I have commented on "defunding the police" before. But I will address it again for you.
In my opinion, "defunding the police" is a stupid term and as such, it cost the left too much from the get go. The person that coined that phrase is probably responsible for causing any potential changes to be stopped dead in its tracks because very few people read past the headlines. So naturally, many right wingers think it means "Defund the Police" when the intention was the "Reallocate funding from some areas to address shortfalls in other areas"
As someone who was the rank of Commander (Think Captiain if your department doesn't have that rank), and 34 years in Law enforcement, I have witnessed the ebb and flow of policing. I have been a part of committees that reviewed results of policing and tried to figure out if the bang was worth the buck. So I am absolutely not opposed to reviewing a departments budget, determining if certain units or specialized services are in fact delivering what they were supposed to and if not, reallocating those funds to places that are showing or could be showing better results. Of course I believe we need policing. But I am also open to reviewing where tax dollars are spent to make sure there is value.
I see Texas just approved carrying without a permit so I think your "assault on 2nd amendment " claim is a false narrative. I also think allowing anyone over 21 to carry without any required training is just stupid. but I'm sure we will be revisiting this decision 5 years from now
This is actually an appreciated great response. Two things though. We (I) know that “defund the police” does mean (in most cases) means re-allocation which is basically the same thing as defunding simply because certain funding is taken away from certain departments leaving those departments vulnerable. Of course departments should review yearly budgets but some of these budget cuts call to dissolve certain departments. LAPD cut their budget by $150mil doing away with their gang units. Sad
It was signed into law yesterday and NRA backed, that Texas is now a constitutional carry states as covered in the Second Amendment. You mentioned required training. I agree with this but not everyone can afford formal firearms training for those who can’t afford it, law abiding citizens still have the constitutional right to protect themselves, families and businesses. HOWEVER, basic knowing your firearm and the at the very least, they should know the four basic rules of handling a firearm and the laws and rules of the Castle Doctrine/Stand your ground laws and yes, I’m also talking about in the now 30-32 constitutional carry states and you’re right, in states like Texas the 2A is revered but still not out of the woods. You have reps like Shiela Jackson Lee trying to introduce HR 127 plus about another 15-16 “gun control” bills in the pipeline. This wouldn’t really have been an issue before but now the left control all three branches and the only one standing the way (thank God) is Joe Manchin.
On this note, Biden nominated a gun-control advocate to head the ATF who sits on many gun-control groups that’s only intention is ultimately gun confiscation. His name is David Chipman
In blue states the second Amendment is extremely in danger because we have anti-2A advocates within that states government. Certain firearms have to be “California compliant” or it’s a possible felony. Max 10 round mags..why? It’s my constitutional right and the list goes on.
On the issue of more training for cops. I know how they train, drills, etc that being said, they are trained but the problem isn’t more training, the problem is THEY DON’T train but only when it’s mandatory which isn’t much. Most agencies here have to requalify once a year with their duty weapon for about an hour and when something happens a lot wind up getting injured or killed...why? Because they don’t train at least on their own so they either panic and shoot or get shot. I’ve mentioned this before. Only 36% of shots fired from 10ft actually hit their target.