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

[Jarlaxle]

Gaia Eats Her Children

Anti-Greens aren't going far enough with their opposition. In fact, they are merely non-Greens. If the powerful and entitled Unabomber Cult gets rid of "pollution," which disinfects the air, we will have recurring pandemics.

Natural air is the most toxic of all the atmospheres humans have had to deal with. It is a primitive superstition for these Mamas' Boys to worship "Mother Nature."

This is a fever dream.

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?

Article 1, section 8, clause 3.

 

[MisterBeale]

According to gun grabbers, the good guy with the gun was "ineffective" because he let the bad guy kill 3 people.

That's how ridiculous this has become.

I've seen more ridiculousness. Some have said, the good guy with a gun, should not have even been there, that he was not a, "good guy," at all.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Article 1, section 8, clause 3.

Nope, it's not there.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Those that do will lose their job. That's the way it should be.

 

[westwall]

Those that do will lose their job. That's the way it should be.

But they don't. They continue to violate people's Rights over and over. Take a look at some of the truly egregious cases. These supposed cops get away with their crimes for years.

 

[woodwork201]

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.

So you want more gun control laws. Why not put anyone who commits a crime while on probation back into prison for the term of their original crime and then an appropriate time for the new crime? We already have those laws. Why do you want special privilege for criminals who use knives or just pure brute force to commit their crimes?

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.

No, the courts don't decide what is or is not constitutional. They give their opinions of what is and is not constitutional - or more accurately, they say what they wish was in the Constitution.

Unfortunately, I would probably not win the 4th Amendment case. The Courts, those that you claim always say what's constitutional, have given cover to the police to violate the 4th Amendment for decades under color of law and order and, even worse, a failed war on drugs.

Most of the earliest cases regarding due process protections in the Constitution were about the ability of people to carry out their business and income generating activities without government interference. The idea that the government could search your truck without probable cause would have absolutely offended the Founders on 4th Amendment and Due Process grounds. But the Courts say it is OK so, tell me again, if the Courts say it's constitutional does that make it constitutional?

The reason you unjustly suffer those offenses is because you, and others like you, have supported the war on drugs and other over-the-top police behaviors in the name of law and order. This is why I say that we must defend and stand for the Constitution not just when it helps us but even when it helps those with whom we disagree and even if it goes against what we wish for ourselves.

1. God, 2. Family, 3. Constitution, 4. Country, 5. Job. Those are, in order, our top 5 priorities, or should be, for all American men - keeping in mind that defending the Constitution is also part of our duty to God and our Family so, in many aspects, it is parallel to #1 and #2 but is never, in any case, lower than #3.

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?

I'm on your side. What they do to you is unconstitutional. There's no exception for CDL drivers. The Commerce Clause doesn't give them this power, regardless of the Courts saying it does. But they get away with this abuse because you gave them permission when you said it's OK for them to violate the Constitution. As I keep trying to explain to you, if you give them the OK to do it in one thing, you have given them the OK to do it in all things. Once you approved the Government operating outside the Constitution, we were no longer a constitutional republic and the only protection you have now is to beg them to not take all of your rights.

Sadly, when you gave them permission to go against the Constitution, they took that and applied it to me, and others like me, who did not agree to that. Thanks a lot, buddy. The humanity in me makes me still sorry that they treat you and truckers unconstitutionally but I keep asking myself why I care; you asked for this. You okayed it. You continue to say to the government, "Don't worry about that Constitution thingie; don't let it get in the way of the things we want to do."

 

[woodwork201]

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.

How many times do cops stop a crime?

I don't need them. I have two residences, one in the country and one in town. In the country, when I have called them to take a report, it's taken 20 to 40 minutes for them to get there. When I've called them in town, sometimes they're there in a couple minutes - I'm only about 8 blocks from the police headquarters. If a bad guy breaks in my home, and there have been attempts, there won't be anything left to do except the paperwork by the time the cops get there, even in 2 minutes.

The reason big cities are seeing crime go up when the cops are reduced is that there's no one else to take the place of the cops. If the people were armed and defended their own lives, families, and properties, the crime wouldn't go up. In fact, it would go down - as I pointed out, the cops don't usually stop crime in progress; they usually do paperwork or arrest after the fact.

 

[woodwork201]

This is a fever dream.

Article 1, section 8, clause 3.

Thomas Jefferson on the Misuse of the Commerce and General Welfare Clauses | Tenth Amendment Center

Barely 8 months before he died, Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Virginia politician William Giles about the threat posed by the usurpation of states rights by a growing federal power. He identified federal powers claimed under the commerce and general welfare clauses as especially dangerous. TO...

tenthamendmentcenter.com

Jefferson on how Congress misuses the inter-state commerce and general welfare clauses to promote the centralization of power (1825) | Online Library of Liberty

I see, as you do, and with the deepest affliction, the rapid strides with which the federal branch of our government is advancing towards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the States, and the consolidation in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic; and that, too, by constructions...

oll.libertyfund.org

Understanding the Commerce Clause (a new paradigm)

“The Congress shall have Power … To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; U. S. Constitution (1787), Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 3 People o…

jeffreybeausay.com

 

[22lcidw]

So you're suggesting that the Courts get to change the Constitution? Or that they're not bound by the Constitution? No matter what the Constitution says, the Courts are our true masters and they can rule what they want. Even the Supremacy Clause doesn't trump an unelected Federal Judge?

Enforcement may be dependent on how the judges rule - the Government does have far more guns than do I. But what's constitutional doesn't depend on the guns; constitutionality depends wholly on what's in the Constitution, as amended, and the original intent of those who authored and ratified the Constitution and amendments.

Are you really going to argue that the Government gets to do anything they wish, regardless of what's in the Constitution, and it's perfectly legal and morally acceptable to you, until such a time as the Court declares otherwise?


No, that's not true. My rights don't end when you or I believe they can bring harm to you or your family. My rights end just before the point at which they actually bring harm, not when you think they can bring harm.

By your argument that your perception of potential harm is the limit of my rights, then you could call for all guns to be banned and confiscated. Because I've never been arrested in my life (well, as an adult or for any act of violence) yet my possession of a gun COULD bring harm to you and your family.

No; your feelings are not the defining line of someone else's rights. The potential of violence is not the limit of their rights - regardless of what the Courts say. That's why it was put into the Constitution; the Founders were explicitly taking that power away from the legislature and the judiciary. It was on purpose.

The Constitution was based on a low tax environment. We are paying people to be violent today.

 

[woodwork201]

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?

The laws against rape, armed robbery, arson, and child rape are laws that are designed to directly outlaw things that are crimes against society. Having a gun isn't a crime against society. The laws against felons possessing guns create the crime. But those laws do not prevent any of those other crimes. It's not a deterrent to those other crimes. It serves no purpose other than to violate the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution.

So while you complain about the government overreaching their constitutional authority in dealing with OTR truckers, you continue to defend their violation of the constitutional requirement that they not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, including 177 years of history proving that the Founders did not believe that they had that authority.

we must diligently avoid and utterly reject all those Opinions, which contain in them any thing contrariant to Principles so important - Barbeyrac, 1715, discussing the care of the soul.​

Care of the soul requires that you avoid those things that go against your principles, no matter how tempting to the mind. Is it your principle that the Constitution not be violated?

You're thinking with your emotions. Bad guys with guns? Of course not. You did something society doesn't approve of? Get punished! That's emotion. Logic and reason, on the other hand, would address the questions - what do we do to make sure you cannot harm others or society again? That's prison. Logic and reason also would ask does the ban of guns on felons accomplish society's goal or interest? Of course it doesn't; they still have guns.

I was also going to mention above the incrementalism in that the ban is no longer just felons as the list of prohibited persons grow but then I remembered, you're also arguing that it should apply to the no-fly list (or to anyone else you don't like) to which people are added without due process, no court hearing, no notification, no opportunity to appeal.
Here's a story you should be interested in: three truck drivers put on the list by the government to pressure them to spy for the government on their Muslim communities:

Why Adding Accused Capitol Rioters to the ‘No-Fly’ List Threatens Civil Liberties

The government’s track record on no-fly lists is … not good. Among innocent people who’ve found themselves on the list were singer Cat Stevens, politicians Ted Kennedy and John Lewis, and an 18-month old baby. And that’s not even the worst part.

fee.org

Muhammad Tanvir, a former long-haul truck driver, has never been arrested or charged with a crime. Yet he was added to the list along with two others after repeatedly refusing to become an informant for the FBI, a role which would violate his religious beliefs. After being placed on the list, Tanvir was forced to quit his job as he was no longer able to fly home after making deliveries. He’s also been unable to go visit his ailing mother in Pakistan. A pending lawsuit has been filed on this matter.​

So as you ignore the core principle that should drive those who love our country and its Constitution, and ignore when the rights of others are violated, I can only remind you of this:

When the Nazis came for the communists,​

I remained silent;​

I was not a communist.​

When they locked up the social democrats,​

I remained silent;​

I was not a social democrat.​

When they came for the trade unionists,​

I did not speak out;​

I was not a trade unionist.​

When they came for the Jews,​

I did not speak out;​

I was not a Jew.​

When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.​

I'd just ask that you spend some time thinking about how we preserve our nation and our liberty if we do not preserve our Constitution. I understand the passion and frustration about the evil in the world; I understand the compassion for those who are suffering from crime. But do we gain anything for them by throwing out the Constitution on their behalf? Give it some thought. You're a smart man. I hope you'll figure it out and have the courage of your convictions to look for other ways to protect society from the evils in it - ways that actually make a difference in real outcomes and not in emotions.

 

[beagle9]

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.

Hmmm, being hung up on this qualified immunity is interesting... Rogue cop's are destroying our ability to protect the good cop's when they aren't weeding out the bad cop's from their ranks. Now how to do that can be a super arduous and difficult task, so like anything it's best to be proactive prior to the hiring instead of having to be reactive in the firing after the fact.

Like anything qualified immunity should be kept for good cop's definitely, but rogue corrupt cop's shouldn't be allowed to hide behind qualified immunity. With the new leftist backwards bull crap, everything is used and abused, because the goal of leftist is to destroy everything with the idea that they can somehow "build back better", but they can't realize how wrong they are when they are wrong, and that's the problem with leftism attempting to run thing's.

I do agree with qualified immunity, but it has to only be applied when good cop's need it, and not be allowed to let bad cop's get off with it or hide behind it.

 

[beagle9]

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.

It's really sad..

 

[beagle9]

The laws against rape, armed robbery, arson, and child rape are laws that are designed to directly outlaw things that are crimes against society. Having a gun isn't a crime against society. The laws against felons possessing guns create the crime. But those laws do not prevent any of those other crimes. It's not a deterrent to those other crimes. It serves no purpose other than to violate the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution.

So while you complain about the government overreaching their constitutional authority in dealing with OTR truckers, you continue to defend their violation of the constitutional requirement that they not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, including 177 years of history proving that the Founders did not believe that they had that authority.

we must diligently avoid and utterly reject all those Opinions, which contain in them any thing contrariant to Principles so important - Barbeyrac, 1715, discussing the care of the soul.​

Care of the soul requires that you avoid those things that go against your principles, no matter how tempting to the mind. Is it your principle that the Constitution not be violated?

You're thinking with your emotions. Bad guys with guns? Of course not. You did something society doesn't approve of? Get punished! That's emotion. Logic and reason, on the other hand, would address the questions - what do we do to make sure you cannot harm others or society again? That's prison. Logic and reason also would ask does the ban of guns on felons accomplish society's goal or interest? Of course it doesn't; they still have guns.

I was also going to mention above the incrementalism in that the ban is no longer just felons as the list of prohibited persons grow but then I remembered, you're also arguing that it should apply to the no-fly list (or to anyone else you don't like) to which people are added without due process, no court hearing, no notification, no opportunity to appeal.
Here's a story you should be interested in: three truck drivers put on the list by the government to pressure them to spy for the government on their Muslim communities:

Why Adding Accused Capitol Rioters to the ‘No-Fly’ List Threatens Civil Liberties

The government’s track record on no-fly lists is … not good. Among innocent people who’ve found themselves on the list were singer Cat Stevens, politicians Ted Kennedy and John Lewis, and an 18-month old baby. And that’s not even the worst part.

fee.org

Muhammad Tanvir, a former long-haul truck driver, has never been arrested or charged with a crime. Yet he was added to the list along with two others after repeatedly refusing to become an informant for the FBI, a role which would violate his religious beliefs. After being placed on the list, Tanvir was forced to quit his job as he was no longer able to fly home after making deliveries. He’s also been unable to go visit his ailing mother in Pakistan. A pending lawsuit has been filed on this matter.​

So as you ignore the core principle that should drive those who love our country and its Constitution, and ignore when the rights of others are violated, I can only remind you of this:

When the Nazis came for the communists,​

I remained silent;​

I was not a communist.​

When they locked up the social democrats,​

I remained silent;​

I was not a social democrat.​

When they came for the trade unionists,​

I did not speak out;​

I was not a trade unionist.​

When they came for the Jews,​

I did not speak out;​

I was not a Jew.​

When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.​

I'd just ask that you spend some time thinking about how we preserve our nation and our liberty if we do not preserve our Constitution. I understand the passion and frustration about the evil in the world; I understand the compassion for those who are suffering from crime. But do we gain anything for them by throwing out the Constitution on their behalf? Give it some thought. You're a smart man. I hope you'll figure it out and have the courage of your convictions to look for other ways to protect society from the evils in it - ways that actually make a difference in real outcomes and not in emotions.

Why do you think that the feds came after the trucking industry?? It's because as society changed, and the hiring of real truck driver's became fewer and far between, the industry became more and more reliant on the irrational thinking that desperation hiring is the only thing left. Ironically the Fed's over the year's actually created the entire situations being faced by industry and society today.

So it's a catch 22, where as society remains highly abused by what's been created or it allows the Fed's to fix what it has broken. Your fear and mine is allowing the Fed's to fix anything, and so I'm with you on that note, but what other choice does society have now ?

The only solution is voting in a representative government that is in tune with the values and standard's that most Americans still hold dear and near to their heart's, and gun's for protection ranks right up there at the top of those needs in a society gone mad.

Surgically removing gun's from the bad guy's is the best solution, but Democrat's running government will never get that job done, because they are the author's of the problem's in which they've created. So they come after the good guy's in order to show that they aren't just picking on the poor and down trodden in society, regardless of those group's sadly having a super high crime rate amongst their rank's who hide out amongst the poor and down trodden in society. Surgically removing them (the criminal's) from those rank's is highly needed also, but when put them in prison they need to remain there until truly rehabilitated, that's if it's even possible to do that. Rehabilitation needs to be taken out of the Democrat's control, because they don't even know how to do that.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Hmmm, being hung up on this qualified immunity is interesting... Rogue cop's are destroying our ability to protect the good cop's when they aren't weeding out the bad cop's from their ranks. Now how to do that can be a super arduous and difficult task, so like anything it's best to be proactive prior to the hiring instead of having to be reactive in the firing after the fact.

Like anything qualified immunity should be kept for good cop's definitely, but rogue corrupt cop's shouldn't be allowed to hide behind qualified immunity. With the new leftist backwards bull crap, everything is used and abused, because the goal of leftist is to destroy everything with the idea that they can somehow "build back better", but they can't realize how wrong they are when they are wrong, and that's the problem with leftism attempting to run thing's.

I do agree with qualified immunity, but it has to only be applied when good cop's need it, and not be allowed to let bad cop's get off with it or hide behind it.

Then who is to judge who is a good cop or bad cop?

In our system of government (and constitution) laws apply to everybody equally. If a police officer is found to have broken the law, they face charges and possible conviction which getting rid if immunity doesn't do crap for. You can't sue somebody sitting in a prison cell.

What this is really about is the Democrats wanting to federalize and control all police in the country. Nobody in their right mind would take a job as a police officer without immunity. Because if they are able to remove that, it means that every police officer who harms an individual right or wrong is subject to a liability suit. It wouldn't matter if they used a firearm or not. If a suspect runs, the cops chase him, and he has a heart attack while running, those officers could be subject to a lawsuit.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The laws against rape, armed robbery, arson, and child rape are laws that are designed to directly outlaw things that are crimes against society. Having a gun isn't a crime against society. The laws against felons possessing guns create the crime. But those laws do not prevent any of those other crimes. It's not a deterrent to those other crimes. It serves no purpose other than to violate the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution.

So while you complain about the government overreaching their constitutional authority in dealing with OTR truckers, you continue to defend their violation of the constitutional requirement that they not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, including 177 years of history proving that the Founders did not believe that they had that authority.

we must diligently avoid and utterly reject all those Opinions, which contain in them any thing contrariant to Principles so important - Barbeyrac, 1715, discussing the care of the soul.​

Care of the soul requires that you avoid those things that go against your principles, no matter how tempting to the mind. Is it your principle that the Constitution not be violated?

You're thinking with your emotions. Bad guys with guns? Of course not. You did something society doesn't approve of? Get punished! That's emotion. Logic and reason, on the other hand, would address the questions - what do we do to make sure you cannot harm others or society again? That's prison. Logic and reason also would ask does the ban of guns on felons accomplish society's goal or interest? Of course it doesn't; they still have guns.

I was also going to mention above the incrementalism in that the ban is no longer just felons as the list of prohibited persons grow but then I remembered, you're also arguing that it should apply to the no-fly list (or to anyone else you don't like) to which people are added without due process, no court hearing, no notification, no opportunity to appeal.
Here's a story you should be interested in: three truck drivers put on the list by the government to pressure them to spy for the government on their Muslim communities:

Why Adding Accused Capitol Rioters to the ‘No-Fly’ List Threatens Civil Liberties

The government’s track record on no-fly lists is … not good. Among innocent people who’ve found themselves on the list were singer Cat Stevens, politicians Ted Kennedy and John Lewis, and an 18-month old baby. And that’s not even the worst part.

fee.org

Muhammad Tanvir, a former long-haul truck driver, has never been arrested or charged with a crime. Yet he was added to the list along with two others after repeatedly refusing to become an informant for the FBI, a role which would violate his religious beliefs. After being placed on the list, Tanvir was forced to quit his job as he was no longer able to fly home after making deliveries. He’s also been unable to go visit his ailing mother in Pakistan. A pending lawsuit has been filed on this matter.​

So as you ignore the core principle that should drive those who love our country and its Constitution, and ignore when the rights of others are violated, I can only remind you of this:

When the Nazis came for the communists,​

I remained silent;​

I was not a communist.​

When they locked up the social democrats,​

I remained silent;​

I was not a social democrat.​

When they came for the trade unionists,​

I did not speak out;​

I was not a trade unionist.​

When they came for the Jews,​

I did not speak out;​

I was not a Jew.​

When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.​

I'd just ask that you spend some time thinking about how we preserve our nation and our liberty if we do not preserve our Constitution. I understand the passion and frustration about the evil in the world; I understand the compassion for those who are suffering from crime. But do we gain anything for them by throwing out the Constitution on their behalf? Give it some thought. You're a smart man. I hope you'll figure it out and have the courage of your convictions to look for other ways to protect society from the evils in it - ways that actually make a difference in real outcomes and not in emotions.

If you want to carry a gun, then carry a gun. Many states allow open carry. If you want to buy a gun, then buy a gun, as long as you are able to pass the background check. If you want to carry your gun hidden, then that takes a license to do, not an infringement at all because if you don't want to take the classes and get a license, you can still carry your gun other ways.

Can I vote the next election? No, you have to register to vote in this country. In some states that requires a special voter-id card, and in states that don't have voter-id, you still have to present some sort of valid id even if you are registered to vote. it's not interfering with your right to vote.

The only reason I brought up what we truck drivers go through is to demonstrate that rights do come with restrictions and exceptions, just like voting, just like possession of a firearm. Do you think Affirmative Action and Hate Crime laws apply equal protection under the law? Of course not. Those laws give advantages to potential Democrat voters.

Th bottom line is rights do not come with no stupulations. Most if not all of them do. The courts ruled in favor of those requirements and they don't actually interfere with your rights.

 

[beagle9]

Then who is to judge who is a good cop or bad cop?

In our system of government (and constitution) laws apply to everybody equally. If a police officer is found to have broken the law, they face charges and possible conviction which getting rid if immunity doesn't do crap for. You can't sue somebody sitting in a prison cell.

What this is really about is the Democrats wanting to federalize and control all police in the country. Nobody in their right mind would take a job as a police officer without immunity. Because if they are able to remove that, it means that every police officer who harms an individual right or wrong is subject to a liability suit. It wouldn't matter if they used a firearm or not. If a suspect runs, the cops chase him, and he has a heart attack while running, those officers could be subject to a lawsuit.

Did you just ask me "who is to judge who a good cop is, and a bad cop is" ????

Uhhhhhh their resume maybe, and then their interview maybe, and then if slip through the cracks their actions should tell the rest. Then there has to be the will not to tolerate bad behaviour, and to end/fire the potential problem before it grows to many leg's.

What are you saying about qualified immunity, otherwise that it needs to be up front as a guarantee in order to get people to come to work as a police officer ? If so, what if a new hire sees that, and thinks to himself, hmmmmm if I have that, then sure I'll be a cop, and this way if I mess up then I'll wiggle right out of it ?

Maybe qualified immunity should be an earned thing over time, otherwise after a two year long probation period maybe ??

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

How many times do cops stop a crime?

I don't need them. I have two residences, one in the country and one in town. In the country, when I have called them to take a report, it's taken 20 to 40 minutes for them to get there. When I've called them in town, sometimes they're there in a couple minutes - I'm only about 8 blocks from the police headquarters. If a bad guy breaks in my home, and there have been attempts, there won't be anything left to do except the paperwork by the time the cops get there, even in 2 minutes.

The reason big cities are seeing crime go up when the cops are reduced is that there's no one else to take the place of the cops. If the people were armed and defended their own lives, families, and properties, the crime wouldn't go up. In fact, it would go down - as I pointed out, the cops don't usually stop crime in progress; they usually do paperwork or arrest after the fact.

This is true, but criminals also know that committing crime will be much easier with less and less of those cops to respond to the scene and take those reports. Less chance of them getting busted unless you have access to the federal fingerprint database to see if you can find out who broke into your home and killed your dog. You'll get less compliance from businesses who have security cameras in the area than police. The common citizen doesn't have the training or resources to find the person(s) that caused you harm.

If you want to live in an uncivilized society, I'm sure you can find many in the African jungles, but here I want to live in a society where we have systematic ways to address problems in a civilized manor. I pay these people so I don't have to deal with such problems because at the age of 62, I can't beat up my neighbor because he's playing his music too loud or his dog is shitting on my grass. Call the cops and let them handle it.

 

[MisterBeale]

How many times do cops stop a crime?

I don't need them. I have two residences, one in the country and one in town. In the country, when I have called them to take a report, it's taken 20 to 40 minutes for them to get there. When I've called them in town, sometimes they're there in a couple minutes - I'm only about 8 blocks from the police headquarters. If a bad guy breaks in my home, and there have been attempts, there won't be anything left to do except the paperwork by the time the cops get there, even in 2 minutes.

The reason big cities are seeing crime go up when the cops are reduced is that there's no one else to take the place of the cops. If the people were armed and defended their own lives, families, and properties, the crime wouldn't go up. In fact, it would go down - as I pointed out, the cops don't usually stop crime in progress; they usually do paperwork or arrest after the fact.

Agreed.

During the summer when every major city that is plagued with crime, was burning down, after that whole George Floyd debacle, Detroit was spared. Although James Craig had retired, many attribute it, to his reorganization of the Detroit Police force.

Detroit police chief James Craig says more citizens should be armed

Detroit’s police chief has a solution to help drive down crime in one of the nation’s most dangerous cities: arm more citizens.

www.foxnews.com

In a city with long memories of racial torment, Detroit's police chief seeks to turn a corner

By Bill McGraw The Black Lives Matter movement was peaking a year ago when protesters took to the streets of Baltimore over the death of a black man in police custody. On the same day, an angry crowd gathered on...

www.mlive.com

Former Detroit Police Chief Says There’s a Criminal Problem, Not a Gun Problem | National Review

Craig made the comments amid a new gun-control push by President Biden.

www.nationalreview.com

Front Page Featured | MRCTV

cnsnews.com

IMO? After those AstroTurf protests on his campaign announcement, that attempted carjacking on him. .. I suspect the STATE, controlled by those ultra-leftists, purposely disqualified his run for governor. They were very aware of how much of a threat he is to their control over the STATE reigns on power.

 

[woodwork201]

Hmmm, being hung up on this qualified immunity is interesting... Rogue cop's are destroying our ability to protect the good cop's when they aren't weeding out the bad cop's from their ranks. Now how to do that can be a super arduous and difficult task, so like anything it's best to be proactive prior to the hiring instead of having to be reactive in the firing after the fact.

Like anything qualified immunity should be kept for good cop's definitely, but rogue corrupt cop's shouldn't be allowed to hide behind qualified immunity. With the new leftist backwards bull crap, everything is used and abused, because the goal of leftist is to destroy everything with the idea that they can somehow "build back better", but they can't realize how wrong they are when they are wrong, and that's the problem with leftism attempting to run thing's.

I do agree with qualified immunity, but it has to only be applied when good cop's need it, and not be allowed to let bad cop's get off with it or hide behind it.

Who decides which are the good cops and the bad cops? Good cops don't need qualified immunity.

That's why we have jury trials. The jury should be the ones deciding which cops are bad and finding them guilty. They decide which aren't bad and find them innocent.

The problem is, most don't get in front of a jury because of qualified immunity and, for those that do go to a jury, the jury is tainted with instructions about qualified immunity.

 

[woodwork201]

Why do you think that the feds came after the trucking industry?? It's because as society changed, and the hiring of real truck driver's became fewer and far between, the industry became more and more reliant on the irrational thinking that desperation hiring is the only thing left. Ironically the Fed's over the year's actually created the entire situations being faced by industry and society today.

So it's a catch 22, where as society remains highly abused by what's been created or it allows the Fed's to fix what it has broken. Your fear and mine is allowing the Fed's to fix anything, and so I'm with you on that note, but what other choice does society have now ?

The only solution is voting in a representative government that is in tune with the values and standard's that most Americans still hold dear and near to their heart's, and gun's for protection ranks right up there at the top of those needs in a society gone mad.

Surgically removing gun's from the bad guy's is the best solution, but Democrat's running government will never get that job done, because they are the author's of the problem's in which they've created. So they come after the good guy's in order to show that they aren't just picking on the poor and down trodden in society, regardless of those group's sadly having a super high crime rate amongst their rank's who hide out amongst the poor and down trodden in society. Surgically removing them (the criminal's) from those rank's is highly needed also, but when put them in prison they need to remain there until truly rehabilitated, that's if it's even possible to do that. Rehabilitation needs to be taken out of the Democrat's control, because they don't even know how to do that.

You're right; the confederacy is a mess. Unfortunately, there's going to be some pain in getting it back on the right track but that pain has to exist within the Constitution.

Are you really suggesting that t he Federal Government can fix the mess they've created? They don't even want to fix it; that's why they created it, but even if they did want to fix it, they're incapable except by following the Constitution.

There will never be a day (I hope) when there are enough cops around to intercede in any crime of violence in time to make a difference. What will make a difference is an armed society that understands that their safety depends on themselves and that government can never make them safe.

And, once again since you raise it again:

• Demonstrate how laws against criminals having guns has prevented criminals from having guns or has, in any way, reduced crime.
• Explain from where the constitutional authority to strip someone of their right to keep and bear arms comes.
• Tell us about the ever expansion of those who have had their right to keep and bear arms stripped. Do you want Muslims with guns? No fly list with guns? Where do you see it ending?