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

Kafka said:
Go right ahead. I understand that anyone who wants to have an actual discussion on the topics is a banworthy offense on JPP. Feel free to reach out to the mods.

Get me banned.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
takes a special kind of stupid to also suggest the person starting the thread is the one to sit it out

so stop trolling, or be banned
 
zymurgy said:
takes a special kind of stupid to also suggest the person starting the thread is the one to sit it out

so stop trolling, or be banned
Click to expand...

I am, by definition, not trolling. I'm merely trying to better understand the opposing point of view.
 
Kafka said:
I am, by definition, not trolling. I'm merely trying to better understand the opposing point of view.
Click to expand...
it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that cops do not need to risk their life to protect someone. yet you troll on

the view is you have a right to life - and putting on a badge does not end that right to life. that we have to explain this to you indicates you shouldn't even vote
 
zymurgy said:
it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that cops do not need to risk their life to protect someone. yet you troll on
Click to expand...

It is not technically trolling to ask someone who says they've read the case law to explain how SCOTUS differentiates between an individual and society as a whole since society as a whole is nothing more than a collection of individuals.

 
Kafka said:
It is not technically trolling to ask someone who says they've read the case law to explain how SCOTUS differentiates between an individual and society as a whole since society as a whole is nothing more than a collection of individuals.
Click to expand...
if you are wondering if you can gas some jews as a way to protect society - no. you can't do that.

you bigots never cease to amaze me though with how you want to obfuscate on what should be obvious
 
Kafka said:
Yes we have established what the ruling said. You have read the case, I'm curious how they parse the difference between "individuals" and "society as a whole". Clearly even by most of these rulings the police DO have a duty to protect and serve the society as a whole. What does that mean specifically?

How can one be responsible for protecting society as a whole and NOT an individual if society as a whole is nothing more than a collection of individuals?

And how does it alter my point?
Click to expand...
they parsed the difference as 'society' and 'individual'..............your presumption that society is individuals, therefore deserving of individual protection was turned down by the courts.

I repeat, you and you alone are responsible for your safety, not the government. Per the Constitution, the mandate is for government to protect and preserve individual rights.
 
zymurgy said:
if you are wondering if you can gas some jews as a way to protect society - no. you can't do that.

you bigots never cease to amaze me though with how you want to obfuscate on what should be obvious
Click to expand...

I think you must have been responding to a different poster.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
they parsed the difference as 'society' and 'individual'..............your presumption that society is individuals, therefore deserving of individual protection was turned down by the courts.
Click to expand...

I suspected as much. Maybe if I get some time I'll read the court cases. Maybe I can fill you in on the details.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top