Posted on 06/28/2005 1:46:17 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
If the cops pretend to work, then we should pretend to pay them.
Police motto: Defend and Protect. Police reality: get a good case to the prosecution.
That's why I said it's all the more reason to excercise your 2nd amendment rights. Now the court strengthened the argument.
YOUR life is in YOUR hands, you have a right to protect it.
Or, as someone from another site says, "a gun in your hand is better than 2 cops on the phone!"
I don't want them to protect me, giving them that role allows them to control me.
Of course, the 2nd amendment exists, in part, to assist me in facilitating my own protection.
But the law enforcers have always had the option of whether or not to enforce the law. If a law is on the books, then it should be enforced--equally for everyone. If it can't be enforced or enforced equally--or won't be--then the law should be voided and dropped from the books.
See my tagline.
The worst thing we ever did was to start "professional" police forces. They have turned into the enforcement arm of our leftist, anti-American courts and become a plague on the populace.
A citizens militia would be cheaper, more effective, and less likely to pander to idiotic legal decisions by renegade judges.
That's odd... I felt like I was protecting and serving on Sunday night when I caught the guy trying to break in to a family's home. The family was very appreciative as well.
As for the 2nd Amendment - after speaking with that very same homeowner, I talked him into applying for his gun permit and attending the various gun safety classes. Both he and his wife expressed an interest.
Um, didn't Wyatt Earp outlaw gun possession in tombstone too?
It is an acceptable tenet for a very long time, in the most gun-rich aspects of American culture, you have to "leave your guns at the city-line". Firearms in high-density situations are a much different story from even outside the city line. It isn't a libertarian issue, it is an anarchy issue.
"No, you pay for law enforcement, not protection. It is every ones responsibility to protect themselves, their property and family."
- Good point...but what happens when 'gun control' unsurpes our ability to to do so? Guns are becoming like radar detectors...it is legal to buy them, own them and carry them...but illegal to use them...even in cases of self defense due to the courts humungous gray area of to what extent a person can do to protect themselves 'excessive use of force' baloney.
People must be capable of self-defense and that's why we need the guns more than the cops do. Cops need little notebooks and that yellow chalk to draw the outline of the body on the ground.
Will this decision make getting a "carry permit" easier in a place like Albany, NY?
Will this decision make getting a "carry permit" easier in a place like Albany, NY?
Will this make getting a "carry permit" easier in a place like Albany, NY?
Oh...oh...I triple posted by mistake. Sorry!
It's more important for them to be out there giving out tickets for drivers not wearing seatbelts.
There's nothing acceptable about it. Only an idiot would leave his guns at the city line.
If the SC is going to come down with rulings like this, then it has to (or, more accurately, a reasonable SC would) allow people the right to self defense. In a roundabout way, this ruling is a pro-2A ruling
I thought police took an oath "to protect and serve"?
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.