Posted on 06/24/2017 10:43:34 PM PDT by gattaca
This is super old news. You must be new around here. Welcome!
I think everybody here knows that. Not bad to point it out again.
Every time an Obama son makes a terror attack, the government wants to disarm victims and keep its sponsorship of Obamasons intact...
Officials are stuck on stupid like that.
I was just surprised by this particular situation I should have said.
I agree, as a general warning, which is one more reason to resist the lefty siren song that oh, the government will be your militia.
The temptation to wrap themselves in the thin blue line will become immense. It takes a degree of steadfast principle to deny the domination of that temptation.
It’s something that we might tuck away for discussions on more mixed forums, like the much-maligned (but also much-opportunitied) Facebook.
They don’t have the duty, or the ability.
I was working with the Highway Patrol the other day and they will honestly take down any bastard that disrupts the community.
That charge is on you to save your ass when some nut is coming at you.
>> End of article: Why do so many government proposed solutions involve limiting the general public’s access to firearms?
Because structured limitations on society gives the impression of security despite the evidence that it doesn’t — the evidence mainstream media intentionally avoids.
This has been the Supreme Court’s position for over a *century*. This is not new, it’s just a repeat.
This is a well known fact. Forty years or so.
Sounds a bit like double talk though, unless they can opt you into the “community” or out of it at will.
Being a wag, I asked one of my colleagues in a place that has a “no guns” sign on the door (a gun pointed to the right with the NOT slash and circle through it) whether that means I have to always point my gun to the left when I am in there.
He knew I was joking, of course.
And the point here seems to be that even if the police COULD actually respond to your plight, and DID get an unmistakable alert that they were needed, there is ZERO liability on them (other than political backlash) if in fact they don’t come and help.
It’s also been codified in many jurisdictions.
I do believe, however, that once the police begin to take action, they have an affirmative duty to meet minimum standards of care.
LOL — brilliant.
And this ruling shows why the 2nd Amendment is and always has been an individual right.
JoMa
Not really. If they begin to take action, such as begin to suppress a riotous mob, then stop and leave the area, they cannot be held responsible for any damage, injuries or deaths in the area they abandon. Long decided and renewed after the LA Riots in 1992.
The cops whom are the good guys are at least 10 minuets from my home and probably a few minutes more. If violence comes to my home I am the protector of my family. The cops will just do the paper work when they arrive. Hopefully I will be the winner in the contest against evil.
I am armed anyplace it is legal. My home is armed to the teeth. My gentle dogs will lay down their life for me and family. They are actually very sweet but they know what a bad guy is. Each is 80 pounds of teeth and fury if you are a bad guy. They will lick the hand of a stranger once I show friendship. They stand guard until I say it is okay.
Dogs are smart. Good dogs and proficiency with firearms is the best damn insurance you can buy until the cops arrive.
I like my dogs.
CCW and dogs. Ain’t no better protection than that. Especially the dogs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.