The reason that the gun laws are more restrictive in those parts of the country is because they've realised[sic] what a huge problem they represent.
Then why is it that the areas with the least restrictive gun laws in the U.S. have the fewest gun crimes? Guns aren't the problem - it's culture in urban areas that embraces thuggish behavior and a "war on drugs" that create incentives for gang turf wars and related violence that are the problem. You don't have a similar "war on drugs" in Europe. It's a real problem here both for gun violence and for creating a huge prison population. Mexico has very strict gun laws but has incredible levels of violence as well. Why? Same god-damn drug war, that's why. It creates incredible monetary incentives because of the black market drug trade which in turn creates the wars between among the cartels and gangs to control that lucrative trade and since it's already a criminal enterprise it attracts those sociopaths who could care less about others.
If you eliminated the drug related deaths from our "body count" we'd have an extremely low rate of murder and gun related deaths. Basically, you're advocating eliminating the rights of the law abiding because of the acts of those who are not law abiding. Research has shown that those who have a licensed to carry a concealed firearm are even more law abiding than law enforcement. So, again, it's not guns that are the problem but the criminals who use them.
The point was NOT that Hitler disarmed the German people, but that they were disarmed. The Weimar Republic enacted draconian gun laws because the Treaty of Versailles required them to disarm their military and they did not want to have their people armed and their military disarmed so they passed laws confiscating firearms before their military had to be disarmed. The Nazis simply made good use of those laws and strengthened them as against groups that they wanted to murder.
Shortly after the Nazis took power, they began house-to-house searches to discover firearms in the homes of suspected opponents. They claimed to find large numbers of weapons in the hands of subversives. Bernard E. Harcourt, writing for the University of Chicago Law School and Political Science Department, notes: "the Nazi gun laws of 1938 specifically banned Jewish persons from obtaining a license to manufacture firearms or ammunition. Third, approximately eight months after enacting the 1938 Nazi gun laws, Hitler imposed regulations prohibiting Jewish persons from possessing any dangerous weapons, including firearms." Here's a copy of the 1938 law, in English, if you're interested in reviewing it: http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/NaziLawEnglish.htm (from the group "Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership"). Israel Gutmann, a survivor of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising and world renowned scholar of the Holocaust outlined how the Warsaw Ghetto uprising against the Nazis was hampered by the fact that imprisoned Jews did not have access to adequate arsenals of firearms, although their resistance did lead Goebbels to note in his diary: “This just shows what you can expect from Jews if they lay hands on weapons.”
The same argument goes for Stalin's Russia. The people were not disarmed. You are simply incorrect.
Really? Regarding the Communists and Stalin, in October 1918, the Council of People’s Commissars (the Communist government) ordered citizens to surrender all firearms, ammunition, and sabres, having first mandated registration of all weapons six months earlier. Just like the Nazis, Communist Party members were exempt from the ban.
A 1920 decree then imposed a minimum six month prison sentence for any non-Communist possessing a weapon. After the civil war, possession became punishable with three months hard labor plus fines. After Stalin came to power, he made possession of unlawful firearms a crime punishable
Ah, the appeal to "let's do it for the children" argument - usually an appeal to emotion from someone that doesn't want to look at the facts because they are not favorable to their goal.
Outright tyranny may have a small chance of happening in any given year in any given country, but the consequences of it happening are far too great to ignore. Look to the real tyranny that has taken place during the 20th century - 20 million killed by Stalin, millions dead by Hitler's regime, 3 million (out of a population of 8 million) killed due to Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, millions killed by Mao, etc. Each of these populations had been disarmed. The history of the 20th century was the history of tyranny and the fight against it and if the populations had arms they may have been able to resist their oppressors. While children have died at the hands of guns, when you look closely at the stats regarding children who have died from gun violence, the overwhelming majority are gang members who are 16 and older and could barely be called "children."
As to accidental gun deaths - In 1998, 53 children under age 10 died from accidental gun deaths. When all children under age 15 are examined, the total number of accidental gun deaths totals 121, of which 26 were identified as involving handguns. By comparison, from 2005-2009, there were an average of 3,533 fatal unintentional drownings (non-boating related) annually in the United States — about ten deaths per day. An additional 347 people died each year from drowning in boating-related incidents. About one in five people who die from drowning are children 14 and younger. For every child who dies from drowning, another five receive emergency department care for nonfatal submersion injuries. If you really care about the children, ban swimming pools and swimming in lakes and oceans. Far more children die as a result of drowning than from guns.
Even without the issue of defense against tyranny, guns save far more lives than they take in the U.S. During the Clinton years, the Department of Justice estimated that guns were used for self-defense 1.5 million times per year. Some estimate the number to be as high as 2.5 million. In areas of the country with less restrictive gun laws and higher gun ownership, violent crime is lower. The stats speak for themselves.
Funny thing is, at the time of ratification, there was no "law enforcement" and the second amendment was written to directly confront the danger of a standing army. See Federalist 29:
. . . if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.
BTW, where do you think law enforcement are getting their weapons? The military sells or donates a significant amount of their surplus to law enforcement - LEOs are permitted automatic weapons,.50 cal BMG rounds, tanks, militarized vehicles, sniper rifles etc. They can also use weapons that the military cannot because of the Geneva conventions (tear gas and other chemical weapons are one item that comes to mind).
Your distinction between the weapons used by the military and law enforcement is a distinction without a difference.
Usually, when someone says that they don't understand the arguments in favor of the 2nd Amendment, they usually mean that they don't agree with them, not that they don't understand them (as the reasons are simple and easy to understand). In similar vein, gun control advocates like to state that they are simply asking for "reasonable and common sense" restrictions, which is just their way of insulting opponents without looking like they're being insulting - after all, if you disagree with their proposed restrictions you must be inference be "unreasonable and stupid."
The reason the framers of the Constitution gave for including the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights is two fold - protection of the people against a standing army and protection from invasion by an outside power. Defense of self was deemed a natural right (as one naturally has the right to protect oneself from an aggressor) and, as a natural right, the right to bear arms pre-existed and did not depend on the Bill of Rights. As stated by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist #29:
By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.
So, the original intent was that the states would regularly engage all free citizens in military training (which is what "well regulated" means - well trained) so that the citizens would be able to either resist invasion or resist tyranny from the State.
As to the nature of the arms which a person could possess and/or bear, the citizens at the time of the ratification of the Constitution had cannons, rockets, rifles, pistols, bombs and even war ships (the government would issue Letters of Marque for private individuals with warships to attack and capture enemy vessels).
Essentially, citizens were allowed to own and/or bear any kind of arms that the military could bear because they had to have the ability to resist an army should power become consolidated and a tyrannical government arose. The founders wouldn't have blinked twice to see a citizen owning a machine gun, a flame thrower or even owning a tank. The only restriction on ownership would be if the citizen had demonstrated that he was unfit to own such weapons by way of lunacy or extreme immorality (felony convictions back then normally resulted in a death sentence so the offender not only forfeited the right to arms but also all of his property and usually his life). Therefore, anything that the military could own, the citizen could own, subject only to his ability to marshal the resources to make or purchase the arms.
But bullets are made from copper and lead - both non-ferrous materials. Metal detectors only detect ferrous metals so the bullets won't set the metal detectors off.
As to passing through metal detectors, who really cares, after all anyone that can't afford a real gun from illegal sources isn't going to be going into the areas 'protected' by metal detectors.
But, you see, that's exactly the problem. If it only caused issues for the plebs, politicians wouldn't care but 3d printers can now make guns that can bypass technology that protects the politicians and they damned sure aren't going to stand for that.
BTW, Saturday Night Specials were inexpensive guns usually made from inexpensive zinc alloys and manufactured using low cost techniques - the reduced costs meant some guns could sell for less than $50.00. The politicians didn't want guns that were cheap because that made them widely available and empowered the poor so they could defend themselves. Saturday Night Specials were outlawed in many jurisdictions by defining firearms that had a melting point below 800f to be unsafe and therefore illegal. Of course we know how often people pack heat when it's 800f outside.
so our wonderful overlords at the Justice Department could threaten his ass with 5 years in PMITA prison for violating 18 USC 1001 (false statements to the government). Oh, yeah, he'd also be a felon, lose his right to vote and his right to own or bear arms and his right to serve on a jury (ok, he might not mind losing that one) and have his future career prospects drastically diminished because of his status as a convicted felon. However, he may still have a bright future as a politician.
This is what the preliminary hearing is supposed to be for - it's a determination by a judge that there is sufficient evidence of a crime that a reasonable jury might find the accused guilty.
However, in reality what happens is the prosecutor telling the defendant "We're charging you with enough shit to put you away for 10 years and if you get caught doing something (like defending yourself from an attack) in jail it will be your third strike and you'll be put away for life, if you plead now we'll make it two years and one strike but this offer is only good if you take it before the preliminary hearing."
Basically- if you waive you're right to any form of due process, they'll cut a deal. After the prelim they figure they have you by the balls and play harder.
Our "justice system" is a farce.
Your argument may have made some sense if it weren't for the fact that the Director of CDC's unit that would have been in charge of the research came out and said prior to any research being conducted that they intended to make guns as repugnant as cigarettes. He outlined an agenda wherein the "science" would be made to serve a political goal. True science is not conducted with an agenda in mind - it serves to unveil the truth, not pander to a political ideology where the "scientists" have pre-determined the outcome of the "research."
Dr. Mark Rosenberg, Director of the CDC's National Center for Injury Control and Prevention (NCIPC) in 1994 told The Washington Post: "We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes. Now it [sic] is dirty, deadly, and banned."
I stopped using AVG when they changed their license terms to unilaterally audit the location where the software is being used and gave themselves the right to unilaterally share my information with whomever they choose. - no thanks. See sections 9b and 12 of their license: - http://www.avg.com/us-en/eula-avg-2013-all-1-0
It'd be kinda cool if he is marginally senile like Yoda was in TESB and sounded like the Joker.:-D
Greatest fear - they use Hayden Christensen for the ghost of Anakin. Since it's Disney, I'm wondering if they'll do a CGI Alec Guiness as the ghost of Obiwan . . .
And when you went to rat them out/the teacher out/ whatever what did you expect? It wasn't your place to do that.
Um, yeah it was. He was a teacher in their class and it was his job to teach them. He went to the admin to explain that his class wasn't doing its work and they told him they don't care. So basically, they wanted him to babysit and not teach. That is a waste of his time and theirs. The administration should have backed him up.
This. Oh, and don't forget the fun things they'll do. Like steal the mouse balls so that the next class won't be able to use the computers. Or gluing keys or other miscreant shit. Never mind that if you write referrals for such activity that the administration knocks you because referrals are used as a metric and the more they accumulate as a school, the worse the school looks so they don't actually try to control the kids. I had high school kids try to bum-rush me at the door before the bell, slash tires on my ride, throw fruit when my back was turned to them because I had to write on the board, etc. And the school acts like you are unable to "control the students" when you send them up on a referral but then the school won't give you any other tools to bring about order. The schools in my area are a bad joke.
(Note: YMMV. Certain conservative State legislatures are trying to make it illegal to record police, so as to allow the police to cover up any of their criminal acts; however I am confidant that these laws are destined to eventually be fully overturned by the courts.)
Oh, you mean those notoriously conservative state legislatures in Illinois, Maryland and Massachusetts? Only two of the twelve states that require two-party consent for recording are "conservative" and those that specifically make it illegal to record cops are all deeply blue. Sorry to break it to you, but conservatives are not particularly trusting of government, it's your wonderful liberal legislatures that try to empower cops to keep people in line.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason that the gun laws are more restrictive in those parts of the country is because they've realised[sic] what a huge problem they represent.
Then why is it that the areas with the least restrictive gun laws in the U.S. have the fewest gun crimes? Guns aren't the problem - it's culture in urban areas that embraces thuggish behavior and a "war on drugs" that create incentives for gang turf wars and related violence that are the problem. You don't have a similar "war on drugs" in Europe. It's a real problem here both for gun violence and for creating a huge prison population. Mexico has very strict gun laws but has incredible levels of violence as well. Why? Same god-damn drug war, that's why. It creates incredible monetary incentives because of the black market drug trade which in turn creates the wars between among the cartels and gangs to control that lucrative trade and since it's already a criminal enterprise it attracts those sociopaths who could care less about others.
If you eliminated the drug related deaths from our "body count" we'd have an extremely low rate of murder and gun related deaths. Basically, you're advocating eliminating the rights of the law abiding because of the acts of those who are not law abiding. Research has shown that those who have a licensed to carry a concealed firearm are even more law abiding than law enforcement. So, again, it's not guns that are the problem but the criminals who use them.
The point was NOT that Hitler disarmed the German people, but that they were disarmed. The Weimar Republic enacted draconian gun laws because the Treaty of Versailles required them to disarm their military and they did not want to have their people armed and their military disarmed so they passed laws confiscating firearms before their military had to be disarmed. The Nazis simply made good use of those laws and strengthened them as against groups that they wanted to murder.
Shortly after the Nazis took power, they began house-to-house searches to discover firearms in the homes of suspected opponents. They claimed to find large numbers of weapons in the hands of subversives. Bernard E. Harcourt, writing for the University of Chicago Law School and Political Science Department, notes: "the Nazi gun laws of 1938 specifically banned Jewish persons from obtaining a license to manufacture firearms or ammunition. Third, approximately eight months after enacting the 1938 Nazi gun laws, Hitler imposed regulations prohibiting Jewish persons from possessing any dangerous weapons, including firearms." Here's a copy of the 1938 law, in English, if you're interested in reviewing it: http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/NaziLawEnglish.htm (from the group "Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership"). Israel Gutmann, a survivor of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising and world renowned scholar of the Holocaust outlined how the Warsaw Ghetto uprising against the Nazis was hampered by the fact that imprisoned Jews did not have access to adequate arsenals of firearms, although their resistance did lead Goebbels to note in his diary: “This just shows what you can expect from Jews if they lay hands on weapons.”
The same argument goes for Stalin's Russia. The people were not disarmed. You are simply incorrect.
Really? Regarding the Communists and Stalin, in October 1918, the Council of People’s Commissars (the Communist government) ordered citizens to surrender all firearms, ammunition, and sabres, having first mandated registration of all weapons six months earlier. Just like the Nazis, Communist Party members were exempt from the ban. A 1920 decree then imposed a minimum six month prison sentence for any non-Communist possessing a weapon. After the civil war, possession became punishable with three months hard labor plus fines. After Stalin came to power, he made possession of unlawful firearms a crime punishable
Moon terrorists! Quick, let's send everyone from DHS to the Moon!
Ah, the appeal to "let's do it for the children" argument - usually an appeal to emotion from someone that doesn't want to look at the facts because they are not favorable to their goal.
Outright tyranny may have a small chance of happening in any given year in any given country, but the consequences of it happening are far too great to ignore. Look to the real tyranny that has taken place during the 20th century - 20 million killed by Stalin, millions dead by Hitler's regime, 3 million (out of a population of 8 million) killed due to Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, millions killed by Mao, etc. Each of these populations had been disarmed. The history of the 20th century was the history of tyranny and the fight against it and if the populations had arms they may have been able to resist their oppressors. While children have died at the hands of guns, when you look closely at the stats regarding children who have died from gun violence, the overwhelming majority are gang members who are 16 and older and could barely be called "children."
As to accidental gun deaths - In 1998, 53 children under age 10 died from accidental gun deaths. When all children under age 15 are examined, the total number of accidental gun deaths totals 121, of which 26 were identified as involving handguns. By comparison, from 2005-2009, there were an average of 3,533 fatal unintentional drownings (non-boating related) annually in the United States — about ten deaths per day. An additional 347 people died each year from drowning in boating-related incidents. About one in five people who die from drowning are children 14 and younger. For every child who dies from drowning, another five receive emergency department care for nonfatal submersion injuries. If you really care about the children, ban swimming pools and swimming in lakes and oceans. Far more children die as a result of drowning than from guns.
Even without the issue of defense against tyranny, guns save far more lives than they take in the U.S. During the Clinton years, the Department of Justice estimated that guns were used for self-defense 1.5 million times per year. Some estimate the number to be as high as 2.5 million. In areas of the country with less restrictive gun laws and higher gun ownership, violent crime is lower. The stats speak for themselves.
. . . if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.
BTW, where do you think law enforcement are getting their weapons? The military sells or donates a significant amount of their surplus to law enforcement - LEOs are permitted automatic weapons, .50 cal BMG rounds, tanks, militarized vehicles, sniper rifles etc. They can also use weapons that the military cannot because of the Geneva conventions (tear gas and other chemical weapons are one item that comes to mind).
Your distinction between the weapons used by the military and law enforcement is a distinction without a difference.
Usually, when someone says that they don't understand the arguments in favor of the 2nd Amendment, they usually mean that they don't agree with them, not that they don't understand them (as the reasons are simple and easy to understand). In similar vein, gun control advocates like to state that they are simply asking for "reasonable and common sense" restrictions, which is just their way of insulting opponents without looking like they're being insulting - after all, if you disagree with their proposed restrictions you must be inference be "unreasonable and stupid."
The reason the framers of the Constitution gave for including the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights is two fold - protection of the people against a standing army and protection from invasion by an outside power. Defense of self was deemed a natural right (as one naturally has the right to protect oneself from an aggressor) and, as a natural right, the right to bear arms pre-existed and did not depend on the Bill of Rights. As stated by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist #29:
By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.
So, the original intent was that the states would regularly engage all free citizens in military training (which is what "well regulated" means - well trained) so that the citizens would be able to either resist invasion or resist tyranny from the State.
As to the nature of the arms which a person could possess and/or bear, the citizens at the time of the ratification of the Constitution had cannons, rockets, rifles, pistols, bombs and even war ships (the government would issue Letters of Marque for private individuals with warships to attack and capture enemy vessels).
Essentially, citizens were allowed to own and/or bear any kind of arms that the military could bear because they had to have the ability to resist an army should power become consolidated and a tyrannical government arose. The founders wouldn't have blinked twice to see a citizen owning a machine gun, a flame thrower or even owning a tank. The only restriction on ownership would be if the citizen had demonstrated that he was unfit to own such weapons by way of lunacy or extreme immorality (felony convictions back then normally resulted in a death sentence so the offender not only forfeited the right to arms but also all of his property and usually his life). Therefore, anything that the military could own, the citizen could own, subject only to his ability to marshal the resources to make or purchase the arms.
As confirmed by: Mythbusters and Straight Dope
But bullets are made from copper and lead - both non-ferrous materials. Metal detectors only detect ferrous metals so the bullets won't set the metal detectors off.
As to passing through metal detectors, who really cares, after all anyone that can't afford a real gun from illegal sources isn't going to be going into the areas 'protected' by metal detectors.
But, you see, that's exactly the problem. If it only caused issues for the plebs, politicians wouldn't care but 3d printers can now make guns that can bypass technology that protects the politicians and they damned sure aren't going to stand for that.
BTW, Saturday Night Specials were inexpensive guns usually made from inexpensive zinc alloys and manufactured using low cost techniques - the reduced costs meant some guns could sell for less than $50.00. The politicians didn't want guns that were cheap because that made them widely available and empowered the poor so they could defend themselves. Saturday Night Specials were outlawed in many jurisdictions by defining firearms that had a melting point below 800f to be unsafe and therefore illegal. Of course we know how often people pack heat when it's 800f outside.
There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
so our wonderful overlords at the Justice Department could threaten his ass with 5 years in PMITA prison for violating 18 USC 1001 (false statements to the government). Oh, yeah, he'd also be a felon, lose his right to vote and his right to own or bear arms and his right to serve on a jury (ok, he might not mind losing that one) and have his future career prospects drastically diminished because of his status as a convicted felon. However, he may still have a bright future as a politician.
correlated positively with many characteristics of wealthy nations – . . . higher broadband penetration
This is what the preliminary hearing is supposed to be for - it's a determination by a judge that there is sufficient evidence of a crime that a reasonable jury might find the accused guilty. However, in reality what happens is the prosecutor telling the defendant "We're charging you with enough shit to put you away for 10 years and if you get caught doing something (like defending yourself from an attack) in jail it will be your third strike and you'll be put away for life, if you plead now we'll make it two years and one strike but this offer is only good if you take it before the preliminary hearing." Basically- if you waive you're right to any form of due process, they'll cut a deal. After the prelim they figure they have you by the balls and play harder. Our "justice system" is a farce.
Not sure if Carrie would still fit into the bikini, though.
* SHUDDERS *
. Unfortunately such research has been largely blocked by political pressure from the gun lobby. Apparently, they feel that their interests are best served if we keep arguing about stupid anecdotes instead of real science.
Your argument may have made some sense if it weren't for the fact that the Director of CDC's unit that would have been in charge of the research came out and said prior to any research being conducted that they intended to make guns as repugnant as cigarettes. He outlined an agenda wherein the "science" would be made to serve a political goal. True science is not conducted with an agenda in mind - it serves to unveil the truth, not pander to a political ideology where the "scientists" have pre-determined the outcome of the "research."
Dr. Mark Rosenberg, Director of the CDC's National Center for Injury Control and Prevention (NCIPC) in 1994 told The Washington Post: "We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes. Now it [sic] is dirty, deadly, and banned."
or is the Hyrdrospanner next?
I stopped using AVG when they changed their license terms to unilaterally audit the location where the software is being used and gave themselves the right to unilaterally share my information with whomever they choose. - no thanks. See sections 9b and 12 of their license: - http://www.avg.com/us-en/eula-avg-2013-all-1-0
The Golgafrinchans of 'Ark B' will be glad to have new salon clients.
to implement his ORCA GOTV (Get-Out-The-Vote) system?
It'd be kinda cool if he is marginally senile like Yoda was in TESB and sounded like the Joker. :-D
Greatest fear - they use Hayden Christensen for the ghost of Anakin. Since it's Disney, I'm wondering if they'll do a CGI Alec Guiness as the ghost of Obiwan . . .
I'd be OK with having the screenwriter for Cars 3 so long as Joss Whedon is hired as director and rewrites everything he does.
N/T
And when you went to rat them out/the teacher out/ whatever what did you expect? It wasn't your place to do that.
Um, yeah it was. He was a teacher in their class and it was his job to teach them. He went to the admin to explain that his class wasn't doing its work and they told him they don't care. So basically, they wanted him to babysit and not teach. That is a waste of his time and theirs. The administration should have backed him up.
This. Oh, and don't forget the fun things they'll do. Like steal the mouse balls so that the next class won't be able to use the computers. Or gluing keys or other miscreant shit. Never mind that if you write referrals for such activity that the administration knocks you because referrals are used as a metric and the more they accumulate as a school, the worse the school looks so they don't actually try to control the kids. I had high school kids try to bum-rush me at the door before the bell, slash tires on my ride, throw fruit when my back was turned to them because I had to write on the board, etc. And the school acts like you are unable to "control the students" when you send them up on a referral but then the school won't give you any other tools to bring about order. The schools in my area are a bad joke.
n/t
(Note: YMMV. Certain conservative State legislatures are trying to make it illegal to record police, so as to allow the police to cover up any of their criminal acts; however I am confidant that these laws are destined to eventually be fully overturned by the courts.)
Oh, you mean those notoriously conservative state legislatures in Illinois, Maryland and Massachusetts? Only two of the twelve states that require two-party consent for recording are "conservative" and those that specifically make it illegal to record cops are all deeply blue. Sorry to break it to you, but conservatives are not particularly trusting of government, it's your wonderful liberal legislatures that try to empower cops to keep people in line.