Kamala claims right to walk into your home and inspect your gun safe

Geeko Sportivo said:
I don't own a copy of the federal or state law books.

I wouldn't even be able to read law- because I am not a lawyer!

I wouldn't know where to start Pal!
Click to expand...
So you were talking out your ass the whole time. Got it, Whitey. :thup:
 
Damocles said:
Nope, that's what the 2005 SCOTUS stated about law enforcement long before Trump ever took office.
Click to expand...

However there is a some subtlety to this. The ruling was apparently quite controversial but the point still stands:

However the way it breaks down renders this particular view of it kind of incorrect. While the police owe no duty to any individual they DO owe a duty to protect society as a whole. Given that society is NOTHING MORE than the accumulation of individuals my original position still stands.
 
Kafka said:
However there is a some subtlety to this. The ruling was apparently quite controversial but the point still stands:

However the way it breaks down renders this particular view of it kind of incorrect. While the police owe no duty to any individual they DO owe a duty to protect society as a whole. Given that society is NOTHING MORE than the accumulation of individuals my original position still stands.
Click to expand...
how did that work out here?

nypost.com

City says cops had no duty to protect subway hero who subdued killer

He says he put his life on the line to stop a killer — and claims cops sat back and watched. But city lawyers are arguing that the police had no legal duty to protect Joseph Lozito, the Long Island…
nypost.com nypost.com
 
Kafka said:
My favorite posts in these type of threads are those from the various Pro-LIfe people. I am always fascinated at how America has created a version of Christianity that values living by the sword.
Click to expand...
because history has proven that even those who don't live by the sword can still die by the sword
 
SmarterthanYou said:
because history has proven that even those who don't live by the sword can still die by the sword
Click to expand...

Nah, the reason I mention it is because usually pro-life folks are leveraging their deeply held Christian beliefs. So when some of them ALSO support guns it's clear they don't ACTUALLY care about what Jesus taught: "Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. "
 
SmarterthanYou said:
how did that work out here?
Click to expand...

I think you might be missing my larger point. Clearly, even by the SCOTUS rulings the police DO have a duty to protect society as a whole. That's why they are there to enforce laws. Laws exist to ensure compliance. Police enforce those laws. Those laws are set up to protect society.

Now, if you are in favor of completely defunding and eliminating the police I will disagree with you. I think they have an actual valuable service to provide in the terms of protection.

ALSO: I'm not going to pare through the court cases but I'm willing to be it doesn't quite say exactly what you might think it says. Usually these "shocking" decisions are far more subtle and don't quite say what the screamers tell you they say. I bet there's a ton of subtley and caveat to this. (That's been my experience with most of the case law I've read)
 
zymurgy said:
"We're going to require responsible behaviors among everybody in the community, and just because you legally possess a gun in the sanctity of your locked home doesn't mean that we're not going to walk into that home and check to see if you're being responsible and safe in the way you conduct your affairs," Harris told a group of reporters in May 2007.

That is disgusting's and disqualifying

now lineup shit stains and defend this bullshit - we know you will
Click to expand...
Did Fox News (Fake News) report this????
 
Kafka said:
I think you might be missing my larger point. Clearly, even by the SCOTUS rulings the police DO have a duty to protect society as a whole. That's why they are there to enforce laws. Laws exist to ensure compliance. Police enforce those laws. Those laws are set up to protect society.

Now, if you are in favor of completely defunding and eliminating the police I will disagree with you. I think they have an actual valuable service to provide in the terms of protection.

ALSO: I'm not going to pare through the court cases but I'm willing to be it doesn't quite say exactly what you might think it says. Usually these "shocking" decisions are far more subtle and don't quite say what the screamers tell you they say. I bet there's a ton of subtley and caveat to this. (That's been my experience with most of the case law I've read)
Click to expand...
I am no in favor of defunding police.

I do, however, think that you completely discredit your argument if you're not willing to read the cases I presented to you in support of my position.
 
Kafka said:
I think you might be missing my larger point. Clearly, even by the SCOTUS rulings the police DO have a duty to protect society as a whole. That's why they are there to enforce laws. Laws exist to ensure compliance. Police enforce those laws. Those laws are set up to protect society.

Now, if you are in favor of completely defunding and eliminating the police I will disagree with you. I think they have an actual valuable service to provide in the terms of protection.

ALSO: I'm not going to pare through the court cases but I'm willing to be it doesn't quite say exactly what you might think it says. Usually these "shocking" decisions are far more subtle and don't quite say what the screamers tell you they say. I bet there's a ton of subtley and caveat to this. (That's been my experience with most of the case law I've read)
Click to expand...
I think you miss the forest through the trees

cops have no obligation to protect me. We proved you were ignorant on this.

and because this is true, I most certainly will use that to further justify my need for a weapon
 
Bigdog said:
So you were talking out your ass the whole time. Got it, Whitey. :thup:
Click to expand...
I keep up with the law. I just can't find them because I don't have a set of law books!

But think, When Donald Trump was almost assassinated in Pennsylvania, the FBI and the Local Authorities were quickly able to investigate the home of the shooter thanks to this law we are talking about.

On Donald Trump's second assassination attempt, SAME THING, as it would have been a State law that allowed the Local Sheriffs to investigate the home of the Shooter. And it would have been a Federal law that allowed the FBI to investigate the home of the shooter. And they would have used a similar law we are talking about to carry it out. I haven't kept up with where this guy lived.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top