Way back in the day of the cowboy’s gun control was tougher than it is today

[danielpalos]

I don't think you're aware of this, but the Illinois State Constitution is only effect in the state of Illinois.

Maybe try reading the things you're desperately cutting and pasting...?

All States have something similar. I posted that one for its simplicity. Only right-wingers are habitually ignorant of the law and are hypocritical enough to blame the less fortunate.

 

[daveman]

All States have something similar. I posted that one for its simplicity. Only right-wingers are habitually ignorant of the law and are hypocritical enough to blame the less fortunate.

See? "If you don't agree with me ur STOOpid." I called it.

Boy, you suck at this. You really should stop.

 

[danielpalos]

See? "If you don't agree with me ur STOOpid." I called it.

Boy, you suck at this. You really should stop.

lol. Didn't understand the concept the second time either? You are the one appealing to ignorance. Why should anyone take You seriously about anything serious?

 

[daveman]

lol. Didn't understand the concept the second time either? You are the one appealing to ignorance. Why should anyone take You seriously about anything serious?

That's nice. Run along now.

 

[justinacolmena]

"the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill"

The supremes of that commie court system need to be impeached, thrown off the bench, disbarred, and disgraced.

 

[Rigby5]

All States have something similar. I posted that one for its simplicity. Only right-wingers are habitually ignorant of the law and are hypocritical enough to blame the less fortunate.

Do you understand what "police powers" are and were?
There were no police back then, so they were not referring to government employees, in blue uniforms.
They were referring to the fact the rights of others are what constrain the rights of any individual.
Which means gun rights can only legally be infringed if necessary in order to make the rights of others more secure.
For example, each state can set a minimum age for being allowed to be armed.
That is set by legislators, but comes from the inherent rights of the other individuals, not the police.

 

[watchingfromafar]

There were no police back then, so they were not referring to government employees, in blue uniforms.

The first sheriff in America is believed to be Captain William Stone, appointed in 1634 for the Shire of Northampton in the colony of Virginia. The first elected sheriff was William Waters in 1652 in the same shire (shire was used in many of the colonies, before the word county replaced it.)
Office of Sheriff | NATIONAL SHERIFFS’ ASSOCIATION

Most people would be surprised to know that the office of sheriff has a proud history that spans well over a thousand years, from the early Middle Ages to our own “high-tech” era.
History of the Sheriff

In the United States, a sheriff is an official in a county or independent city responsible for keeping the peace and enforcing the law. Elected sheriffs are accountable directly to the citizens of their county, the constitution of their state, and ultimately the United States Constitution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheriffs_in_the_United_States
-

 

[Rigby5]

The first sheriff in America is believed to be Captain William Stone, appointed in 1634 for the Shire of Northampton in the colony of Virginia. The first elected sheriff was William Waters in 1652 in the same shire (shire was used in many of the colonies, before the word county replaced it.)
Office of Sheriff | NATIONAL SHERIFFS’ ASSOCIATION

Most people would be surprised to know that the office of sheriff has a proud history that spans well over a thousand years, from the early Middle Ages to our own “high-tech” era.
History of the Sheriff

In the United States, a sheriff is an official in a county or independent city responsible for keeping the peace and enforcing the law. Elected sheriffs are accountable directly to the citizens of their county, the constitution of their state, and ultimately the United States Constitution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheriffs_in_the_United_States
-

Yes, which means there essentially were no police.
There were no telephones, so you could not call on them to come help.
There were no cars, so it could days for someone to ride a horse or wagon out to your house.
You essentially were on your own, and the only thing a sheriff was good for was to run the jail and deputize a posse when there was something big like a bank robbery.

The idea of a house not needing arms because we could make a phone call and help would arrive, was not really possible until around 1900.
And it likely worked much better before, because police are inherently corrupted by who signs their paychecks.

 

[watchingfromafar]

Yes, which means there essentially were no police.

A sheriff is the "police"

There were no telephones, so you could not call on them to come help.

A total irrelevant statement.

There were no cars, so it could days for someone to ride a horse or wagon out to your house.

A total irrelevant statement.

You essentially were on your own,

You are essentially on your own today.

and the only thing a sheriff was good for was to run the jail and deputize a posse when there was something big like a bank robbery.

And your point is-?

The idea of a house not needing arms because we could make a phone call and help would arrive, was not really possible until around 1900.

Having a gun in your home foe self-defense is not the same thing as carrying a gun into your local mall.

And it likely worked much better before, because police are inherently corrupted by who signs their paychecks.

The above is just not true, period
-

 

[miketx]

A sheriff is the "police"

A total irrelevant statement.

A total irrelevant statement.

You are essentially on your own today.

And your point is-?

Having a gun in your home foe self-defense is not the same thing as carrying a gun into your local mall.

The above is just not true, period
-

Watch from more afar, commie.

 

[watchingfromafar]

Watch from more afar, commie.

Calling me a commie is shallow & ignorant, but it does fit your profile to a tea.
But I do like your hair due.

It has that zion twist.

-

 

[miketx]

Calling me a commie is shallow & ignorant, but it does fit your profile to a tea.
But I do like your hair due.

It has that zion twist.

-

Goodbye commie

 

[watchingfromafar]

Goodbye commie

Good bye to you too
see you on the other side
-

 

[Rigby5]

A sheriff is the "police"

A total irrelevant statement.

A total irrelevant statement.

You are essentially on your own today.

And your point is-?

Having a gun in your home foe self-defense is not the same thing as carrying a gun into your local mall.

The above is just not true, period
-

My point is that every home likely should still and forever have a firearm for immediate defense.
So gun control does not make sense to me.

I agree the mall is different because you do not have to put yourself at risk at a mall very often, the rights of the others in the mall counterbalance your rights, and the mall can have.

However, I strongly dislike the idea of paid mercs like police.
I do not think most of the past/current abuses would exist without corrupt police.
Such as Prohibition, the War on Drugs, 3 strikes, sentence mandates, asset forfeiture, police using military training and rules of engagement, etc.
For example, if you are in an argument with someone and they reach into their pocket, you can not shoot them because they could just be moving their keys from stabbing their testicles. But police often do just shoot 5 or 6 times at anyone who does something like that.
And that is not at all legal.
Legally police have no more right/authority to shoot than any one, and actually have far less, because they deliberately accepted the risks that go along with the pay.
So something is wrong, and it likely is inherent to the built in corruption of centralized government power/money.

 

[Rigby5]

Watch from more afar, commie.

Actually I am a commie, but totally against centralized power, control, and money.
I think local communities should voluntarily do cooperative, collective, and communal projects to retain independence from big corporations, which to me are inherently corrupting.

 

[watchingfromafar]

My point is that every home likely should still and forever have a firearm for immediate defense.
So gun control does not make sense to me.

The right to have a firearm in your home is totally different than carrying a firearm into a public place,
As I see it -

However, I strongly dislike the idea of paid mercs like police.

Policemen in your community are not paid "mercs".
To say otherwise is propaganda, pure and simple.

I do not think most of the past/current abuses would exist without corrupt police.

You sound like a propagandist
Propaganda is communication that is primarily used to influence an audience and further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be selectively presenting facts to encourage a particular synthesis ... Wikipedia

Legally police have no more right/authority to shoot than any one, and actually have far less,

The police are trained public defenders exercising their public duties paid for by community tax dollars whose duties include enforcing the rule of law, nothing less, nothing more
In my view of things
-

because they deliberately accepted the risks that go along with the pay.

Finally we have something we both can agree on. -

So something is wrong, and it likely is inherent to the built in corruption of centralized government power/money.

Again, You sound like a propagandist, clearly not an American
-

 

[Rigby5]

The right to have a firearm in your home is totally different than carrying a firearm into a public place,
As I see it -

Policemen in your community are not paid "mercs".
To say otherwise is propaganda, pure and simple.

You sound like a propagandist
Propaganda is communication that is primarily used to influence an audience and further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be selectively presenting facts to encourage a particular synthesis ... Wikipedia

The police are trained public defenders exercising their public duties paid for by community tax dollars whose duties include enforcing the rule of law, nothing less, nothing more
In my view of things
-

Finally we have something we both can agree on. -

Again, You sound like a propagandist, clearly not an American
-

I think you are totally wrong.
Rather than argue this in the abstract, let me give you some examples.

First of all, the hundreds of cases of innocent Blacks murdered by police should be enough to convince you.
There are so many, like Tamir Rice, Breonna Taylor, Daunte Wright, Andre Hill, Manuel Ellis, Brooks, Prude, George Floyde, Atatiana Jefferson, etc.

Know their names: Black people killed by the police in the US

Between 2014 and 2020, police in the United States killed at least 7,680 people. Twenty-five percent of those killed were Black, although Black Americans make up just 13 percent of the population. In most cases, little or no action was taken against the officers involved. Here are some of the...

interactive.aljazeera.com

Should police ever impose a no-knock-warrant?
Only in the case of a hostage.
The busting down the door of a private home, in order to obtain drug evidence, is totally and completely illegal.
If they do not already have sufficient evidence to convict, then they should not able to even get a warrant.
And by the castle doctrine, a home is supposed to be of superior jurisdiction to the owner, than to police.
So why do police illegal bust down doors and murder innocent people?
All because of the War on Drugs, which is inherently illegal.
The source of legal authority in a democratic republic only comes from the delegated authority to defend the rights of others.
Drug laws do not defend the rights of anyone, so are completely and totally illegal.
Police should know that and refuse to carry out illegal acts like that.
They then they would not get paid, so they do it anyway, murdering thousands and kidnapping millions, in the process.

I personally experience police corruption all the time.
If I wear nice clothes and drive the nice car to work, police treat me very well.
But when in the middle of a home remodel, taking debris to the dump in the old pickup, police are entirely different.
Many times now they have pointed guns at me, which is totally illegal.
A gun can easily go off by accident, if one trips, sneezes, etc. so it is a felony, conduct regardless of life, to ever point a gun at someone who does not pose any sort of threat.

Just switch any of the shooting by police for a normal person instead of a cop, and they would go to jail.
Like the Jacob Blake shooting in Kenosha, where they put 7 bullets in the back of a Black person who was just checking on his kids in the back seat.
He clearly was no threat and could not legally have guns pointed at him, much less shot.
If anyone else had done that, they would be in jail for life.
But the cops were not even arrested.

Obviously the police are being recruited from the military, where the rules of engagement are totally inappropriate for police, and the trainers these days are military as well. So we effectively are in a war zone, and the police have decided we are the enemy. That is not tolerable, and police either have to change, be arrested, or killed.

 

[watchingfromafar]

Policemen in your community are not paid "mercs".
To say otherwise is propaganda, pure and simple.

some things just need repeating
--

 

[watchingfromafar]

So we effectively are in a war zone, and the police have decided we are the enemy. That is not tolerable, and police either have to change, be arrested, or killed.

May I ask, how much did dump pay you to post this?
This may surprise you but dump has declared bankrupts' three (3) times so if I were you I would want to get paid up front.
just a suggestion between us friends
BTW: I am sure you meant "murder", not kill
-

 

[Rigby5]

Policemen in your community are not paid "mercs".
To say otherwise is propaganda, pure and simple.

some things just need repeating
--

If the police were not paid mercs, then they would not be arresting and killing people over a questionable $20 bill, selling single cigarettes, having an ex-boyfriend who might be dealing drugs, etc.

Probably the most outrageous murder by police was Amadou Diallo.

{...
In the early hours of February 4, 1999, an unarmed 23-year-old Guinean immigrant named Amadou Diallo (born September 2, 1975) was fatally shot by four New York City Police Department plainclothes officers: Sean Carroll, Richard Murphy, Edward McMellon, and Kenneth Boss. Carroll would later claim to have mistaken him for a rape suspect from one year earlier.

The four officers, who were part of the now-defunct Street Crimes Unit, were charged with second-degree murder and acquitted at trial in Albany, New York.[1] A firestorm of controversy erupted after the event, as the circumstances of the shooting prompted outrage both inside and outside of New York City. Issues such as police brutality, racial profiling, and contagious shooting were central to the ensuing controversy.
...
While driving down Wheeler Avenue, the police officer stopped his unidentified car and interrogated Diallo, who was in front of his apartment. When they ordered Diallo to show his hands, he supposedly ran into the apartment and reached into his pocket to show his wallet.[5] Soon afterwards, assuming Diallo was drawing a gun, the four officers fired 41 shots[6] with semi-automatic pistols,[7][1][8] fatally hitting Diallo 19 times. Eyewitness Sherrie Elliott stated that the police continued to shoot even though Diallo was already down.[5][9]

The investigation found no weapons on or near Diallo; what he had pulled out of his jacket was a wallet.
...}

How can anyone support police when they can and continually do commit these sorts of delibeate murders?
If any civilians had fired 41 shots at an unarmed person, they would never get out of prison.
Just pointing a gun at Diallo is a felony.
No one with any gun knowledge would ever do any of the things police routinely always do.