Fair enough, but that leads to an unarmed police force facing an armed populace, which either leads to armed citizen militias filling the power vacuum needed to maintain civil order against that armed populace, or a collapse in civil order, because people aren't going to stop shooting at the police.

Which is why I argue that it's an intractable problem barring repealing the Second Amendment. Even if there are legal ways to accomplish merely disarming the police, it doesn't solve anything unless you disarm everyone.

I didn't say this was a good or reasonable idea, just that it was legally workable.

Then treat them like every other person. Claiming "I thought I saw a gun" after shooting someone means most of the population is going to jail.

I get that accidents happens, but something has clearly gone wrong with either the training or lack there of.

I agree with you, one of the biggest contributors to police violence in my opinion is tolerance for it within the system.

> Barring repeal of the Second Amendment, the police in the US have the same right to keep and bear arms as anyone else

Not while acting as government agents they don't, just as those acting as government agents don't have the same freedom of expression and association in that context as they do as private citizens.

In fact, the underlying premise of the second amendment (alluded to, though not expressly stated, in it's preamble) is that there would be no substantial professional military forces or paramilitary police force in the US, and that there would instead be a dependence on (selective or mass, depending on situation) mobilization of the citizen militia to address threats requiring response of an armed force. The second amendment isn't rooted in the idea that having an armed population provides security against government armed forces, it was based on the premise that the government relying on the armed citizenry instead of government armed forces, military or police, was a foundation for securing liberty.

> Barring repeal of the Second Amendment, the police in the US have the same right to keep and bear arms as anyone else...

Employers are allowed to say "no guns at work" in other situations, correct? Does a cop have a corresponding First Amendment right to call everyone a n-word while out on patrol?

>Does a cop have a corresponding First Amendment right to call everyone a n-word while out on patrol?

Unfortunately, yes.

That's demonstrably false.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/breaking-news/os-william...

https://foxync.com/3493743/pennsylvania-police-officer-fired...

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/palm-beach/boca-raton/fl-p...

http://www.ebony.com/news-views/police-recruit-fired-rap-lyr...

To be fair, none of these demonstrate that racist remarks aren't protected by the First Amendment, only that employers and society can exact negative consequences for such speech, which is fair, since freedom of speech goes both ways.

As far as I know, racist speech is protected so long as it doesn't provoke violence against specific individuals ("fighting words.") Although IANAL and I'm willing to concede that I might be entirely wrong, and I don't want to go to the mat for racists anyway.

Uhh, what? Yes, they do. We also, as their employers, have a right to restrict the choice of arms we supply them with _as part of their employment_. Or is your argument that police should be able to buy and have whatever weapons they like, without restriction, for their jobs?

As a private person, yes, they have that right. Doesn’t mean the police precinct needs to stock and hand out military or paramilitary equipment to all officers.