Another Mall shooter finds his destiny... A good guy with a gun...

[Ray From Cleveland]

I answered the question clearly, explicitly, and absolutely. I said that you assumed wrong and that it was unconstitutional to prevent any free man from carrying a gun. I pointed out that the no-fly list is created without due process and any opportunity to even know you're on it or why and no opportunity to appeal it. What part of all that being unconstitutional are you not understanding? You're not even understanding that when I tell you that it's unconstitutional that means I object to it.

So you're fine with murderers that are released from prison carrying a gun? How about the mentally unstable? No, you didn't answer those questions. Right to bear arms? Sure, it's called open carry and we had that long before our CCW program was passed, but there is nowhere in the Constitution you will find the right to conceal a firearm or anything in the document that prohibits government from making laws against it.

 

[woodwork201]

You have no idea what you're talking about here, so let me explain:

I go to a convenient store armed. Somebody gets in there, robs the place, and demands all customers go to the front of the store to surrender their belongings. I pull out my gun and kill the robber because I have no idea what he's going to do to me next.

The police get there, look at the video recording and determine I was in my full right to use deadly force. Now I get summoned to court for a liability lawsuit by the family of the guy I shot and killed. I have to hire expensive lawyers, take a lot of time off of work, and may be dragged into this for the next couple of years with the appeals courts. If by some chance they win, I'll be working to pay them the rest of my natural life.

It doesn't matter that the police cleared me of any wrong doing. I can still get sued by the family of the guy I killed because unlike police, I don't have qualified immunity.

Now, would you take a job like that where you can get sued right or wrong for killing a criminal in self-defense? Of course not. Nobody in their right mind would. You would be working for next to nothing with your wages garnished for the rest of your life, and who wants to do that?

This had nothing to do with a license to kill nor have I even hinted at that. Every police shooting is investigated by several administrations and if the officer did something illegal, that officer is held responsible and it's always been that way.

So what you're saying is that the police are a special class of special citizens. Not only does the law not apply to them, they're protected more than everyone else.

Why not have judges throw out stupid law suits whether it's the police or you?

 

[Flash]

abdicated.

Thanks. The computer substituted the wrong word.

 

[woodwork201]

So you're fine with murderers that are released from prison carrying a gun? How about the mentally unstable? No, you didn't answer those questions. Right to bear arms? Sure, it's called open carry and we had that long before our CCW program was passed, but there is nowhere in the Constitution you will find the right to conceal a firearm or anything in the document that prohibits government from making laws against it.

What I am not fine with is murderers being released from prison. The penalty should be death or life in prison for murder. But, yes, once society and the Courts says that they've served their time, if for whatever circumstances lead to it, they are let out of jail then, yes, I am fine with them carrying guns. They've served their time.

The mentally unstable? Like murderers and other violent criminals, those known to be a danger to themselves or others belong in an appropriate institution - whether a mental or criminal institution. If they're safe on the streets then, yes, I'm fine with, and will defend their right to, them having guns. And, in any case, you've already admitted, stated plainly, that the laws don't keep them from having guns so your support for gun control isn't about keeping people or society safe; it's about creating a new category of crime. You've admitted this.

 

[beagle9]

Here's what I'm getting at:

Yes, there are tons of regulations as it is. Have any of them worked to reduce crime or danger from guns?

Even if they worked, they'd still be unconstitutional. What I can't understand is why so many who think they support the 2nd Amendment are passionately defending laws that don't work. In fact, they almost always, at some point or another, make that case that gun control laws don't work - and then go on defending the laws anyway.

I understand wanting people to not get hurt from guns. We all want that. Bloomberg wants that. The Brady's want that. Just don't give in to the temptation to appease Bloomberg and the Brady's by agreeing to their feel-good, "reasonable", totally ineffective and useless gun control measures.

Our country did just fine for over 200 years without the most intrusive of those laws, mandatory background checks, and over 170 years with most of the rest of them, and over 143 years without any Federal gun control law at all. The changes in law are not the cure and do not address the cause of crime.

Remember that the gun control laws don't work; you've said as much. You know that they don't work. Yes, Donald H and Smokin' OP are going to call you names and tell you how cruel you are but that's their problem; don't let it be yours.

Doesn't it all depend on the society being created around you, and what that society is allowed to get away with in and around you that also comes into play ? So with the mindsets changed in society, do we stay with the status quo or do we adjust somewhat accordingly ??? Now I'm with you on our rights and freedom's being protected, but at the same time if something is being freely abused, and our government has gone rogue or absent in the case of enforcing the law's that are already on the book's, then what happens next ?? How do we get out of this problem with a bad representing government that is leaving us vulnerable ???

In the 30s during Al Capone's campaign of crime and mayhem, (the weapon of choice was the Thompson submachine gun (Tommy gun), fully automatic weapon in which the police were out gunned by), so the banning of that type of weapon was put in place so that the average criminal minded citizen wasn't allowed to carry such a weapon into the public legally any longer. Was it the right call during the time period ???

Should bans ever be lifted once a threat is resolved, meaning the people responsible for the murder, robberies and mayhem had been dealt with, otherwise who were using the weapon in crime spree's that were causing death and destruction on a large scale ?? I think so. I think that I should be able to own and have a Thompson submachine gun today, because I'm no threat to the public, and wouldn't use my weapon for crime and such ever. Only in self defense or recreational reasons would I use it for.

If we could get the right government back in charge, then our problem's will be over for that period, but who knows where all this bull crap is leading to anymore.

Yes I agree "hold the lines", and defend our freedom's and Rights... Yes indeedy, but with some attention given to the abusers and those who are or would abuse their freedom's and liberties in the case of owning or carrying a firearm for criminal purposes..

How do you separate the bad from the good ? That's what we must strive for everyday, and in everyway in order to keep the social experiment going, and to keep the peace.... Problem now is that we have the wrong leadership that is hostile to the rights of citizen's who are good, and found to be sympathetic to those who are bad. It's not the gun, but the maniac's holding the gun who have become monster's that we have to get the guns from in a very strategic and surgical way.

1st we need new leadership or we are done being a free and great nation in which the world has long marveled over.

It's not hard to see and understand the problem's, but the nation's hands have been tied due to PC and everything else the leftist have done to this nation, otherwise in order to tie it's hand's over time. Gotta break the ties that bind somehow.

 

[Jarlaxle]

You have no idea what you're talking about here, so let me explain:

I go to a convenient store armed. Somebody gets in there, robs the place, and demands all customers go to the front of the store to surrender their belongings. I pull out my gun and kill the robber because I have no idea what he's going to do to me next.

The police get there, look at the video recording and determine I was in my full right to use deadly force. Now I get summoned to court for a liability lawsuit by the family of the guy I shot and killed. I have to hire expensive lawyers, take a lot of time off of work, and may be dragged into this for the next couple of years with the appeals courts. If by some chance they win, I'll be working to pay them the rest of my natural life.

It doesn't matter that the police cleared me of any wrong doing. I can still get sued by the family of the guy I killed because unlike police, I don't have qualified immunity.

Now, would you take a job like that where you can get sued right or wrong for killing a criminal in self-defense? Of course not. Nobody in their right mind would. You would be working for next to nothing with your wages garnished for the rest of your life, and who wants to do that?

This had nothing to do with a license to kill nor have I even hinted at that. Every police shooting is investigated by several administrations and if the officer did something illegal, that officer is held responsible and it's always been that way.

That has NOTHING to do with "qualified immunity".

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That has NOTHING to do with "qualified immunity".

Sure it does because if Dementia and the commies take that away, every police officer that uses a gun will face the same retaliation that I would shooting somebody. Right now it's hard enough getting people interested in police work. Our suburb has been looking to hire five new officers since last year. Can't find them, and that's with qualified immunity. This is a nationwide problem. Make things worse to be a police officer, you'll never find anybody to take these jobs.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What I am not fine with is murderers being released from prison. The penalty should be death or life in prison for murder. But, yes, once society and the Courts says that they've served their time, if for whatever circumstances lead to it, they are let out of jail then, yes, I am fine with them carrying guns. They've served their time.

The mentally unstable? Like murderers and other violent criminals, those known to be a danger to themselves or others belong in an appropriate institution - whether a mental or criminal institution. If they're safe on the streets then, yes, I'm fine with, and will defend their right to, them having guns. And, in any case, you've already admitted, stated plainly, that the laws don't keep them from having guns so your support for gun control isn't about keeping people or society safe; it's about creating a new category of crime. You've admitted this.

No, what I'm saying is that your rights stop when my safety is in jeopardy. My take is that when people are armed in public and not really know what they're doing they can be dangerous.

You're insane if you think that murderers should be allowed to have or carry firearms. Our recidivism prison rate is one of the highest in the world. You release these people and many of them come right back again. Are you familiar with that Bodega store in NYC? That guy who attacked the worker was on probation. Had he lived, he would have been right back in prison again over a $2.00 bag of chips. These people simply don't care and you want them to have access to firearms?

We don't lock crazy people any longer. If there is any way they can function in society even if they are actually a danger to others, there is nothing we can do to them. The Supreme Court decided years ago that they were crime-less prisoners and locking them up was unconstitutional.

I believe in constitutional rights for everybody but not all of them without any conditions. That's my opinion and even the courts agree with me.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So what you're saying is that the police are a special class of special citizens. Not only does the law not apply to them, they're protected more than everyone else.

Why not have judges throw out stupid law suits whether it's the police or you?

I totally agree. Out of all the updates they made to our CCW laws, immunity should have been on top of their list. The problem is many of our reps were former lawyers, and they're not about to stab their brethren in the back. If they don't get reelected they too might have to go back to being a lawyer. By not stopping ridiculous lawsuits, they are creating work for their industry.

Police live by the same laws we citizens do, there are no special laws for them, but because their job may require them to use deadly force, they do need personal protection from liability. The chances of you or I needing to use deadly force for self-defense is slim, especially on the job.

 

[Batcat]

At this point, I would no longer oppose returning to only property owners voting.

It's been in force over a year in many places. No issues at all.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Wait...you're serious?

I had civics classes in high school as well as American History which covered the Constitution back in the 1960s.

 

[woodwork201]

Doesn't it all depend on the society being created around you, and what that society is allowed to get away with in and around you that also comes into play ? So with the mindsets changed in society, do we stay with the status quo or do we adjust somewhat accordingly ??? Now I'm with you on our rights and freedom's being protected, but at the same time if something is being freely abused, and our government has gone rogue or absent in the case of enforcing the law's that are already on the book's, then what happens next ?? How do we get out of this problem with a bad representing government that is leaving us vulnerable ???

In the 30s during Al Capone's campaign of crime and mayhem, (the weapon of choice was the Thompson submachine gun (Tommy gun), fully automatic weapon in which the police were out gunned by), so the banning of that type of weapon was put in place so that the average criminal minded citizen wasn't allowed to carry such a weapon into the public legally any longer. Was it the right call during the time period ???

Should bans ever be lifted once a threat is resolved, meaning the people responsible for the murder, robberies and mayhem had been dealt with, otherwise who were using the weapon in crime spree's that were causing death and destruction on a large scale ?? I think so. I think that I should be able to own and have a Thompson submachine gun today, because I'm no threat to the public, and wouldn't use my weapon for crime and such ever. Only in self defense or recreational reasons would I use it for.

If we could get the right government back in charge, then our problem's will be over for that period, but who knows where all this bull crap is leading to anymore.

Yes I agree "hold the lines", and defend our freedom's and Rights... Yes indeedy, but with some attention given to the abusers and those who are or would abuse their freedom's and liberties in the case of owning or carrying a firearm for criminal purposes..

How do you separate the bad from the good ? That's what we must strive for everyday, and in everyway in order to keep the social experiment going, and to keep the peace.... Problem now is that we have the wrong leadership that is hostile to the rights of citizen's who are good, and found to be sympathetic to those who are bad. It's not the gun, but the maniac's holding the gun who have become monster's that we have to get the guns from in a very strategic and surgical way.

1st we need new leadership or we are done being a free and great nation in which the world has long marveled over.

It's not hard to see and understand the problem's, but the nation's hands have been tied due to PC and everything else the leftist have done to this nation, otherwise in order to tie it's hand's over time. Gotta break the ties that bind somehow.

Edit: Sorry, beagle9. I posted in reply to the wrong thread. Your post was very interesting and I am planning a response but it was going to take time and research that I haven't done yet.

Original response is cut/deleted.

 

[woodwork201]

I totally agree. Out of all the updates they made to our CCW laws, immunity should have been on top of their list. The problem is many of our reps were former lawyers, and they're not about to stab their brethren in the back. If they don't get reelected they too might have to go back to being a lawyer. By not stopping ridiculous lawsuits, they are creating work for their industry.

Police live by the same laws we citizens do, there are no special laws for them, but because their job may require them to use deadly force, they do need personal protection from liability. The chances of you or I needing to use deadly force for self-defense is slim, especially on the job.

Because the police may have to use force? What about Dicken? He had to use force? He was actually there at a crime to use force? When's the last time you saw a cop use force to stop a crime rather than to execute a warrant or an arrest?

Because the police may have to use force, they need to be held to a higher standard of accountability than you, not to a lower standard of accountability.

 

[westwall]

Without qualified immunity, you won't be able to find people to take the job of a police officer. In fact it's happening already. Nobody wants to be a cop any longer and cities in our country are suffering for it. We've allowed the left to demonize police officers like the one here in Cleveland so bad and people just say F-it. I'll set my goals on something else.

I'm unaware of any situation where a criminal put an orange tip on a real gun. It's the first I ever heard of it. Officer Loehmann didn't have time to evaluate anything. As soon as he got out of his car, Rice was already pulling the gun out. I'm sure he was just having fun to scare the officers, but it was a joke he played on himself. And his fat pig mother who wasn't watching her child ended up with 5 million bucks so the Mayor could keep his job, the same Mayor now being sued because he kept getting breaks for his grandson who is now charged with murder.

I disagree. Qualified immunity is abused by bad cops. The poor man who was killed in a SWATING attack is an example, he was unarmed but the cop killed him anyway. Then when the family attempted to sue him the asshole claimed immunity based on it isn't clear that killing someone violates their Rights.

That is ******* retarded.

 

[woodwork201]

Are you familiar with that Bodega store in NYC? That guy who attacked the worker was on probation. Had he lived, he would have been right back in prison again over a $2.00 bag of chips. These people simply don't care and you want them to have access to firearms?

You have already admitted that they have access to guns and that the laws don't work. So why sell out the Constitution to have a stupid law that doesn't work?

And still, you haven't said from where the government gets the authority to take away the rights of the bodega attacker to have a firearm.

 

[woodwork201]

No, what I'm saying is that your rights stop when my safety is in jeopardy. My take is that when people are armed in public and not really know what they're doing they can be dangerous.

You're insane if you think that murderers should be allowed to have or carry firearms. Our recidivism prison rate is one of the highest in the world. You release these people and many of them come right back again. Are you familiar with that Bodega store in NYC? That guy who attacked the worker was on probation. Had he lived, he would have been right back in prison again over a $2.00 bag of chips. These people simply don't care and you want them to have access to firearms?

We don't lock crazy people any longer. If there is any way they can function in society even if they are actually a danger to others, there is nothing we can do to them. The Supreme Court decided years ago that they were crime-less prisoners and locking them up was unconstitutional.

I believe in constitutional rights for everybody but not all of them without any conditions. That's my opinion and even the courts agree with me.

If a violent criminal is dangerous, then keep him in jail. If his sentence is up then that means his sentence wasn't long enough. You should be fighting for the laws that work - such as keeping dangerous felons in prison, instead of fighting for the laws that you have said more than once in this very thread do not and can not work.

You're appeasing the gun controllers. You don't want to be called a radical gun nut so you pretend, along with the lefties, that some gun control works - yet, in other posts, you admit that they do not work.

You're demonstrating a weak mind and no backbone. You know that the right answer is to keep violent criminals in jail. So now you'll say something to the effect that until they keep them in jail, ban them from having guns.. but that's a cop out. And, once again, a cop out that you have already admitted doesn't work and doesn't stop crime.

So why are you selling out your rights, giving aid and comfort to the government while they incrementally strip you of your rights, so you, like them, can say you did something and pat yourself on the back. Just how different are you from Joe Biden and company? Useless laws that you openly admit don't work but they make you feel good and, in your opinion, make you look good to people who only want to destroy you anyway.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You have already admitted that they have access to guns and that the laws don't work. So why sell out the Constitution to have a stupid law that doesn't work?

And still, you haven't said from where the government gets the authority to take away the rights of the bodega attacker to have a firearm.

It may not have stopped the attack but if our laws were written so that anybody on probation get the minimum of 20 years for being in possession of a firearm during a crime you'd have less felons carrying guns or they would be put away potentially for life which is what you said you wanted for murderers in the first place.

The point is that the courts decide what is or is not constitutional, not you or I. For instance what would you do if a state trooper pulled you over for no reason, searched your vehicle including the trunk, did a safety check on your entire vehicle, and wrote you a ticket because your front left turn signal light was burned out? You'd sue the state for a violation of your 4th amendment rights and would probably win your case.

Yet they do this to us truck drivers all the time. They'd pull me over, I'd ask what I did wrong, and the trooper would tell me "nothing was wrong, I'm going to find something wrong" and begin his search and safety check. They'd ask for my license, my log book if I was out of town, my medical card, my paperwork for the freight I was carrying, and a few times made me open up the hood of my tractor so they could inspect the engine compartment as well.

I looked it up on the internet one time. The courts ruled that we drivers have no 4th amendment rights although not phrased that way. But what they stated is because we are hauling freight under federal guidelines, they had the right to do these things to anybody driving a CDL vehicle. Okay, so where is the exclusion of rights for CDL drivers in the Constitution?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If a violent criminal is dangerous, then keep him in jail. If his sentence is up then that means his sentence wasn't long enough. You should be fighting for the laws that work - such as keeping dangerous felons in prison, instead of fighting for the laws that you have said more than once in this very thread do not and can not work.

You're appeasing the gun controllers. You don't want to be called a radical gun nut so you pretend, along with the lefties, that some gun control works - yet, in other posts, you admit that they do not work.

You're demonstrating a weak mind and no backbone. You know that the right answer is to keep violent criminals in jail. So now you'll say something to the effect that until they keep them in jail, ban them from having guns.. but that's a cop out. And, once again, a cop out that you have already admitted doesn't work and doesn't stop crime.

So why are you selling out your rights, giving aid and comfort to the government while they incrementally strip you of your rights, so you, like them, can say you did something and pat yourself on the back. Just how different are you from Joe Biden and company? Useless laws that you openly admit don't work but they make you feel good and, in your opinion, make you look good to people who only want to destroy you anyway.

The only reason laws don't work on everybody (yes they work on a lot of people) is because they are not strict enough. I read articles out of Chicago where the police complain they bust some guy illegally carrying a gun, and they see that suspect back out on the street the next day. Of course there is no deterrent. I never advocated making it harder for law abiding citizens to own or carry guns, I have always advocated to make things harder on the criminals instead of making gun ownership hard on everybody. That's the difference between Biden and I.

If your complaint is that laws don't stop everybody, show me a law that has. Because they don't stop everybody, should we eliminate rape as a crime? How about armed robbery? What about arson? How about pedophiles? Because no law works on everybody, why have laws or penalties for any crime?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I disagree. Qualified immunity is abused by bad cops. The poor man who was killed in a SWATING attack is an example, he was unarmed but the cop killed him anyway. Then when the family attempted to sue him the asshole claimed immunity based on it isn't clear that killing someone violates their Rights.

That is ******* retarded.

I'm unfamiliar with the case you're talking about. But if he illegally killed a woman, then he should have been charged and had a trial. If he did and the jury ruled in his favor, then he broke no laws and shouldn't be sued.

As I stated earlier, we citizens have no immunity if we kill somebody in self-defense or to stop a crime. Getting rid of qualified immunity does the same for police officers. A suspect runs, stops, turns around with a gun to shoot at the officer(s) and they shoot the suspect in self-defense. With no qualified immunity, the officer(s) could still face liability charges.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Because the police may have to use force? What about Dicken? He had to use force? He was actually there at a crime to use force? When's the last time you saw a cop use force to stop a crime rather than to execute a warrant or an arrest?

Because the police may have to use force, they need to be held to a higher standard of accountability than you, not to a lower standard of accountability.

Fine. Then see how the shortage of police officers affect your community as they have all the big lib cities. You can't find one where the violent crime hasn't taken a huge increase in the last 5 years or so.

 

[westwall]

I'm unfamiliar with the case you're talking about. But if he illegally killed a woman, then he should have been charged and had a trial. If he did and the jury ruled in his favor, then he broke no laws and shouldn't be sued.

As I stated earlier, we citizens have no immunity if we kill somebody in self-defense or to stop a crime. Getting rid of qualified immunity does the same for police officers. A suspect runs, stops, turns around with a gun to shoot at the officer(s) and they shoot the suspect in self-defense. With no qualified immunity, the officer(s) could still face liability charges.

Cops have immense power to do harm. Watch the youtube videos of how often they break the law and violate people's rights.

It is astonishing.