HereWeGoAgain
Diamond Member
Even an indian should know driving isnt a Constitutional right.
3,700,000 AR-15s in private hands...and now the current stock just sold out...
- Thread starter 2aguy
- Start date
Even an indian should know driving isnt a Constitutional right.
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 308,615
- 263,942
- 3,615
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 113,046
- 53,553
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #83
Why do you guys always post that.
Laws against speeding go into effect when you break them…not before. Motor vehicle laws go into effect when you break them, not before. Guns are the only area where you guys want the law to go after law abiding people before they break the law.
It is against the law to use a gun to commit a crime…so when someone breaks the law with a gun, just like the speed limit laws, we can arrest them.
It is against the law for a felon to own or carry a gun. If they are merely caught in possession of a gun they can immediately be arrested…just like breaking motor vehicle laws.
That is an old piece of crap you keep spouting…try to find some new material.
HereWeGoAgain
Diamond Member
Obviously certain ones are or liberals would have already disarmed all the law abiding gun owners.
Leaving criminals armed of course.
turtledude
Minnow Control Specialist
sorry moron you are confusing USE restrictions (like no shooting your rifle on Times Square at noon) with Possession restrictions
you really are a dumb shit aren't you? your solution to DUI would be to ban cars and booze
Lakhota
Diamond Member
Should we also do away with law enforcement - since they don't prevent and/or solve ALL crimes?
MikeK
Gold Member
I know what you mean. I don't care for the looks of either the M-16 or AR-15. Both appear to be rather delicate.
Lakhota
Diamond Member
It's comical to watch NRA gun nutters oscillate between "it's a 2nd Amendment right" and "more gun laws won't prevent ALL gun violence"...
HereWeGoAgain
Diamond Member
This post makes less sense than selling guns to the indians...
Funny you should mention speed laws. When the speed limit was RAISED from 55 to whatever the states desired, the accident rate, and the fatality rate dropped.
GREAT IDEA!
M14 Shooter
The Light of Truth
More mindless nonsense from the village useful idiot.
No. Our point is it won't prevent ANY gun violence. Europe's experience is a great example. They have all of the laws in effect that you dream of and someone posted a comparison between all the mass shootings in Europe and the USA and they were so smug till I pointed out to them that the number of shootings Europe wide was about the same but that the casualty rate in Europe was higher. Much higher.
Every post you silly people make only proves our point.
turtledude
Minnow Control Specialist
no but we shouldn't pass laws that criminalize behavior that doesn't hurt anyone
laws that ban honest people owning the same firearms civilian police officers are illegitimate per se
turtledude
Minnow Control Specialist
you banoid bots haven't figured out the difference between the laws that punish bad behavior and don't vest until you do something wrong with your banoid wet dreams of punishing possession which harms no one
Skull Pilot
Diamond Member
- Nov 17, 2007
- 45,446
- 6,164
- 1,830
Treating law abiding people like criminals so as to maybe stop a crime is counterproductive
Cops don't pull over every driver to maybe catch one drunk
Cops don't search every house in a town to maybe catch one drug dealer
And cops are not there to protect you they show up after the crime to take pictures of the blood splatter
Skull Pilot
Diamond Member
- Nov 17, 2007
- 45,446
- 6,164
- 1,830
LAw enforcement's job is to catch the bad guys after they commit a crime
all you can do is hope the crime isn't committed against you
when seconds count the cops are only minutes away
Yeah right. The M4 carbine, AR-15 and M-16 are of the same cloth. Delicate is incorrect
3,700,000 AR-15s in private hands...and now the current stock just sold out... | Page 6 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
-Geaux
Lakhota
Diamond Member
Really? What is radar for? Are you suggesting that cops don't specifically guard people and property?
No, they don't. In fact there have been at least three court cases I know of where the police were sued for failing to defend someone. Most famously the woman who was kidnapped and raped for hours even after she had called the police TWICE to come and rescue her. The police are not required to protect ANYONE.
"Police have no legal duty to respond and prevent crime or protect the victim. There have BEEN OVER 10 various supreme and state court cases the individual has never won. Notably, the Supreme Court STATED about the responsibility of police for the security of your family and loved ones is "You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980's when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole."
"It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection."
(1) Richard W. Stevens. 1999. Dial 911 and Die. Hartford, Wisconsin: Mazel Freedom Press.(2) Barillari v. City of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1995).(3) Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982).(4) DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989).(5) Ford v. Town of Grafton, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998).
(6) Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981).
"...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)
(7) "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of NY which now denies all responsibility to her."
Riss v. New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579,293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958).
(8) "Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public."
Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)
Police have no responsibility to protect individuals (reference)
Dr Grump
Platinum Member
No normal person would...neocon whackjobs are not normal...
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
Zohran Mamdani's wife appears to have used the N-word and celebrated Palestinian terrorists- Started by TroglocratsRdumb
- Replies: 4
-
Looking at Women Differently as I Get Old- Started by Captain Creeper
- Replies: 11
-
