The Logic of it All Part 1: Gun Bans and Police Protection

This is a discussion on The Logic of it All Part 1: Gun Bans and Police Protection within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; In every article from the Main Street Media about controlling guns and about murders of people using firearms that they state that the government is ...

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 42
Like Tree28Likes

Thread: The Logic of it All Part 1: Gun Bans and Police Protection

  1. #1
    Member Array ThePatriot1776's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    132

    The Logic of it All Part 1: Gun Bans and Police Protection

    In every article from the Main Street Media about controlling guns and about murders of people using firearms that they state that the government is there to protect us through the use of the police. However, they fail to report that since South v. Maryland (1852) Supreme Court case that the government does not have an obligation to protect a person from criminals. These numerous cases also state that it is up to the individual to defend themselves against criminals. Logically, how can we protect ourselves when we're disarmed and rely upon the police when the police (government) is under no legal obligation to do so?

    It's not logical since the police cannot protect us and are legally not required to do so since we are responsible for our own defense against criminals (those that wear badges or not).

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,227
    Preachin' to the choir, you are. But thanks for the reminder.

    Yeah, I got tapatalk, too. So what?
    Lish likes this.
    Rats!
    It could be worse!
    I suppose

  4. #3
    VIP Member
    Array oneshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    +42.893612,-082.710236 , Mi.
    Posts
    7,943
    As oak has stated, you are definitely talking to the singers in the church!

    Police Chief Magazine - View Article


    EXCEPT:


    No Duty to Protect: Two Exceptions


    By L. Cary Unkelbach, Assistant County Attorney Representing the Arapahoe County Sheriff's Office, Centennial, Colorado


    Law enforcement generally does not have a federal constitutional duty to protect one private person from another. For example, if a drunk driver injures a pedestrian or a drug dealer beats up an informant, agencies and their officers usually would not be liable for those injuries because there was no duty to protect.

    Nonetheless, agencies need to be aware of two exceptions, referred to as the special-relationship and the state-created danger theories, which, if pled and proven, may establish a constitutional duty to protect by police. While plaintiffs who are harmed by third parties often raise both theories when they sue police, the state-created danger exception appears to be litigated more frequently than the special relationship exception, which often is more easily analyzed and defined.

    Since its 1989 holding that a duty to protect generally does not exist, the U.S. Supreme Court has not directly spoken on the two exception theories that have since evolved.1 Instead, many federal courts have analyzed, defined and applied these exceptions to a variety of fact patterns. Not all of these lower court decisions are consistent with one another. Agencies, in reviewing their policies, should be aware of the approaches taken by the federal courts in their circuit. This article gives a brief overview of the different judicial approaches to a federal due process claim but does not address whether a failure to protect action could be brought under state law.


    BTWay,
    Welcome to DC!
    If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.

    Washington didn't use his freedom of speech to defeat the British, He shot them!

    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." -- Ernest Benn

  5. #4
    Senior Member Array Gaius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    597
    It is amazing how few people really know this, including the Mayor of Milwaukee. As a matter of fact and law, you ARE your own first responder. The "second responder" may or may not show up, and generally has no legal duty to do so.
    Best way to win a gun fight? "That's easy, don't show up."
    --Wyatt Earp

    "Fast is fine, but accuracy is everything."
    -- Wyatt Earp

  6. #5
    Member Array jhogan2424's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    186
    So why does Obama get special treatment and have a zillion secret service agents protecting him around the clock? Doesn't seem right to me.

  7. #6
    Member Array ThePatriot1776's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by jhogan2424 View Post
    So why does Obama get special treatment and have a zillion secret service agents protecting him around the clock? Doesn't seem right to me.
    You can thank the Great Enslaver Abe Lincoln for that. He was the one that began using Pinkerton Detectives as bodyguards during the War of Enslaving Everyone due to the sheer amount of death threats he received from both northerners and southerners. Every president since him has had bodyguards and sections of the White House declared off-limits. Prior to Lincoln, presidents did not have bodyguards and people could enter the White House at any time. Andrew Jackson was asked by a friend of his why he tolerated drunks, strangers, etc... into the White House at all hours. His reply is a classic (rough paraphrasing since I don't recall the actual quote), "The White House is the People's House. They paid for it to be built and maintain it."

  8. #7
    Distinguished Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coast LA Cty
    Posts
    1,998
    You ought not speak ill of the dead. Especially national heroes. Lincoln freed more Americans than any other president, although it was a move forced on him by a protracted war. How did Lincoln "enslave" you? He didn't enslave me. Radical Republicans expanded the federal government after his death and probably against his wishes. We'll never know. And the White House living quarters were probably mostly off-limits, maybe out of common courtesy not so common today, though much more accessible the further back in history you go.
    Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
    when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
    -Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

  9. #8
    Senior Member Array sdprof's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Near the Black Hills of SD
    Posts
    993
    The Logic of it All Part 1: Gun Bans and Police Protection


    Remember, logic and facts make the gun grabbers' heads explode. They can't handle the truth. Heck, they can't even recognize it if it bites them in the hind quarters.
    ThePatriot1776 likes this.
    ~~~~~
    The only common sense gun legislation was written about 224 years ago.

    I carry always not because I go places trouble is likely, but because trouble has a habit of not staying in its assigned zone.

  10. #9
    Member Array ThePatriot1776's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by Pistology View Post
    You ought not speak ill of the dead. Especially national heroes. Lincoln freed more Americans than any other president, although it was a move forced on him by a protracted war. How did Lincoln "enslave" you? He didn't enslave me. Radical Republicans expanded the federal government after his death and probably against his wishes. We'll never know. And the White House living quarters were probably mostly off-limits, maybe out of common courtesy not so common today, though much more accessible the further back in history you go.
    I can speak of the dead how I wish since I have that freedom. One person's hero is another person's villain. It's a matter of perspective. Lincoln actually never freed a single slave as a careful reading of the Emancipation Proclamation supposedly freed slaves in areas that were not under federal jurisdiction and kept in bondage those he could have freed in the state's that were under federal jurisdiction. The Statue of Freedom that rests on top of the Capitol Dome was set there by slaves on December 2, 1863 which was 12 months and a day since Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863. This makes your statement a great irony in light of historical facts.
    006.9V2.1 likes this.

  11. #10
    VIP Member Array NONAME762's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    About 235M out of The Palouse WA
    Posts
    7,205
    Well boo hoo.
    jhogan2424 likes this.
    Firing a suppressed is on my Bucket List.

    I'm just a spoke in the wheel but not a big deal.

    America...a Constitutional Republic. NOT a democracy as the liberals would have us believe.

  12. #11
    Distinguished Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coast LA Cty
    Posts
    1,998
    So continue your point, if you can. How is Lincoln the Great Enslaver fighting a War to Enslave Everyone? Apparently, Lincoln lost, if you have your freedom?
    Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
    when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
    -Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

  13. #12
    Member Array ThePatriot1776's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by Pistology View Post
    So continue your point, if you can. How is Lincoln the Great Enslaver fighting a War to Enslave Everyone? Apparently, Lincoln lost, if you have your freedom?
    Is it freedom when you are required to get the government's permission to do anything like open and operate a business? Prior to Lincoln people were free to open a business as they saw fit without the government's permission. Is it freedom when we have an income tax that was originated under Lincoln? I could go on.

  14. #13
    Distinguished Member Array Exacto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,613
    It is a fundamental human instinct to protect oneself, the law of self preservation, God given. If some want to turn over the responsibility to someone who doesn't give a crap about them, that their business. Good luck to them. These are the sheep of the world. The wolves know their weaknesses and will prey upon them. They expect someone else to do what they should be doing. They have always been among us, and always will be. Unfortunately, these people are through our government, and you cannot expect any logic from ones who do not have any logic. They are also the gun control nut jobs who think they are so much smarter than us Neanderthals that just want to protect ourselves. Unless they get everyone to fall in line with them, they will have to face the fact that they are wrong headed, and they are never going to do that if it kills us all.
    msgt/ret likes this.
    Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunder bolt...... Sun Tzu.

    The supreme art of war is to defeat the enemy without fighting........ Sun Tzu.

  15. #14
    Distinguished Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coast LA Cty
    Posts
    1,998
    Personifying in Lincoln an arbitrary watershed of freedom lost begins to show the lack of soundness of your argument. Lincoln freed more slaves than he ever intended when he was thrust into greatness by a war thrust upon him. Why don't you make the same argument against the founding fathers whose tolerance of slavery Lincoln invoked in his pre-war policy?
    Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
    when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
    -Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

  16. #15
    Member Array ThePatriot1776's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by Pistology View Post
    Personifying in Lincoln an arbitrary watershed of freedom lost begins to show the lack of soundness of your argument. Lincoln freed more slaves than he ever intended when he was thrust into greatness by a war thrust upon him. Why don't you make the same argument against the founding fathers whose tolerance of slavery Lincoln invoked in his pre-war policy?
    Again, Lincoln freed no slaves. Chant it all you like, but the historical record states that he didn't free any slaves. To start off with, Lincoln imprisoned any and all those that spoke out against him without trial, due process, etc... He suspended habeas corpus which under the Constitution only Congress can do. He went to war without a single declaration of war. He imprisoned all of the Maryland Legislature to prohibit them from voting on secession without charge. He tried to have Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Roger Taney arrested without charge or trial because Taney called Lincoln out on his abuses. Like I said, I could go on and on about this, but make no mistake Lincoln started it all with the federal government overstepping its boundries and shitting on the Constitution.
    006.9V2.1 likes this.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •