Serious question for Gun Advocates.

Last edited:
Dutch Uncle said:
Thanks for the insults and personal attacks. It's people like you which is why I never trust Democrats. MAGAts are simply the flip-side of what Democrats have been pushing for 30 years. Sad.
Click to expand...
1. You're welcome.
2. A flimsy excuse at best. You are DOCUMENTED as being condescending and insulting when it suits you. Seems you can dish it out, but you can't take it.
3. Translation: Dutch got nailed doing the gun monkey shuffle, and he doesn't like it. So he shifts gears to whine about his widdle fee-fees getting hurt.
 
Taichiliberal said:
1. You're welcome.
2. A flimsy excuse at best. You are DOCUMENTED as being condescending and insulting when it suits you. Seems you can dish it out, but you can't take it.
3. Translation: Dutch got nailed doing the gun monkey shuffle, and he doesn't like it. So he shifts gears to whine about his widdle fee-fees getting hurt.
Click to expand...
1. No worries.
2. Thanks for your opinions.
3. Meh. I expect all political extremists to be upset with disagreements.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
QED.

Dutch Uncle

Post in thread 'What a weak man, all we can do is pray.'

Tbird19482 said:
I didn't say BAN guns, BUT put reasonable controls on the ones like the AK 47's , hand guns , butt stocks , things like that . NOT take them away or anything like that.
Click to expand...
You didn't, but that is the goal of the Democratic Party as it's been since Bill Clinton. Hillary confirmed it in the 2016 election that she favored an "Australian-style" gun ban meaning mandatory confiscation. This won't work, especially with an ultra-conservative SCOTUS in place for the next few decades. I suggest another strategy to achieve the same goal: reduce gun violence and save American lives without...
Click to expand...
🙄 Regurgitating your opinions, supposition and conjecture neither refutes or disprove my previous post.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
1. No worries.
2. Thanks for your opinions.
3. Meh. I expect all political extremists to be upset with disagreements.
Click to expand...
Sorry Dutch. But you've been documented on this thread over the years in flame wars with other posters. And you get snarky regarding the gun control issue. You can deny it, but anyone who's been on this site for a few years knows of what I speak.
A monkey projection if ever ther was one. Let us know when you stop BS' ing and deal with Post #11.
 
Taichiliberal said:
So asking for decent fact based debates and honest, rational and logical responses is considered "righteous: by you? Jeez Dutch, you should apply for a job with Fox News or as an assistant to Scott Jennings.
Click to expand...
No, but it's understandable why a political extremist would completely miss the point. No worries!
 
Freddy Figbottom said:
so what do you want to come out of all your weird concerns about cops?

you can't have a law that they must respond or be sued.

nobody would open a restaurant if you could be sued for bad service.
Click to expand...
prohibit unions for law enforcement
prohibit all gov entities from buying insurance policies to cover police misconduct
eliminate qualified immunity
 
Taichiliberal said:
Not quite. Now while the cases you sighted are valid, what's fascinating is the hair split of protecting "the public" versus the "individual citizen". individual: www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law-and-life/do-the-police-have-an-obligation-to-protect-you/
So essentially we're both right.
Click to expand...
not so much of hair splitting as it is making it extraordinarily vague on purpose. protecting the public 'at large' has no real definition, other than enforcing the laws that the public has in place. removing liability for failure to protect an individual, unless you're in some sort of custodial status, allows law enforcement to prioritize office safety above all else. nobody is going to want to work for the government if the government isn't going to protect them from liability. yes, we are both right in the sense that most cops will subject themselves to danger, voluntarily, but will not be held accountable for their failure to do so.
 
Freddy Figbottom said:
does this mean an officer can get sued as an individual for doing his job?

this effectively ends the profession.

dumb as fuck.

hell no.
Click to expand...
if an officer is doing his job correctly, then he's not violating anyones rights, is he? therefore he would not be subject to a lawsuit.

what you're advocating is a system where cops can do just about anything they want and get away with it, but that's the price you're willing to pay to feel protected even though they have no obligation to do such a thing
 
SmarterthanYou said:
if an officer is doing his job correctly, then he's not violating anyones rights, is he? therefore he would not be subject to a lawsuit.

what you're advocating is a system where cops can do just about anything they want and get away with it, but that's the price you're willing to pay to feel protected even though they have no obligation to do such a thingy
Click to expand...
yeah maybe I was thinking you did say misconduct and not just any general nuisance suit.

I' just always on the look out for secret libertarian anarchists who want only private security so the rich can run roughshod over humanity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top