Warren v. D.C. - versus - gun control

[Paulie]

Let's hear the spin on this. How do gun control advocates who believe we should let the police do the protecting reconcile that idea with this Supreme Court ruling that basically negates any obligation on the part of police to do the protecting part of serve and protect?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Good luck with that.

 

[The Republicans]

I’m gun control. People who are actually have guns are the control. The criminals and the thugs are the problem period.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Let's hear the spin on this. How do gun control advocates who believe we should let the police do the protecting reconcile that idea with this Supreme Court ruling that basically negates any obligation on the part of police to do the protecting part of serve and protect?

What constitutes a ‘gun control advocate’ – there are gun owners who advocate for necessary, proper, and Constitutional firearm regulatory measures consistent with Second Amendment case law.

Indeed, there are no ‘gun control advocates’ who oppose private citizens possessing handguns for lawful self-defense.

The thread premise fails the consequence of the wrongheaded notion that ‘gun control advocates’ believe only law enforcement should possess firearms and be responsible for public safety.

 

[Pilot1]

The police can NOT anticipate crime. They can't be there to protect you even if that was their job, and it's not their job. It is up to YOU to protect yourself through avoidance, keeping your home secure, and defending yourself and your family if necessary. Criminals love Liberal/Progressives and their calls for more gun control, even with 22,000 gun laws on the books, and major cities often being "gun free zones".

 

[Claudette]

Police are reactive. They can't do a damned thing until a crime is committed.

If you want to be protected then have a gun and be prepared to use it.

 

[Paulie]

Let's hear the spin on this. How do gun control advocates who believe we should let the police do the protecting reconcile that idea with this Supreme Court ruling that basically negates any obligation on the part of police to do the protecting part of serve and protect?

What constitutes a ‘gun control advocate’ – there are gun owners who advocate for necessary, proper, and Constitutional firearm regulatory measures consistent with Second Amendment case law.

Indeed, there are no ‘gun control advocates’ who oppose private citizens possessing handguns for lawful self-defense.

The thread premise fails the consequence of the wrongheaded notion that ‘gun control advocates’ believe only law enforcement should possess firearms and be responsible for public safety.

Read the fucking op again you idiot, I didn't say all gun control people believe a certain thing or that they all want a certain thing I'm literally asking the ones who DO believe that, how they reconcile it. Because there are PLENTY of people who believe we shouldn't have any legal access to firearms whatsoever

 

[Oddball]

What constitutes a ‘gun control advocate’ – there are gun owners who advocate for necessary, proper, and Constitutional firearm regulatory measures consistent with Second Amendment case law.

Indeed, there are no ‘gun control advocates’ who oppose private citizens possessing handguns for lawful self-defense.

The thread premise fails the consequence of the wrongheaded notion that ‘gun control advocates’ believe only law enforcement should possess firearms and be responsible for public safety.

 

[The Republicans]

Let's hear the spin on this. How do gun control advocates who believe we should let the police do the protecting reconcile that idea with this Supreme Court ruling that basically negates any obligation on the part of police to do the protecting part of serve and protect?

The liberals already hate the blue lines. Look at what the trash said in Dallas! I thought George Bush did the best speech then the victimless loser


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk