Serious question for Gun Advocates.

Freddy Figbottom said:
surely you could see how this legal duty to respond to every call could be used as a way to completely hobble law enforcement.
Click to expand...
the 2nd biggest reason that the framers prohibited government infringement on the right to bear arms was that they knew that each man was responsible for their own safety and protection, not the government.
 
Taichiliberal said:
All you've done is repeat yourself with no links to valid sources for support. Give the post number if you have. Posts 11 and 45.
Click to expand...
Warren v. District of Columbia (1981)

An earlier case holding police had no specific duty to protect individuals from harm, even after multiple calls.

DeShaney v. Winnebago County (1989)

The Supreme Court ruled the state has no obligation to protect individuals from private violence unless the state creates the danger or takes custody, setting a precedent that police don't have to protect citizens from private harm.

Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005)

This case reinforced DeShaney, finding police had no constitutional duty to enforce a restraining order and protect a woman from her estranged husband, as she wasn't in custody.

In the spring of 2012, Joseph Lozito, who was brutally stabbed and "grievously wounded, deeply slashed around the head and neck", sued police for negligence in failing to render assistance to him as he was being attacked by Gelman.

On July 25, 2013, Judge Margaret Chan dismissed Lozito's suit, stating that while Lozito's account of the attack rang true and appeared "highly credible", Chan agreed that police had "no special duty" to protect Lozito.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
the 2nd biggest reason that the framers prohibited government infringement on the right to bear arms was that they knew that each man was responsible for their own safety and protection, not the government.
Click to expand...
so you're on defund the police then?

be honest.

fuck the defenseless, government should only serve the rich.

anarchy is fucking stupid, power abhors a vacuum.

the bankers and their fascist libertarian idiot slaves want anarchy so they can take over everything and regular folks are defenseless.
 
Freddy Figbottom said:
so you're on defund the police then?

be honest.

fuck the defenseless, government should only serve the rich.

anarchy is fucking stupid, power abhors a vacuum.

the bankers and their fascist libertarian idiot slaves want anarchy so they can take over everything and regular folks are defenseless.
Click to expand...
what mental gymnastics did you employ to believe i'm for defunding police because I said the founders believed that YOU are solely responsible for your own safety and that of your family??????
 
SmarterthanYou said:
The founding fathers were brilliant in their ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights due to their experiences of an oppressive government with a standing army. So HOW is the founders belief that government cannot be trusted a strained and idiotic position??????
Click to expand...
The government protects our rights. that's what the Constitution does and its a government document.

Corporations aren't obligated to allow free speech; you libertarians loved saying it and were pro censorship.

You work for big. pharma.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
the 2nd biggest reason that the framers prohibited government infringement on the right to bear arms was that they knew that each man was responsible for their own safety and protection, not the government.
Click to expand...
Your belief that founders were anti law enforcement is the dumbest shit ever.

You're basically with blm.

You're for defunding police.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Yeah, the exact shuffle.....parroting the 2nd Amendment line as if that's the be all, end all answer to ANY reasoning for restricting guns from various persons in the populace.

You have a criminal record, you don't get a gun. Yet you're a potential "security risk" on an airliner (i.e. 9-11) and it's okay to buy a gun.

That just doesn't make horse sense. But you stupidly insist that it's a prelude to remove the 2nd amendment.

So explain to us all how that works. The reading audience awaits.
Click to expand...

I never said I was against all restrictions. So that was a lie.

And yes, it does matter that the 2nd Amendment exists. If that is the issue, pass a constitutional amendment to remove it.

As for the potential security risk stopping you from getting on a plane, boarding an airplane is not a constitutionally guaranteed right.

Not being able to go on an airplane with a gun does NOT mean you cannot own one.
 
WinterBorn said:
I never said I was against all restrictions. So that was a lie.

And yes, it does matter that the 2nd Amendment exists. If that is the issue, pass a constitutional amendment to remove it.

As for the potential security risk stopping you from getting on a plane, boarding an airplane is not a constitutionally guaranteed right.

Not being able to go on an airplane with a gun does NOT mean you cannot own one.
Click to expand...
 
I never said I was against all restrictions. So that was a lie.

And yes, it does matter that the 2nd Amendment exists. If that is the issue, pass a constitutional amendment to remove it.

As for the potential security risk stopping you from getting on a plane, boarding an airplane is not a constitutionally guaranteed right.

Not being able to go on an airplane with a gun does NOT mean you cannot own one.



(now there are 3)
 
Will you stop BS'ing and parroting the SOS, please? YOU brought up the 2nd Amendment, which has NOTHING to do with the OP question. And that asinine blather trying to tie constitutional rights and protections is just plain dumb. As I pointed out before. CLEARLY, you can't offer concrete logic as to why someone can be a security risk to the lives of plane passengers (a'la 9-11) and thereby banned, but that ban is not on a background check red flag when they purchase a gun. Are you operating on some odd faith that the same person can't pose a security risk on the ground? You can't be that naive ... but you can be that stubborn, it seems.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Will you stop BS'ing and parroting the SOS, please? YOU brought up the 2nd Amendment, which has NOTHING to do with the OP question. And that asinine blather trying to tie constitutional rights and protections is just plain dumb. As I pointed out before. CLEARLY, you can't offer concrete logic as to why someone can be a security risk to the lives of plane passengers (a'la 9-11) and thereby banned, but that ban is not on a background check red flag when they purchase a gun. Are you operating on some odd faith that the same person can't pose a security risk on the ground? You can't be that naive ... but you can be that stubborn, it seems.
Click to expand...

No, I will not stop reminding you of the 2nd amendment. It is the crux of the issue.

As I have said numerous times, if you want guns removed entirely, then pass a constitutional amendment removing the 2nd amendment.
 
Freddy Figbottom said:
The government protects our rights. that's what the Constitution does and its a government document.

Corporations aren't obligated to allow free speech; you libertarians loved saying it and were pro censorship.

You work for big. pharma.
Click to expand...
protect our RIGHTS, as in our RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE/SELF PRESERVATION

not sure about the rest of your post............trolling?
 
WinterBorn said:
No, I will not stop reminding you of the 2nd amendment. It is the crux of the issue.

As I have said numerous times, if you want guns removed entirely, then pass a constitutional amendment removing the 2nd amendment.
Click to expand...
Ageed. Worse for the Democrats, the harder they push to ban guns, the more often SCOTUS comes back with firmer protections of the Second Amendment.

Again, I think the Democrats should change their 30-year-old failing strategy and take a different tack.

afvq5r.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top